As a person who was once a baby, I feel offended by the idea that my body could be used as accessory to my parents’ religious beliefs, particularly if their religious beliefs call for the permanent alteration of my sexual organs.

Notice that if you are in the United States, the sex of the writer of the above paragraph would be paramount to know if the described act is legal or not. A female writer who expresses dismay over the idea of her sexual organs being permanently altered by her parents would be simply criticizing the odious custom of female genital mutilation. A male writer however, would be considered to be “whining” over the most common surgery in the world -never mind that it is one practiced without medical need- and could probably be labeled as antisemite or islamophobe for claiming ownership of his own body.

Notice also that if your family happens to be an ultra orthodox Jewish family in the North East, it is likely that an old man sucked your penis immediately after cutting part of it with his knife. And in spite of laws protecting children from the actions of pedophiles, this man did so under the guise of religious freedom – and currently protected by NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio.

Do you feel dirty now?

Well, given that some organizations such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have raised concerns over ritual circumcision of male children as a procedure that violates the physical integrity of children, that numerous European medical and political associations oppose circumcision of children, that a 2012 ruling in Cologne, Germany, led to a temporary ban in circumcision of children followed by the urgent approval of an unconstitutional law to protect circumcision, our beloved American politicians have seen in the best interest of the world to create a new bill to protect religious freedom internationally. They have, of course, mixed the language including references to organizations such as ISIS.

So, this new bill, passed Monday, would broaden the definition of “violations of religious freedom” in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to include the persecution of advocates of male circumcision or ritual animal slaughter. Thus, males of the future will have no resource but to surrender their most private organ to be mutilated and carved for the appeasement of their parents’ religious beliefs, enshrining the routine ritual abuse of male babies.

It remains to be seen if the aforementioned bill will extend the same courtesy to those religious groups which practice the genital alteration of female minors -even when it is not written on their main religious book, or how the bill will deal with the distinctions between religious and cultural practices, and which practices are not protected by it.

For the time being, we can thank Chris Smith, R-N.J. and a hundred or so co-sponsors (including also Marco Rubio, no surprise there), for turning the United States into the religious police of the world, and all the male minors of the world into accessories devoid of personhood, to be sexually used during the parents’ religious practice.

Additionally, in his address in 4/20/2016, Rep. Chris Smith commented on The Strategy to Oppose Organ Trafficking Act (H.R. 3694), saying “we have evidence that organs continue to be harvested without consent from some Falun Gong detainees and other prisoners in China“. Well, Rep. Smith, please let me tell you that infant circumcision allows American doctors to continue to harvest genital tissue without consent from American baby boys, for the profit of the biomedical industry. Will you do something to protect those baby boys?

Read more:

JTA - House passes bill protecting circumcision, ritual slaughter as religious freedoms

World – House passes religious freedom reform bill

South Florida based doctor Christopher Hollowell posted a video of a circumcision of a 1 year old child. During the narration, Hollowell first appears satisfied about the lower rates of circumcision (and even misrepresents it) but as the video progresses, he becomes strongly biased for circumcision.

Dr. Christopher Hollowell

He claims that as a urologist, he sees all the cases where uncircumcised boys have problems. He claims, for example, that the 1 year old child he is circumcising has phimosis and balanitis.

This is problematic already. Most babies are born with congenital phimosis (also known as physiological phimosis), which is a normal condition: the foreskin is not ready to retract. It takes years, for this phimosis to be overcome, with the average age being 10 and a large variance. Being non-retractable at 15-17 is still normal.

Balanitis is often claimed as a reason for non-neonatal circumcisions. However, balanitis simply means inflammation of the penis. Quite often, it’s just an ammoniacal dermatitis resulting from bacteria in the feces staying in the diaper for too long, and can be resolved with medicine and patience, without need for surgery.

The doctor claims the child has severe penile adhesions. What he is doing is patologizing a normal condition. As we have often explained in this blog, the foreskin and the glans start as a single structure, and at some point a layer starts desquamating, creating the subpreputial space. This layer is called the balanopreputial sinechiae or balanopreputial lamina, and it dissolves slowly through several years. But our doctors tend to call it adhesions. The AAP erroneously claims that these adhesions should be resolved by the 4th month of life.

At 1 year of age, these “adhesions” are in fact normal. The foreskin and the glans are still in the process of separating, and there is no need to rush them.

Dr. Hollowell then pulls the foreskin back and claims that the penis of this child has a “cobra head effect” because pulling it down causes the glans to curve downwards, pulled by the frenulum. Based on this observation, he proceeds to excise the frenulum.

Dr Christopher Hollowell cutting the frenulum of a 1 year old boy

Personally, I consider the removal of the frenulum of a child a criminal act. And it is also unnecessary.

It is unnecessary because at 1 year of age, the penis of this boy has not reached its adult size, so any present consideration will completely change during puberty, once production of testosterone increases and the body starts reaching its adult size. So even if the frenulum is short now, it still has plenty of time to grow. Not only that, but even if at 18 the  frenulum was still short (frenulum breve), there are non-invasive ways of correcting it. There is no need to fully remove it.

I believe that removing it is a criminal act because the frenulum carries an artery and a high concentration of nerves. The frenulum itself is said to be one of the most pleasurable parts of the penis -by those who were lucky enough to retain their full frenulum, or did not suffer total damage of it. So, to remove it before the person has attained an age of maturity seems to me a purposely damaging action which has long term effects over the sexual experience of that child.

The loss of irrigation due to cutting the frenular artery can potentially have long term effects. Some suggest that ischemia (lack of blood) is behind the common occurrence of meatal stenosis in circumcised boys. Loss of blood flow could also affect the surface of the glans, as hypothesized by Ken McGrath. Finally, loss of blood flow could be related to erectile dysfunction later in life.

Dr. Hollowell repeats several times that the foreskin is very vascular tissue, yet he doesn’t seem affected by the idea of removing it.

He says that he likes to think of circumcision as plastic surgery of the penis and that he likes to think that every man likes to have a beautiful looking penis. But, isn’t it problematic to perform plastic surgery on the genitals of a child, to think of the genitals of a child in terms of “beautiful looking” as a result of plastic surgery – particularly when performed without consent of the person?

During the procedure he marks the line where he is going to cut. It can be observed that the line is traced around the center of the penis. Now, if we consider that the foreskin is a double layered area, then the total area of tissue being removed accounts for approximately two thirds of the covering of the penis. If it was single layered, it would be one half, but since the foreskin is double layered, it counts two times, thus the total tissue removed is 2/3rds or 66% of the covering of the penis.

Circumcision removing between 1/2 to 2/3 or the penile covering

Hollowell says that when asked why do the procedure at one year and not at birth, his response is that he couldn’t do it before and had to try conservative measures because of the age. He then goes on an explanation about aging and bleeding that has more to do with Jewish myths than with actual science. “The foreskin we’ve learned over centuries that if you cut the foreskin before the 10th day of life you will have very little bleeding of the foreskin, so many cultures will just do it as a ceremony without any problems, however after that time, if you decide to cut the foreskin it will bleed significantly and in young boys, a little bit of bleeding can be devastating“. He says this without acknowledging that the only cultures that circumcise babies are the Jewish and the American culture, not “many cultures“, and the reasons he gives have more to do with bible myths than with any solid science. In fact, babies circumcised on the 8th day according to the Jewish tradition, may still die from exsanguination, as we have previously showed in this blog.

As he explains this, Hollowell keeps cauterizing the penis to stop any bleeding. Has anyone studied the harm caused by cauterizing all those blood vessels? If American doctors were using more recent circumcision technology, they would be able to circumcise children and adults without cauterizing the inside of the penis as if it was a piece of grilled steak.

Dr. Hollowell zealously cauterizing the internal parts of the penis

Now, the real reason why Hollowell performs these circumcisions at 1 year of age has everything to do with insurance and little to do with medical reasons. See, for a few years, Medicaid didn’t cover neonatal circumcisions in Florida. So instead of paying the $200 to $800 out of pocket, many families waited one year at least, and then procured a referral for circumcision. Because there has to be a diagnosis code for insurance to cover it, doctors would diagnose phimosis, knowing very well that they are providing a fraudulent diagnosis because those children are perfectly normal. But at that point, because of the age, the procedure (at least in the U.S.) requires general anesthesia and becomes a more involved surgical procedure (mostly because the American doctors are not using the most recently invented devices for non-neonatal circumcision, which would greatly reduce the cost and risks of the procedure), so now the procedure is up to 20 times more expensive.

This medical fraud is what led one doctor Saleem Islam to claim that the cost of circumcisions in Florida “skyrocketed” after Medicaid stopped covering neonatal circumcisions. Doctor Islam in his paper candidly recognized that parents came asking for circumcision for their children, but didn’t mention that those circumcisions would be fraudulent because they were not based on real medical necessity – so they shouldn’t even be covered at all.

So this is the reason Hollowell is circumcising a 1 year old child over a diagnostic of phimosis and balanitis: because the parents did not want to pay the low cost of a neonatal circumcision out of pocket and preferred to seek a referral after the age of one, for a more complicated and risky procedure under general anesthesia and at a higher cost to the tax payers.

Closer to the end of the video (while suturing the penis) Hollowell goes into his litany of things that can happen to uncircumcised boys: they can have adhesions, they can have balanitis, they can develop penile cancer later, they can have urinary tract infections,  they have more risks of getting STDs… all the myths we’ve heard over and over.

And then he compares circumcision to a vaccine. “And I tell you if you could have a vaccine that gave the same results we would jump at it every time, so it is quite interesting to see where our new thought process is on what we would do to offer this to young boys again on a routine basis”

The lies they say:

• The child has phimosis
• The child has balanitis
• The adhesions are abnormal
• The frenulum causes the penis to bend downward
• Circumcision protects against STDs, penile cancer, etc.
• Circumcision is a surgical vaccine
• He won’t know the difference

The crimes they make:

• Fraudulent use of insurance
• Cutting one of the most pleasurable areas of the penis – the frenulum
• American doctors don’t use the most recent technology for non-neonatal circumcisions – thus increasing the risks, complications and cost of the procedure.
• Subjecting a 1 year old child to general anesthesia for a non-medical surgery (plastic surgery of the penis – give the child a beautiful penis).

Shame on you Dr. Christopher Hollowell.

While in circwatch we often discuss studies, articles and publications, and point their flaws, contradictions and conflicts of interest, we are first and foremost bound to the principles of bodily autonomy and genital integrity.

Performing irreversible “elective” surgery on non consenting individuals violates the principle of bodily autonomy. It denies the person the right to provide informed consent and make an informed choice.

Removing part of the genitals of children without medical consent violates their genital integrity, part of the children’s right to physical integrity.

Both violations are ethically problematic.

Sure, there is often a discussion of whether there are benefits or harm, whether circumcision affects sexual function or sensitivity or not. But that is basically an academic discussion.

Let’s be clear. If a child was in a life or death situation, where not performing a circumcision would easily cause the child to die or be permanently impaired, it would be irresponsible to not do it. But that is not the case with neonatal circumcision or with child circumcision.

As clearly indicated by the AAP and discussed by the members of the task force, circumcision is often a non-medical decision based on cultural, religious or family factors. And that is problematic.

By performing a circumcision on your newborn child, you are denying this newborn person the right to choose, the right to make informed decisions over his own genitals, and you are depriving him of a normal part of his body. As a parent you may have the best of intentions, but you are missing this side of the issue.

Doctors should not be enabling parents. This is often perceived by parents as a recommendation, resulting in tilting the balance without regards for the future preferences or desires of the minor individual.

Even if there is a lower risk of a minor or rare condition, there is also a harm in circumcising. The procedure is irreversible and leaves permanent marks – a scar and missing parts. There are low incidence high impact risks that should be taken into consideration as well.

We are not “anti-circumcision”. We have no issue with people becoming circumcised – as long as they can provide informed consent. But we have problems with people forcing minors to undergo permanent reductive procedures on their genitalia.

Andrew Freedman, of the AAP 2012 Task Force on Circumcision, wrote: “It is inconceivable that there will ever be a study whose results are so overwhelming as to mandate or abolish circumcision for everyone, overriding all deeply held religious and cultural beliefs.” And while this is true, it should not be taken as a carte blanche to override children’s ownership of their own bodies. It should be taken to apply to your choice over your own body, not your choice over someone else’s body. You don’t own your child’s body.

Your child’s body should not be an accessory to your religious or cultural expression. Your child’s freedom of choice and bodily integrity are at stake. Please, respect the dignity and personhood of your child.

On January 25, Andrea Peyser published in New York Post an article about intactivism, called “Circumcision ‘intactivists’ don’t want you (or your kids) to get snipped“.

The article started wrong from the headline. Intactivists recognize the right of adult men to decide whether they want to get circumcised or not. Intactivists are concerned with protecting the genital integrity of minors, but recognize the autonomy of adults to provide consent and make decisions over their own bodies.

Peyser writes that “Intactivists claim that uncut penises deliver enhanced sexual pleasure“. It would be better to say that circumcised penises deliver decreased sexual pleasure, as a result of the loss of mechanic and sensorial tissue.

Then she adds that intactivists “liken male circumcision to female genital mutilation“. This common claim is usually simplified to make intactivists look as extremists. One cannot deny that both cultural practices are usually performed on minors without regard for their future preference. In the places where these practices take place, it is assumed that the individual has no say on whether they will be subjected to it or not, and shall simply accept the genital alteration and live with it. In that sense, both practices are culturally and ethically similar, even if their physical effects are different. The AAP recognized that “Some forms of FGC are less extensive than the newborn male circumcision commonly performed in the West” (in their 2010 Policy Statement on “Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors”).

Circumcision promoters usually get away with claiming that circumcision has benefits while FGM doesn’t. But, as mentioned by a group of 38 European and Canadian Physicians, only one of those benefits has any relevance to children, which is the dubious claim that it reduces the risk of urinary tract infections during the first year of life, infections that are usually easy to treat and of little relevance. All other ‘benefits’ apply to adult life – and an adult would be able to make a decision based on his own review of evidence. When considered the number to treat (100 to 1000 circumcisions to prevent one incident) and the incidence of complications (1 in 500 being an optimistic rate), and the massive loss of normal genital tissue, it simply is not proportional.

Furthermore, societies that perform FGM claim that it has social, moral and medical benefits. Our society denies this. Similarly, other societies may deny the benefits that our society claims, and medical claims often change or stay on the edge, which is why the AAP, CDC and CPS statements simply cannot recommend circumcision – leaving the decision to the parents. Quite an anomaly for a surgery, that it is performed based on a non-medical decision.

Peyser questioned intactivist Anthony Losquadro whether the obsession with foreskin is healthy. From outside, it is quite clear that the American society is obsessed with foreskin – with removing it! Similarly, when some Jewish people claim that circumcision is vital to Jewish identity, they are also being obsessed with foreskin – with removing it. Societies where circumcision is not prevalent are not obsessed with foreskin; they simply have no reason to remove random normal and healthy parts of the bodies of children, foreskin included. This is relevant because Andrea is both American and Jewish. Her non-American parents met while serving in the Israeli army.

Following Losquadro’s response, Peyser seemed surprised that “some men harbor deep-seated issues regarding their members“. But, is there any person in the world who lives unconcerned about their own body, including their own genitalia?

Following a discussion of the rates of circumcision, Peyser wrote that “mohels and doctors recently told The Post that an increasing number of grown men in America are now making the cut for religious, medical or aesthetic reasons” – which falls outside the scope of interest of intactivists. Adult males deciding to get circumcised have every single right to do so and can do it after evaluating the evidence, evaluating their own values, and are capable of  providing informed consent. Babies can’t do that.

Peyser then presents that Losquadro drives a 30-foot “van” and hands out literature aimed at persuading parents to retain boy’s “genital integrity”. Peyser wrote “genital integrity” inside quotes, apparently indicating that she does not share this concept.

As the note closes, Peyser offers the typical list of benefits – benefits that, again, are questionable and apply mostly to adults – without comparing them to the typical list of complications and harms.

For some reason, Peyser felt that it was proper to finish her article by making reference to one episode of “Sex and the City” where circumcision was discussed, and where a perfectly normal intact male was body-shamed. Peyser claims to agree with the characters that enthused that “shafts devoid of hoods were more pleasant to gaze upon and touch than intact ones“.

But this sentence is quite revealing. Imagine dear reader if it was a male claiming that “vulvas devoid of hoods and folds are more pleasant…”, as a rationale to justify the surgical alteration of baby girls. This shows one of the real arguments behind American circumcision, and it is not a medical one. It’s simply abuse of children to appeal a social fetish. Whatever kind of penis Peyser enjoys gazing upon and touching should not have any relevance to what surgeries her children or any children are subjected to.

She closes the article by hoping that “guys who spend their lives feeling wounded by circumcision, and the women who enable them, find new hobbies“. We counter that we hope that men and women who make their livelihood by cutting normal healthy genital tissue from non-consenting minors are the ones who should find another career, especially including those mohels in Peyser’s natal Queens who feel that their religion entitles them to suck blood with their mouths out of infant penises they just cut.

A one month old baby from Pennsylvania died yesterday, January 2nd. It’s said he had a botched circumcision and a revision. It was said he had a UTI and was running a fever. And now he is not there anymore, and a family’s dreams are shattered.

Whether the procedures caused his death, or not, I’m sure the death certificate won’t tell. Infection, sepsis, systemic failure, will be the most likely causes mentioned.

It’s not our interest to mention the names, for the family it is time to grieve; but it is also not our interest to let this death be swept under the rug; the medical community needs to be held accountable.

Rest in peace sweet baby.

While writing the previous post about the baby in Johannesburg who lost part of the penis during a Jewish circumcision, I went to look for a 2014 Recall notice that prohibits several companies, including Medline Industries, from distributing the Mogen clamp because they didn’t market the device prior to 1976, therefore they don’t meet the requirements to be considered “pre-amendment”.

But what I found was something different. I found the Mogen clamp listed in the online catalog of Medline Industries. And no indication whatsoever of this device being recalled.

Mogen clamp in Medline’s online catalog – in spite of a 2014 FDA recall notice

Judge Jessica Ticktin

Judge Jessica Ticktin,

The son of Dennis Nebus and Heather Hironimus is suffering a life-threatening disease. The courts succeeded in satisfying the father’s wish for a circumcision. That’s done, there’s no turning back. Now, please do what is humane and decent, allow this child the support and comfort of his mother as he fights for his life.

According to West Boca News, you are “passionate about children and as a result [have] spent much of [your] career handling family law cases“. Please look for the child. Please do what is right, before it’s too late.

Palm Beach Post: Boy at center of circumcision controversy reportedly ill

WPBF 25 News: Child in circumcision case diagnosed with serious illness

Pro-circumcision people often refer to intactivists as “anti-circumcision activists”. That is plainly wrong. An intactivist is not opposed to circumcision per se – only to circumcision that is forced upon minors, and also opposed to other non life-saving genital surgeries performed on minors (such as “normalization” surgeries on intersex children or the genital mutilation of female minors).

If you are confused, please see IntactWiki’s definition of the word intactivist.

In South Africa, a 63 year old Danish man has been accused with sexual assault and crimes under the medical act, after he was found in possession of 21 clitorises bagged inside his freezer. Police are looking for the victims, while not ruling out that the man may have conducted voluntary female genital mutilation.

In the meantime, companies such as the Lonza group, ATCC, Life Technologies, PromoCell, ZenBio, continue stocking foreskin and offering foreskin cells online, obtained from non-consenting baby boys. Nobody is looking for the victims.

Isolation of endothelial cells from baby foreskins – image leaked to instagram November of 2013

Tell the doctors at Good Sam STOP EXPERIMENTING WITH BABY BOYS – Photo Intact America

It was in May of 2013, our very third post on the old circleaks blog (now transferred to circwatch) where we denounced the then ongoing circumcision experiment (cough, clinical trial, cough) at the Good Samaritan hospital in Cincinnati.

The trial had the purpose of finding out which circumcision clamp was “better”, in the sense that it caused less pain, less complications, and more parental satisfaction. Of course, it also meant finding which one caused more pain, more complications, and there was no word about the satisfaction of the patients themselves.

The babies were euphemistically called “volunteers” and had to be healthy and stable. Some of the measuring points included cortisol level, time crying, weight of blood soaked pads, facial expressions, vital signs and need for oxygen administration.

The trial was already redundant. Similar trials had occurred in 1999, and in Africa in 2013. While the studies consistently favored the mogen clamp, perhaps for the ability to perform the procedure faster, the mogen clamp has a bad track record in real life;

• The mogen clamp has an increased risk of injury or amputation of the glans, even with experienced physicians.
• The FDA warned in 2000 about the potential for injuries from both the Gomco and Mogen clamps.
• In 2010, Mogen Instruments Inc went out of business due to several millionaire lawsuits over injuries and amputations of the glans.
• In December of 2014 the FDA recalled a number of Mogen clamps from some manufacturers, including Boss Instruments, Millennium Surgical, Symmetry Surgical, Medline Industries, CareFusion and others. According to the text, “The reason these devices are being withdrawn from the market by Instrumed is that Instrumed did not market these devices prior to September 26, 1976, and therefore, does not meet all FDA requirements to market the devices as “Pre-Amendment” devices.”

Nevertheless, the Good Samaritan researchers, Mounira Habli, MD, Michaela Eschenbacher, MPH, Rachel Sinkey, MD and others, presented their conclusions in oral format at the 35th annual meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, San Diego, CA, Feb. 2-7, 2015, prior to publication in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Back in 2013, when circleaks posted the call to action, organizations such as Intact America and NOCIRC took charge and protested outside the Good Samaritan. The protest was covered by Cincinnati’s WLWT5 and WCPO. Over 6000 signatures were collected requesting a stop to this trial.

Intact America and intactivists gather outside the Good Samaritan, October of 2013

The hospital released a statement that said: “The circumcision study compares two medically accepted circumcision processes. Only after the parent or guardian requests and consents to circumcision for their infant, is informed consent sought for this study; they are free to decline their child’s participation in this study. Steps to ensure pain relief are integral to the study protocol.”

Of course the statement ignored that the two “processes” had been subject of the FDA warning from 2000, or that a manufacturer of Mogen clamps had gone out of business due to lawsuits over irreversible injuries caused with the clamp to baby boys, or the fact that the subjects of the study (the babies) were not capable of providing informed consent – even though they were the ones who would experience the pain and live with the consequences.

While we don’t have full access to the article at this time -only the part they have made available freely-, we don’t anticipate that they were any more communicative about these risks, or the controversy caused by the study and the protests that took place just outside their door. They wish to pretend that nobody said anything, that nobody did anything. But we did.

The researchers may have just expected to see their names in print in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, but they have also signed their names in the history of American mutilators of baby boys. Their study was not only pointless and redundant, but their result is not consistent with the real life catastrophic impact of some of the complications of the Mogen clamp.

How injuries to the glans occur – Mogen clamp

Principal Investigator: Mounira Habli, MD
http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/bio/h/mounira-habli/

Michaela Eschenbacher, MPH
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelaeschenbacher

Rachel Sinkey, MD https://plus.google.com/116578708323915903631/about?gl=us&hl=es-419

Van and Benjamin Lewis protest circumcision in Tallahassee, FL, 1970.
Sex criminals for hire – inquire within