Government Responses

Below are some of the letters that we have received from government officials in response to our MGM Bill proposals. For an alphabetical listing by state, please see our Site Map page.

The following letter from New Jersey Senator Loretta Weinberg was forwarded to us by Mr. Michael Serrano in Bayonne, New Jersey:

Thank you for contacting my office concerning male circumcision. I will not be sponsoring any legislation about this issue.

On the same day that we finished submitting the MGM Bill proposal to Congress and 11 state legislatures, Senator Weinberg introduced S. 1171 - a bill that would protect girls from genital mutilation, but not boys. Can the gender discrimination be any more glaring?

The following letter from Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber was forwarded to us by Mr. Cody Holifield:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your support for legislation to ban male circumcision in Oregon. I appreciate hearing from you.

For your proposal to become a law, it must first pass in both chambers of the Legislature. I encourage you to also share your proposal with your members of the Legislature and have included their contact information for your convenience.

Should I have an opportunity to consider such legislation, I will keep your views in mind.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit www.governor.oregon.gov where you can learn details about my transformation agenda and sign up for the most up-to-date information from my office. If you are on Facebook, please follow me at www.facebook.com/johnkitzhaber.

One of the best ways to help the MGM Bill pass both chambers is for Governor Kitzhaber to introduce it himself through one of his allies in the Oregon State Legislature. It would then gain immediate credibility by being labeled the "Governor's Bill" (and Governor Kitzhaber also happens to be a physician).

The following letter from New York Senator Greg Ball was forwarded to us by Mr. Murugan Pandian in Clay, New York:

I have received a good number of emails about this topic in the last few days. Should it come to a vote in the Senate, I will certainly give full consideration to your opinion and thoughts.

It's a positive sign that so many citizens are now writing their legislators about the MGM Bill. The more letters lawmakers receive, the higher up the MGM Bill will go on their priority list.

The following letter from Rep. Martin Heinrich was forwarded to us by Ms. Nancy Jay in Albuquerque, New Mexico:

Thank you for contacting me regarding circumcision. I appreciate knowing your thoughts and concerns on this important issue.

Representative Brad Sherman (CA-27) introduced H.R. 2400, the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011, which would bar state and local governments from passing laws prohibiting the circumcision of males under the age of 18 years. H.R. 2400 was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. While I am not a member of this committee, please rest assured that I will keep your views in mind should this legislation come before the full House of Representatives for consideration.

As you know, the best ideas do not come from Washington but from thoughtful, caring people like you who take the time to participate in government and the democratic process. Please rest assured I will keep your thoughts and ideas in mind as I vote on legislation. I hope you will continue contacting me with your ideas and let me know if there is anything I can do for you or your family.

Again, thank you for contacting me. For more information and additional details about legislation, please visit my website, http://heinrich.house.gov. While you are there, you can also sign up to receive periodic updates on my work in Congress.

As always, I value your input and hope you will continue to keep me informed of the issues important to you.

As Rep. Heinrich indicates, Congress has an important choice to make this year. They can either vote in favor of male genital mutilation, or they can vote in favor of human rights. For the sake of our nation's boys, we certainly hope they will choose the latter.

The following letter from Alabama Rep. April Weaver was forwarded to us by Ms. Christina Perry in Woodstock, Alabama:

Christina, thank you for your email. I will review your bill and consult with medical professionals at the State level for further guidance. April

Rep. Weaver might want to consult with some baby boys while they're being circumcised, too. They'll tell her everything she needs to know.

The following letter from Alabama Senator Cam Ward was forwarded to us by Ms. Christina Perry in Woodstock, Alabama:

Christina, I have to admit I am not very familiar with this issue. I will need to research this more before I can commit to sponsoring this bill. I will look into this for you and see what I can do. Thank you for contacting me about it.

If common sense prevails, it shouldn't take long for Senator Ward to uncover the truth about the harmful effects of foreskin amputation. A good place to start his research is our FAQ page.

The following letter from New York Assembly Member Richard Gottfried was forwarded to us by Mr. Murugan Pandian in Clay, New York:

Thank you very much for writing to let me know of your support for prohibiting circumcision of infants. I apologize for the delay in my response.

I do not support a ban on circumcision. There is no medical rationale for such a prohibition.

With the publication of the Royal Dutch Medical Association's Circumcision Policy Statement in May 2010, there is now considerable "medical rationale" for a ban on forced circumcision of boys. The statement from this 162-year-old institution representing more than 45,000 physicians and students concludes that:

"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity."

"There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation."

The following letter from Rep. Betty Sutton was forwarded to us by Ms. Jennifer McMillin:

Thank you for contacting me regarding men's health. I appreciate you taking the time to express your thoughts and concerns.

As you know, the birth of a child is an exciting moment in a parent's life. Decisions about the child's first few days and how best to prepare them for life should be left for the parents to make. I appreciate you expressing your concerns for the decision some make for their children in the earliest days of their lives. Please know that should legislation regarding this issue come to the House for a vote, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.

Again, thank you for contacting me and please feel free to do so in the future if I may be of assistance.

Rep. Sutton's reply is another clear case of gender discrimination. In 2007 she voted to denounce the practice of female genital mutilation, while here she writes that male genital mutilation is a decision that "should be left for the parents to make".

The following letter from Senator Sherrod Brown was forwarded to us by Ms. Jennifer McMillin:

Thank you for sharing your concern about male circumcision and support for legislation that would ban this procedure.

Male circumcision is performed each year for reasons that vary from family to family. While opponents of the procedure argue it may be dangerous to a baby boy’s physical and mental health, some scientific evidence supports the potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision. Despite this data, experts are not recommending routine neonatal circumcision. The American Academy of Pediatrics argues that when a procedure is not essential to a child's health, the decision should be left to the parents and their pediatrician.

Should the medical community determine male circumcision is unsafe and recommend the procedure be banned by law, I would strongly consider its recommendation. Thank you again for writing.

Despite the recently reported drop in the U.S. infant circumcision rate, Sherrod Brown's position has remained essentially unchanged since he first responded to the MGM Bill proposal nearly seven years ago. It is a prime example of how the AAP's 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement continues to exert heavy influence in Congress.

The following letter from Texas Rep. Van Taylor was forwarded to us by Ms. Michelle Richardson in Euless, Texas:

Thank you for taking the time to write to me concerning forced circumcision. Your suggestion for legislation is interesting and I intend to have my staff take a look into it further. For now though, it is my legislative duty to inform you of your correct State Representative. You are represented in the Texas House by Representative Todd Smith of District 92. I am forwarding your email to his office because I know he would want to hear from a constituent.

After his staff investigates the issue of forced male circumcision, we sincerely hope that Rep. Taylor will step forward and sponsor the Texas MGM Bill so that all children in Texas can grow up with their genitals left intact.

The following letter from Maryland Senator Bill Ferguson was forwarded to us by Ms. Ashley Burgherr in Takoma Park, Maryland:

Thank you for reaching out to me regarding this issue. I appreciate the very thoughtful and well researched information you were able to share with me. Protecting our children has been and will always be one of my top priorities as a State Senator.

At this time, however, I will be unable to sponsor this legislation. As a new legislator, I am trying to keep a very small number of bills under my sponsorship during this legislative session. Should you find a sponsor, I would be willing to have further conversations about this legislation. Please feel free to contact my office if you have any questions or concerns.

As a current member of the Joint Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, one of Senator Ferguson's primary responsibilities is to "recommend new laws, regulations, and budget priorities to improve children's well-being". With the state's alarmingly high 72% reported infant circumcision rate in 2009, we can think of few other laws that would improve the well-being of so many Maryland children.

If Senator Ferguson won't introduce the Maryland MGM Bill himself, we do hope that we can count on his vote if we find a sponsor.

The following letter from U.S. Rep. Todd Platts was forwarded to us by Ms. Kari Danner in York, Pennsylvania:

Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your support for legislation in Pennsylvania to prohibit male circumcision.

I understand your view that male circumcision constitutes male genital mutilation (MGM), and your request that I sponsor the introduction of legislation in the Pennsylvania General Assembly to prohibit MGM. As your United States Congressman I do not have the authority to introduce or sponsor legislation in the state legislature to enact or modify state laws. If you have not already done so, you may wish to express your views with your Pennsylvania State Representative and State Senator.

The office of State Representative Eugene DePasquale is located at One Marketway West, 1st Floor Suite 12A, York, PA 17401, and can be reached by telephone at (717) 848-9595. The office of State Senator Michael L. Waugh is located at 218 North George Street, York, P A 17401, and can be reached by telephone at (717) 852-8478.

Thank you once again for making me aware of your opinions. I hope that you will continue to keep me updated on issues that are important to you. Best wishes.

We appreciate Rep. Platts' willingness to call forced circumcision by its proper name: male genital mutilation. However, since he is a member of Congress, we are not asking Rep. Platts to sponsor our state level MGM Bill. Instead, we want him to sponsor the federal MGM Bill so that boys throughout the country can be protected from genital mutilation the same way that girls are protected.

The following letter from South Carolina Rep. Todd Atwater (who is also CEO of the South Carolina Medical Association) was forwarded to us by Ms. Brandy Walters in Lexington, South Carolina...

There is no attached file. I will be happy to review the legislation. I would be against forced circumcision but I would not support any outlawing of the procedure.

I will keep your correspondence in mind if/as this issue moves forward in the legislature. I know it is getting some national attention and imagine it will be discussed during the session.

We appreciate Rep. Atwater's willingness to consider the merits of the South Carolina MGM Bill, and we hope we can count on his support when it comes up for discussion this session.

The following letter from Maryland Delegate Shirley Nathan-Pulliam was forwarded to us by Ms. Ashley Burgherr in Takoma Park, Maryland:

Thank you for bringing your issue to my attention. However, female genital mutilation, according to my training as a Registered Nurse, and male circumcision, are two entirely different procedures done for entirely different reasons. I will not sponsor this bill.

Female genital mutilation and male genital mutilation are two sides of the same coin. Both have varying types, and each is perpetuated by irrational justifications. Most importantly, both are performed by force. The only real difference between FGM and MGM in this country is that FGM is specifically prohibited by law, whereas MGM is not.

The following letter from Pennsylvania Rep. Eli Evankovich was forwarded to us by Ms. Kari Danner in York, Pennsylvania:

Thank you for contacting me about a legislation that would prohibit male circumcision. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you are aware, circumcision of the male infant is a controversial issue. Due to the complexity of this issue, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a policy statement regarding circumcision. In summary, AAP states, “Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data arenot sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. Inthe case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefitsand risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's currentwell-being, parents should determine what is in the best interestof the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all maleinfants should be given accurate and unbiased information andbe provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimatefor parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnictraditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making thisdecision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the proceduralpain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision forcircumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.”

In addition, your letter requests that the practice of “forced” circumcision be ended in this Commonwealth. I am not aware of any Pennsylvania law that requires infants to be circumcised; it is entirely a voluntary decision made by parents based on their own particular views and beliefs. Furthermore, while I am aware that genital mutilation does occur in certain parts of the world, I am not sure it is accurate to suggest that circumcision, a carefully controlled surgical procedure, be equated with genital mutilation. While you do make a compelling argument, it may be one best settled within the medical community.

With that said, I will review the proposed legislation you have enclosed, as well as request that my staff look into this issue further.

Thank you again for taking the time to write. I hope you will not hesitate to be in touch with further information, or comments or questions about issues of state government.

Medical opinions on male circumcision are changing rapidly, but as of this writing the AAP's policy hasn't been updated since 1999. The most recent medical society statement is from the Royal Dutch Medical Association, which calls for a ban on non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors.

As with any other cosmetic surgery, circumcision is only "entirely voluntary" if the patient himself consents to the procedure. Otherwise, it is being done by force (just like it would be considered "forced tattooing" if a parent had a child tattooed without the child's consent, or "forced mastectomy" if a parent removed the breast tissue of a baby girl to protect her from breast cancer at some point in the future).

Lastly, while some genital mutilations are performed in unsanitary conditions using crude instruments, many others are performed in makeshift clinics, which is not so different from how infant circumcisions are performed in the USA.

The following letter from Tennessee Rep. John Ragan was forwarded to us by Mr. Tom Kulaga in Knoxville, Tennessee:

Thank you for expressing your interest in this topic to me. However, I cannot support your position until some other issues have been addressed.

First, while your message is informative with some quotes from the Royal Dutch Medical Association, etc., you failed to provide some essential comparative statistics. Such information is critical for data-based decision making.

Specifically, the required, operative statistics for decisions in this area are how many total circumcisions are performed without medical complication versus how many have some sort of serious complication.

Additionally, it would be necessary to include a comparison of how many medical complications develop in uncircumcised males (that could be potentiallhy avoided by the procedure) versus how many of the same types of complications occur in the circumcised population.

Such statistics would need to be "controlled" for socio-economic status, race, religion, geographic location, doctor-performed versus Rabbi versus "other," etc. Statistical confidence intervals, standard deviations, total population size studied, distribution characterizations (Gaussian, Poisson, Laplace, etc.), are also need-to-know information for adequate decision making.

Second, you failed to explain how such a bill could avoid running afoul of Constitutionally prohibited, state interference in religion, specifically Judaism. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that for such state interference to avoid infringement on the First Amendment to the US Constitution (or Article I, Section 3 of the Tennessee State Constitution), there must be an overwhelming state interest that can be served in no other, less intrusive manner.

Your involvement in your state's governmental decision processes is much appreciated. I hope the information I have addressed has been helpful to you. Unfortunately, more data is essential before any bill on this topic could gain my support, or, I suspect, that of other General Assembly members.

Regarding parental freedom of religion, that matter was settled in 1944 when the Supreme Court ruled in Prince v. Massachusetts that "Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves." Other states already have laws in place that protect girls from religiously motivated genital cutting and none of them have been declared unconstitutional.

The following letter from Texas Rep. Diane Patrick was forwarded to us by Ms. Michelle Richardson in Euless, Texas:

Thank you for sharing your view with our office regarding the proposed MGM bill for Texas. As you know, Texas code does not address male circumcision which allows parents to make this very private decision on their own.

I appreciate you participating in our government and taking the time to correspond with me on this issue. Please feel free to contact me or my office in the future.

Rep. Patrick's response is emblematic of how our government continues to discriminate against boys. Female circumcision is also a "very private decision" that some parents wish to make for their daughters, but that didn't stop Texas legislators from rightfully prohibiting it in 1999. Don't boys deserve the same consideration?

The following letter from U.S. Senator Bob Casey was forwarded to us by Ms. Kari Danner in York, Pennsylvania:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them.

This issue is under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania State Government. As your United States Senator, I am unable to take any direct action on this matter. However, I urge you to share your views with your State Representative, State Senator, and the Governor.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Senator Casey's remark about lack of federal jurisdiction is incorrect. Congress successfully enacted a federal law in 1996 that prohibited female genital mutilation, and it can enact a law prohibiting male genital mutilation, as well.

While many states also have their own internal state statutes prohibiting female genital mutilation, those laws legally coexist with the blanket federal law. In cases where state and federal laws conflict, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution directs that citizens must obey the federal law.

The following letter from Melissa L. Farabaugh (on behalf of Pennsylvania Rep. Randy Vulakovich) was forwarded to us by Ms. Kari Danner in York, Pennsylvania:

Thank you for your recent email to Representative Randy Vulakovich regarding your concerns with circumcision of infant boys. He has read your email and would like you to know that he does not have much information on this issue relative to your point of view. However, he will listen to all arguments if or when legislation addressing this issue is introduced and brought forth for his review. He appreciates your comments and will keep them in mind. We look forward to hearing from you in the future.

Rather than wait for our bill to be sponsored by another legislator, we suggest that Rep. Vulakovich and his staff familiarize themselves with the practice of circumcision by following the links on our FAQ and Resources pages. After researching the issue, perhaps Rep. Vulakovich will be willing to sponsor the Pennsylvania MGM Bill himself.

The following letter from Oregon Rep. Matt Wingard was forwarded to us by Ms. Trisha Darner in Ashland, Oregon:

I wanted to thank you for your email concerning the Oregon MGM bill 2010. I wanted to thank you for the letter and bill. This is an important issue an I will be taking your email into account when information on this issue comes across my desk.

We appreciate that Rep. Wingard recognizes MGM as an important issue, and we hope that we can count on his vote if the Oregon MGM Bill finds a sponsor.

The following letter from U.S. Rep. Susan Davis was received by Matthew Hess in San Diego, California:

Thank you for contacting me about a bill proposal to prevent male circumcisions for non-medical reasons in the United States. I appreciate hearing from you.

As a mother and grandmother, I believe all parents should have the tools to make fully informed decisions regarding their child's health needs. I appreciate your advocacy on this issue and for bringing continued public attention to it. However, taking the step of restricting the practice remains far ahead of public consensus on this issue. The procedure is a matter probably left best to parents and their doctors.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your perspective on this issue. As your representative, I both need and value your input and ideas.

Lack of public consensus is not a license to ignore human rights. Rep. Davis took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and that includes upholding the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 2007, she voted to denounce female genital mutilation. We urge her to denounce male genital mutilation, as well.

The following letter from Pennsylvania Rep. Matthew Baker was forwarded to us by Mr. Peter Keay in West Chester, Pennsylvania:

Thank you for contacting me about your interest in legislation that would prohibit male circumcision. I am always appreciative when interested citizens take the time to express their views to me.

As you are aware, circumcision of the male infant is a controversial issue on which there is no consensus at the state and federal level. In addition, it seems that the medical community is unable to formulate a clear and unequivocal position as well. Due to the complexity of this matter, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a revised policy statement in 1999 regarding circumcision. In summary, AAP states:

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."

Currently, there is no statute in Pennsylvania that requires male infants to be circumcised: it is entirely a voluntary decision made by parents based on their own particular views and beliefs. When parents disagree on whether or not to perform the procedure, they have the ability to ask the courts to rule on the matter.

At present, there is no federal law that addresses male genital mutilation or circumcision. Although draft language for a bill prohibiting male genital mutilation was submitted to Congress in 2005 from a California-based health and human rights organization, so far no member of Congress has sponsored such legislation.

I am forwarding your letter to my staff on the state House Health and Human Services Committee for inclusion in the committee file on this issue. Your input will be valuable in future policy discussions concerning this matter. If you would like to view and track any state legislative proposal, please visit the General Assembly's website at www.legis.state.pa.us.

Again, thank you for your letter. Please do not hesitate to contact me whenever I can be of service in matters relating to state government.

We thank Rep. Baker for his willingness to include our input in future Health and Human Services Committee circumcision policy discussions. We take issue with his statement that circumcision is "entirely voluntary", though. Even if parents agree to perform infant circumcision, that does not mean that the patient has agreed. The child is the patient, not the parents.

The following letter from Minnesota Rep. Mary Liz Holberg was forwarded to us by Ms. Kandace O'Neill in Lakeville, Minnesota:

Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I have not considered circumcision as a genital mutilation. I am not sure how I feel about the issue. Taking away the rights of parents is a big step and I am not sure that it will be well received. Many parents would feel it would be their right to decide.

I will continue to consider your request if the bill is brought forward for a vote. You have raised many valid points and it may be that this issue will take a while to move forward as many people will need to educated on the issue.

The intent of the MGM Bill is not to take away rights. Rather, it is designed to give men the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Parents aren't allowed to remove other healthy, functional body parts from their children, and the foreskin should not be treated any differently. We encourage Rep. Holberg to follow the links on our FAQ page so that she may begin the process of educating herself and others about the harmful effects of forced circumcision.

The following letter from Minnesota Senator Linda Berglin was forwarded to us by Ms. Kandace O'Neill in Lakeville, Minnesota:

Thanks for your e-mail about circumcision. I do not have time to author this bill, but I have in the past, made sure that our medicaid program does not pay for circumcision. This was done a number of years ago.

We greatly appreciate the work that Senator Berglin did to eliminate Medicaid reimbursement for medically unnecessary circumcision in Minnesota. Although she may not have time to sponsor the Minnesota MGM Bill this year, we do hope that we can count on her support if another sponsor steps forward.

The following letter from Texas Senator Jane Nelson was forwarded to us by Ms. Michelle Richardson in Euless, Texas:

As chair of the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, I appreciate your thoughtful research. The Legislature convenes for its next session in January 2011. As we begin to prepare, I will review this issue closely with your suggestion in mind.

In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me again regarding issues of importance to you.

We are looking forward to working with Senator Nelson and the Health & Human Services Committee as we lead up to the next session.

The following letter from Maryland Delegate Karen Montgomery was forwarded to us by Mr. James Pinkley in Bel Air, Maryland:

I read your email carefully and sympathize greatly for your situation. As I understand, circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin, performed for medical or religious reasons. There are, apparently, benefits of circumcision to include: decreased risk of urinary tract infections, reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases, protection against penile cancer, prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin), and prevention of phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin.). Some firmly believe that circumcision makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean. That said, I understand there are a number of risks with male circumcision. There may be pain, a risk of bleeding/infection at the site, irritation of the glans, increased risk of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis) and risk of injury to the penis. Obviously, circumcision is a surgical procedure and complications/injuries can arise due to medical incompetence and other factors. There are even cases of "circumcision" resulting in the complete removal of the skin covering the shaft of the penis, causing it to appear to have been completely surgically removed.

The American Academy of Pediatrics does NOT recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for newborn males. And, other major medical organizations agree. However, problems from circumcision are not common and if they do occur, they are usually minor.

In my own opinion, I believe male circumcision is a family decision based on traditions and religious beliefs. As stated above, there are some benefits; and yes, as with any surgical procedure, there can be definite risks and problematic outcomes.

You may have noted that I do not address female "circumcision". I do not consider the mutilation of female genitalia to be in the same category as male circumcision. Females subjected to this mutilation are victims of a heinous practice, as your attachment outlines.

I am sorry that you have personally suffered and consider yourself a victim. And I hope that some type of medical help may alleviate your situation. However, I cannot support such a proposal that prohibits male circumcision.

Delegate Montgomery's letter illustrates all too clearly the discrimination that boys are up against when it comes to circumcision. When a girl's genitals are cut, it is a "heinous practice" (we agree). When a boy's genitals are cut, it's a "family decision".

This absurd double standard is causing needless suffering for the estimated 73% of boys who are forcefully circumcised in Maryland.

The following letter from Illinois Senator Susan Garrett was forwarded to us by Mr. Ron Low in Northbrook, Illinois:

I am in receipt of your fax regarding your proposed bill involving nonconcensual male circumcision. After reading the language and background material, I have to tell you that I would be very uncomfortable carrying this bill. I suggest that you contact Senator Jeff Schoenberg who represents the 9th Senatorial District. His contact information is as follows.

If the thought of genital mutilation makes Senator Garrett uncomfortable, just imagine how uncomfortable it feels for the boys who are subjected to it! Senator Garrett needs to set aside her discomfort and put her seat on the Public Health Committee to good use by sponsoring the Illinois MGM Bill.

The following letter from the Oregon Rep. Kim Thatcher was forwarded to us by Ms. Ava-Nicole Davis in Newberg, Oregon:

Thank you for your email regarding forced circumcision. I am not inclined to support this type of legislation because I feel this is an issue for parents and families to decide, not the government. I do appreciate you sharing your perspective.

Parents and families don't get to decide if their daughters will be circumcised by force, so why should their sons be treated any differently? Assault laws must protect both genders equally.

The following letter from U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly was received by Matthew Hess in San Diego, California:

Dear Mr. Hess,

Thank you for contacting my office with regards to your request for the sponsorship of the MGM Bill.

I appreciate hearing from you on this matter; however, jurisdiction of issues such as these would be better served by your Congresswoman, Susan Davis. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your letter to her.

I am sure you will be hearing from her shortly.

Sincerely,

ELTON GALLEGLY

Member of Congress

By Myrna Vafee

Congressional Aide

Thousand Oaks District Office

As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Gallegly has a responsibility to ensure that all American citizens receive equal protection of the law, not just those who live in his own district. We appeal to Rep. Gallegly to begin researching the issue of forced circumcision now so that he will be prepared to vote intelligently on the MGM Bill if a sponsor is found.

The following letter from U.S. Senator Tom Coburn was forwarded to us by Ms. Kristi Rath in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma:

Dear Mrs. Rath,

Thank you for contacting me regarding issues related to circumcision. I appreciate hearing from you and apologize for the delayed response.

As a practicing physician with a specialty in obstetrics, I know firsthand the medical issues related to circumcision. The World Health Organization estimates that 70 percent of American males are circumcised. Many families choose to perform neonatal circumcision because of the demonstrated medical benefits of the procedure. You are right, however, that there are both potential benefits and risks to the procedure, which is why I firmly believe that parents should have the responsibility of making the best decision possible for their children.

There are a number of potential medical benefits for circumcision. In addition to making proper hygiene easier for young males, the procedure has also shown to decrease the risk of urinary tract infections (UTI). Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems late in life, and a meta-analysis of 12 studies of over 400,000 children determined that circumcision was associated with a significantly reduced risk of UTI. Circumcision has also been shown to prevent other penile problems such as phimosis (when the foreskin will not retract), which can also lead to inflammation of the head of the penis, and decreases the risk of penile cancer.

Circumcision has also been shown to reduce the risk of sexually-transmitted diseases. Three controlled studies in Africa demonstrated that circumcision reduced vaginal-to-penile transmission of the HIV virus by 60%, 53%, and 51%, respectively. WHO and the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) have stated that male circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention when carried out by well trained medical professionals.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has stated, "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child." The American Medical Association has expressed support for the AAP policy statement, and almost every other medical association in the United States has expressed similar views.

As a physician, I believe that it is important to inform my patients of both these medical benefits and risks. The decision, however, whether made for medical or religious reasons, rests with the child's parents. Parents are expected-and obligated-to make the best medical decisions for their children, based on sound advice from their doctors. Rather than pursue a federal prohibition with significant medical, religious, and parental authority concerns, I believe we should seek to provide individuals with the necessary scientific information.

I appreciate you taking the time to express your views on this matter. Thank you again for contacting me, and please stay in touch.

Sincerely,

Tom A. Coburn, M.D.

United States Senator

First, to address the medical claims, circumcision has not been proven to help reduce urinary tract infections (in fact, at least one recent study found that circumcision increases the risk of acquiring UTIs). The three studies linking circumcision to reduced transmission of AIDS are also very much in dispute, and phimosis is easily treatable without circumcision. Lastly, penile cancer is so rare that that the number of deaths resulting from circumcision exceeds the number of deaths caused by penile cancer, negating any benefit.

But even if the medical claims were true, potential medical benefits do not give anyone the right to forcefully amputate a healthy functional body part from an unconsenting patient. There are potential medical benefits to other amputative procedures, too (mastectomy and castration, for example), yet forcing either of those disfiguring and life altering surgeries onto a healthy child would be grounds for prosecution.

Religion is not a valid reason to circumcise boys, either. It is illegal to cut any part of a girl's genitalia in the name of religion, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection to all. Senator Coburn is making excuses, and his failure to see the larger human rights issue here is contributing to the perpetuation of forced circumcision.

The following letter from California Assembly Member Chuck DeVore was received by Matthew Hess in San Diego, California:

Dear Mr. Hess,

Thank you for your recent letter regarding your proposed "MGM Bill," banning circumcision for young males in California. I appreciate hearing your thoughts and concerns about this important matter. As an elected representative, it is always good to hear from voters across the state because it enables me to serve you better. If I can ever be of assistance in any way, please don't hesitate to contact me again.

All the best,

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore

As a Republican Whip, Chuck Devore holds considerable influence in the California Assembly. We call on him to use that influence to help build support for the California MGM Bill proposal during the 2009-10 session.

The following letter from the Policy Advisor for Oregon Senator Alan Bates was forwarded to us by Ms. Trisha Darner in Medford, Oregon:

Hello again, Trisha -

Thank you for again taking the time to write with your well-researched position on male circumcision. While Senator Bates respects and appreciates your opinion, as we have written previously, he would not support a bill to ban male circumcision, nor will he sponsor one - either from a medical perspective or from a cultural perspective. He respectfully disagrees with you and does not feel that this is an issue that should be legislated.

Senator Bates is fully in favor of public education so that parents may make a more informed decision about how circumcision may affect their sons.

Erin Fair
Policy Adviser
Senator Alan Bates
503-986-1703

Senator Bates has written to us before, so we're not surprised to hear that his position is unchanged. However, we welcome his call for public education on circumcision, and we ask him to put us in touch with the appropriate staff member of the Oregon Department of Human Services so that we can work together to develop a statewide educational curriculum on circumcision.

The following letter from Oregon Rep. John Lim was forwarded to us by Ms. Trisha Darner in Medford, Oregon:

Dear Mrs. Darner,

Thank you for your e-mail regarding issues of circumcision. These issues are new and educational for me, and I will look forward to researching them here in the near future. At this time, I have yet to hear of any bills involving matters of circumcision, but would enjoy studying any additional information concerning this issue. I firmly believe that any minors having a circumcision must have written parental approval and will seriously consider your e-mail when a bill of this matter reaches the floor. I have heard of and read many horror stories of this issue and will stand firmly against doctors whom practice in this manner. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns. Your time and thoughts are greatly appreciated. I look forward to hearing more from you in the near future.

God Bless,

Representative John Lim

District 50

We welcome Rep. Lim's willingness to research the health and human rights consequences of forced circumcision. Perhaps after doing so, he will realize that parents should not be allowed to legally approve circumcision for their sons any more than they can legally approve circumcision for their daughters.

The following letter from U.S. Senator John Warner was forwarded to us by Ms. Kari Kilgore in St. Paul, Virginia:

Dear Ms. Kilgore:

Thank you for sending me a copy of a proposed bill regarding male genital mutilation. I appreciate you making this effort and offering me the opportunity to write to you.

As you know, to date, there has been no legislation related to male genital mutilation introduced in the 110^th Congress. Though I am not a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which would have jurisdiction over this matter, please be assured that I will be certain to monitor any committee hearings or reports, and will keep your thoughts in mind should related legislation come before the full Senate.

In a related matter, you may be interested to know that on January 5, 2007, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee (D-TX) introduced H.RES.32, a resolution denouncing the practices of female genital mutilation, domestic violence, “honor” killings, acid burnings, dowry deaths, and other gender-based persecutions. This resolution was agreed to by a vote of 378-0. To date, no similar legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting me.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,

John Warner

United States Senator

We appreciate Senator Warner's response and consideration of our proposed bill. We also wish that Rep. Jackson-Lee and Congress had included male genital mutilation in H. RES.32 as a way to draw attention to the 13 million male genital mutilations that occur annually around the world - a number roughly six times greater than the 2 million female genital mutilations that occur each year.

The following letter from Oregon Rep. Tina Kotek's office was forwarded to us by Ms. Trisha Darner in Medford, Oregon:

Dear Ms. Darner,

Thank you for writing Rep. Kotek to voice your concerns about male infant circumcision. Your email is well-argued and well-researched and it is clear that you are very passionate about this issue. I will be sure that Rep. Kotek sees your information. Rep. Kotek's office will look into issue of male infant circumcision for the 2009 session, however, your advocacy would be most effective if you worked closely with your state legislators, Sen.Alan Bates and Rep. Sal Esquivel.

Thank you for your advocacy.

Best regards,

Nellie

Nellie McAdams, Legislative Assistant
State Representative Tina Kotek
North/NE Portland, House District 44

(503) 286-0558
900 Court Street H-285
Salem, OR 97301
rep.tinakotek@state.or.us

As Chair of the Health Care Subcommittee on Health Policy, Rep. Kotek could play a key role in helping to pass the Oregon MGM Bill. We look forward to working with her in 2009.

The following letter from the Chief of Staff for Oregon Senator Alan Bates was forwarded to us by Ms. Trisha Darner in Medford, Oregon:

Ms. Darner -

Thank you for writing our office about your concerns. Male circumcision is not an easy issue, as there are historical, cultural, religious, and personal issues involved. While Senator Bates certainly respects your position and recognizes the risks of any medical procedure (he is a family physician), he would not support a bill that outlaws male circumcision. It is true that we are not gender-neutral in our laws regarding circumcision, but Senator Bates does not believe that female and male circumcision are comparable from a cultural or medical standpoint. Female circumcision has no medical indication and its cultural practice is used primarily to subjugate women. Although there is not consensus about it, there is evidence that circumcision can be medically advantageous and it's cultural practice is not intended to be abusive or a means of subjugation.

Again, thank you for bringing this issue to our attention and I appreciate having this discussion. Unfortunately, as a family physician, this is not a position that Senator Bates can support, both from a medical and a cultural perspective.

Erin Fair
Chief of Staff
Senator Alan Bates
503-986-1703

Female and male circumcision are far more alike than they are different. Female circumcision also has potential medical benefits, and physicians introduced male circumcision in America to suppress masturbation. While MGMbill.org respects each person's right to alter his or her own genitals, we believe that laws must be enacted to protect children from forced circumcision.

The following letter from Oregon Rep. Ron Maurer's office was forwarded to us by Ms. Trisha Darner in Medford, Oregon:

Thank you for contacting our office. It is most effective if you work with the Representative in the district where you live. Your Representative is Sal Esquivel and your Senator is Alan Bates. Rep. Maurer respects your views on this issue but is not interested in sponsoring this legislation as this is in direct conflict with the freedom of religion of the Jewish faith.

Freedom of religion in this country refers to the right of each person to choose his or her own religion. It does not mean that parents may alter the genitals of their children for religious reasons. The Supreme Court ruled long ago in Prince v. Massachusetts that "Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves." Rep. Maurer would serve his constituents well by familiarizing himself with this fundamental legal tenet.

The following letter from Virginia Health and Human Resources Secretary Marilyn B. Tavenner was forwarded to us by Ms. Kari Kilgore in St. Paul, Virginia:

January 17, 2008

Ms. Kari Kilgore

Thank you for your email to Governor Kaine regarding your concerns about unnecessary circumcisions. Since the regulation of health care is within the work of my office, he has forwarded your email to me for response.

I appreciate that you have become quite knowledgeable on the subject and have a global perspective on situations in other cultures as well as in this country. We are not aware of any Virginia law that requires male infants to be circumcised; it is entirely a voluntary decision made by parents based on their own particular views and beliefs. As you are aware, in the Judaic tradition, male infants are to be circumcised on the 8th day after birth; in the wider community, it is a matter of parental choice.

Circumcision is a carefully controlled surgical procedure and should not be equated with the genital mutilation that does occur in some parts of the world. The discussion and opinion about whether it is medically advisable varies from time to time, but no family is compelled or required to circumcise their son.

Again, we thank you for taking the time to write with your concerns.

Marilyn B. Tavenner

Secretary of Health and Human Resources

1111 East Broad Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219

Medically unnecessary circumcision is not voluntary unless the patient gives his consent. The particular views and beliefs of parents are legally irrelevant if they attempt to modify a girl's genitalia, so why is an exception made for boys? Ripping the foreskin away from a child's tiny, undeveloped penis and then amputating it with a scalpel can hardly be called a "carefully controlled surgical procedure", as the victims of both normal and botched circumcisions will readily attest. And the Jewish tradition of circumcision is no longer routine, as Jews continue to turn away from the practice. Unfortunately, more than one million unlucky baby boys are still being mutilated each year in the USA, which is why we need to enact the MGM Bill.

The following letter from Oregon Rep. Vicki Berger was forwarded to us by Ms. Trisha Darner in Medford, Oregon:

While we understand Rep. Berger's respect for parental rights, some decisions cross the line. We believe that a child's legal right to body integrity supersedes a parent's wish to perform a medically unnecessary circumcision on an unconsenting minor.

The following letter from Oregon Rep. Peter Buckley was forwarded to us by Ms. Trisha Darner in Medford, Oregon:

August 27, 2007

Dear Trisha Darner:

Thank you for your letter addressing your concerns about infant circumcision. I certainly appreciate your efforts to bring this issue to the public's attention, and my office will look into the matter as per your request. However, in the 2009 session my main health care focus will be on securing health benefits and rights to children with Autism and their families.

If you have any other questions or concerns, don't hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Representative Peter Buckley

We welcome Rep. Buckley's willingness to research the issue of infant circumcision. Perhaps when his staff members uncover just how much pain and suffering circumcision inflicts on baby boys, he will find the time to focus on two important children's issues instead of just one.

The following letter from Massachusetts Senator Michael Morrissey was forwarded to us by Mr. Charles A. Antonelli in Quincy, Massachusetts:

I am writing today regarding your legislation dealing with genital mutilation in the Commonwealth. The legislation's bill number is Senate Bill No. 966 and has been referred to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary.

You can also track legislative histories on the internet at the General Court website at http://www.mass.gov/legis. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of the contact information for the House and Senate Chairpersons of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary for your reference. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Congratulations to Senator Morrissey on his courageous and historic decision to introduce our Massachusetts MGM Bill to the 185th General Court! We look forward to working closely with the members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary in the coming weeks as they prepare to debate Senate Bill No. 966.

The following letter from Florida Division of Family Health Services Director Annette Phelps was forwarded to us by Ms. Nicole Blythe in Stuart, Florida:

Thank you for your January 8 letter to former Governor Jeb Bush expressing your position regarding male circumcision. I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Department of Health.

Male circumcision is a clinical practice issue and parent decision, most practice issues are governed by the clinical practice guidelines of care for medicine. In the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Circumcision Policy Statement it is stated, "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided."

Therefore, the AAP recommends physicians discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering this procedure for their newborn son.

Director Phelps's reply illustrates how the current AAP Circumcision Policy Statement interferes with a man's right to control his own body. Even though the AAP policy does not recommend circumcision, it still allows parents to cut their son's genitals for any reason. No such allowance is made for female genital cutting.

The AAP is now in the process of updating their Circumcision Policy Statement, and public input is encouraged by sending comments to Ed Zimmerman (Co-Director, Department of Practice) and Alison Baker (Staffperson, Committee on Bioethics).

The following letter from Florida Office of Family Safety Director Patricia Badland was forwarded to us by Ms. Nicole Blythe in Stuart, Florida:

Thank you for your recent letter to the Governor's Office about your proposal of the Florida Prohibition of Human Mutilation Act. Governor Charlie Crist asked me to respond to you on his behalf.

Florida appreciates your concern for wanting to ensure all children are protected from child abuse. You raised some interesting points in your letter about circumcision of male infants. Circumcision is a common procedure typically done with newborn males once they are medically stable after birth. Debate exists whether there are no medical benefits or if there are some slight medical benefits. The American Academy of Pediatrics has considered this issue for years. Currently, the Academy neither recommends for or against this procedure.

Unlike female circumcision done in unsafe circumstances elsewhere in the world, male circumcision is a carefully done hospital procedure, usually involves pain control, and does not cause appreciable loss of sexual sensation or pain in adulthood.

A difference of opinion exists on the merit of this procedure. However, the Academy and others have never considered this to be physical abuse. An interpretation that is child abuse would be unique, be at variance with mainstream medical opinion, and result in an assertion that most parent of boys are participating in child abuse.

Thank you again for writing to Governor Crist and for your concern for the safety and well-being of Florida's children.

Director Badland's letter has many inaccuracies. As of this writing, the AAP does not recommend circumcision, stating that "data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision". And although most circumcisions in the USA are carried out in a hospital environment, female circumcisions in other countries are often performed in hospitals, too - particularly in Egypt. Furthermore, many circumcisions are still performed without anesthesia, and circumcised men do in fact report an appreciable loss of sexual sensation in adulthood.

The following letter from Illinois House Republican Leader Tom Cross was forwarded to us by Mr. Ron Low in Northbrook, Illinois:

Thank you for contacting me regarding legislation concerning genital mutilation.

Your views are very important to me and I appreciate your taking the time to write. I always welcome and consider the opinions I receive when making decisions in Springfield.

Thank you again for your letter. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

As the primary sponsor of the 2007 Illinois Criminal Aggravated Domestic Assault Bill, Rep. Cross is well aware of the painful consequences of domestic violence. Unfortunately, his bill makes no reference to the most common form of domestic violence in the Unites States today: circumcision of male infants.

This month another new study published in BJU International has confirmed that circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis. Shouldn't cutting off part of a child's genitals by force be included as a form of assault in Rep. Cross's bill? We believe that it should.

The following letter from Minnesota Senator Mike Jungbauer was forwarded to us by Ms. Brianna Johnson in Waseca, Minnesota:

Unfortunately, I cannot support or sponsor this bill. As an Ordained Minister, I have strong feelings about certain social issues like abortion and gay marriage. However, in this case I do believe that the decision of circumcision should be made by the parents. Until that child is 18 years of age, he/she does not have the same rights as an adult. We allow the parents to make decisions concerning the well being of their children in many other areas and to pass this bill would only open up a proverbial can of worms.

It is very concerning to hear an elected government official say that children do not have the same human rights as adults. Infants are the most vulnerable members of our society, and government has a responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Children may not be able to vote, Senator Jungbauer, but they do have human rights. The most basic human right of all is the right to be free from physical harm. Forced circumcision violates that right in a most painful and unnecessary way.

The following letter from Florida Rep. Gayle Harrell was forwarded to us by Ms. Nicole Blythe in Stuart, Florida:

Thank you for taking the time to write and express your concerns regarding the Florida Prohibition of Human Genital Mutilation Act and providing me with a copy of the wording submitted to the Florida State Legislature on January 8, 2007.

As Chair of the Health Care General Committee and a member of the Health & Families Council, Rep. Harrell is well positioned to work with other state lawmakers on the issue of circumcision. We hope that she uses her influence to help protect Florida children from forced genital cutting.

The following letter from U.S. Senator Bill Nelson was forwarded to us by Ms. Nicole Blythe in Stuart, Florida:

As you are probably aware, the 109th Congress adjourned on December 9, 2006. Any legislation still pending before the House and the Senate must be reintroduced in the 110th Congress, which convened in early January.

I am aware of your interest in this issue and will be sure to keep your views in mind should the Senate consider similar legislation. I appreciate your taking the time to be active and involved in the political process. Your communication helps me serve you better in the Senate.

As we responded to his counterpart, Mel Martinez, simply keeping our views in mind won't protect boys from forced circumcision. What's needed now is action, and Senator Nelson can begin the process by introducing the MGM Bill to the U.S. Senate.

The following letter from Maryland Delegate Wendell Beitzel was forwarded to us by Mr. James Pinkley in Bel Air, Maryland:

This is a subject that I am inclined not to seek legislative change nor will I support any efforts to do so. These type of decisions are best left to the parents of children and their religious and moral convictions.

Freedom of religion does not mean that parents have the right to forcefully cut off part of a boy's body for medically unnecessary reasons, and court decisions are beginning to address this. In an October 2006 ruling, a Cook County, Illinois, circuit court judge presiding over a parental dispute ordered that a 9-year old boy not be circumcised, writing that "the injury to the child as a result of an unnecessary circumcision would be irreversible."

By misconstruing the meaning of our constitutional guarantee to freedom of religion, Delegate Beitzel is closing his ears to the cries of innocent Maryland boys who need his help.

The following letter from U.S. Senator Mel Martinez was forwarded to us by Ms. Nicole Blythe in Stuart, Florida:

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.

I am proud and humbled to serve as Florida's thirty-third United States Senator. Through your correspondence, I am informed of the issues that are important to you and am better able to serve your interests in the Senate. I understand your concerns regarding circumcision.

Like you, I realize that our current decisions have ramifications that reach far into the future. While there is currently no legislation that has been introduced relating to your concerns, rest assured that I will keep your concerns in mind as we proceed in the 109th Congress.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. If you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to let me know. In addition, for more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.

We appreciate this response from Senator Martinez. Instead of just keeping our concerns in mind, though, Senator Martinez can make a real difference in the lives of male children by introducing the MGM Bill himself. Because for every day that he waits, another 3,300 American boys are sexually mutilated through forced circumcision.

The following letter from Texas Speaker of the House Tom Craddick was forwarded to us by Ms. Michelle Richardson in Fort Worth, Texas:

Thank you for your letter regarding issues with male circumcision. I understand your point of view on this matter.

At this time, no committee assignments have been made in the House. I recommend that you contact members of the House Public Health Committee. You may identify those through the House website, http://www.house.state.tx.us/committees

Thank you again for your communication and involvement in the process of our state government.

We welcome Speaker Craddick's reply and advice. As he suggests, our Texas state office will stay in contact with members of the Public Health House Committee to make them aware of the need to introduce and enact the Texas MGM Bill.

(Mark DeSaulnier vacated his Assembly seat in 2008 to serve in the California Senate)

The following letter from California Assembly Member Mark DeSaulnier was received by Matthew Hess in San Diego, California:

Thank you for your recent letter expressing your concerns on male circumcision and your inclusion of a legislative proposal to address it. I am sure you will agree that this issue is one that reaches across many spectrums - health, religious and cultural among them, as you have noted.

Judging by your address, I see that you are represented in the San Diego area by Assembly Member Lori Saldana as well as Senator Christine Kehoe. I encourage you to work through your local legislative delegation as I will look to them for leadership on this issue.

Should any proposal related to this issue come before the legislature, I will certainly take your concerns and comments into consideration.

We appreciate Assembly Member DeSaulnier's reply, and we have already contacted Lori Saldaña and Christine Kehoe on multiple occasions. What we really want to know is what Mark DeSaulnier thinks about forced circumcision of male infants. Surely he must have an opinion of his own - why not share it with us?

The following letter from Maryland Delegate David Rudolph was forwarded to us by Mr. James Pinkley in Bel Air, Maryland:

Although this procedure has been common practice for centuries, primarily for social, cultural, and/or religious reasons, its routine use on male newborns is receiving renewed scrutiny. Certainly any decision by parents regarding this procedure should be an informed one.

Some studies have indicated there are medical benefits associated with male circumcision including lower rates of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases including HIV, syphilis and chancroid (Weiss, HA Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2007 Feb;20(1):66-72.) A recent policy statement on circumcision published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2006 stated that, "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

I assure you that if any legislation addresses this issue comes before the full House for a vote, I will take your comments and views into consideration.

Although male circumcision may have some potential medical benefits later in life, that does not mean that "informed" parents have the right to amputate a healthy, functional body part from a nonconsenting infant. The foreskin contains thousands of specialized nerve endings designed to enhance sexual pleasure, making it ethically imperative that circumcision only be performed on adults who have given their consent.

The following letter from Washington Senator Steve Hobbs was forwarded to us by Mr. Arthur Coons in Snohomish, Washington:

Thank you for contacting my office in regards to the MGM bill. I appreciate you bringing this bill to my attention. I am currently familiarizing myself with it and I am sorry for your tragic experience.

We look forward to working with Senator Hobbs as he familiarizes himself with the Washington MGM Bill proposal.

The following letter from Virginia Delegate Harvey Morgan was forwarded to us by Ms. Kari Kilgore in St. Paul, Virginia:

January 10, 2007

Miss Kilgore, I introduced similar legislation several years ago, but was unsuccessful. Harvey Morgan

The following letter from Virginia Delegate David Englin was forwarded to us by Ms. Kari Kilgore in St. Paul, Virginia:

Thank you for getting in touch. I'm afraid that I disagree strongly with you on this issue. It's simply medically inaccurate to compare male circumcision to female genital mutilation. Male circumcision is a medically safe practice that, according to the American Society of Pediatrics, is at best moderately beneficial and at worse harmless in terms of male genital health. There is exhaustive data to support this, since it has been practiced safely for thousands of years by diverse cultures. There is no form of female circumcision / genital mutilation that does not involve permanent debilitating harm to female genital health.

First, the AAP has concluded that "data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision". Second, the Kim-Pang study released last month found that circumcision "adversely affects sexual function in many men". An earlier study also found that circumcision removes tissue that "appears to be an important component of the overall sensory mechanism of the human penis".

As far as being practiced for thousands of years, the same is true for female genital mutilation, but that didn't stop Congress and many state legislatures from passing laws to end forced circumcision of girls. We urge Delegate Englin to re-examine the facts surrounding male circumcision before he decides whether or not to support the Virginia MGM Bill proposal.

The following letter from Nebraska Senator L. Patrick Engel was forwarded to us by Ms. Amanda Craven in Ponca, Nebraska:

I have received your e-mail message and the attached proposal for legislation, which would prohibit circumcision, among other things. I wanted to inform you that I am not interested in sponsoring this legislation. The statutes are currently silent as to whether a male infant should be circumcised and I believe that the government should not interfere with this decision that is made by the infant's parents.

We remind Senator Engel of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which directs that "No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." His comments are a chilling reminder of how easily some members of our government can turn a blind eye to equal protection and universal human rights.

The following letter from Maryland Delegate Curt Anderson was forwarded to us by Mr. James Pinkley in Bel Air, Maryland:

January 9, 2007

Thank you for your email. I would suggest that you contact a member of the Health and Government Matters Committee to introduce a bill such as the one you propose. A bill has a much better chance of passing if it comes from the Committee that will hear it.

We appreciate Delegate Anderson's advice, and we have initiated contact with members of the Health and Government Operations Committee as he suggests. The Criminal Justice Subcommittee may also be assigned to hear the Maryland MGM Bill if it is sponsored. If so, we hope we can count on Chairman Anderson's support.

The following letter from U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey was forwarded to us by Mr. Michael Steffe of Mill Valley, California:

December 6, 2006

Dear Mr. Steffe:

Thank you for contacting me about male and female genital mutilation. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this matter.

Your concerns about genital mutilation are understandable. While female genital mutilation and circumcision has received a great deal of attention, male circumcision is still far more accepted. Like you, I believe that no family should be pressured into circumcising their child. That's why I am an original cosponsor of H.Res. 970, which condemns the practices of female genital mutilation and other gender-based persecutions throughout the
world. As a member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, you can be sure that I will continue to work hard to ensure that all of our rights and basic freedoms are protected.

Again, it's good to hear from you. The people of Marin and Sonoma counties are the most important voices I listen to as I serve in Congress.

Sincerely,

Lynn Woolsey
Member of Congress

We welcome Rep. Woolsey's apparent change of heart since her last letter in 2004, where she stated that "For many families, circumcision holds deep religious meaning, and I believe that every parent should be able to determine what is best for his or her son." But while House Resolution 970 specifically condemns female genital mutilation, it does not mention male genital mutilation or circumcision at all, suggesting that MGM is somehow less of a problem than FGM. We urge Rep. Woolsey to amend House Resolution 970 as follows:

Add: "Whereas more than 35,000 men and boys around the world are genitally mutilated each day;"

Add "and male" to the first Be It Resolved clause: "Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the House of Representatives denounces the barbaric practices of female and male genital mutilation, domestic violence, `honor' killings, acid burning, dowry deaths, and other gender-based persecutions;"

The following letter from Oregon Rep. Greg Macpherson was forwarded to us by Ms. Trisha Darner in Medford, Oregon:

September 7, 2006

Ms. Darner,

Thank you for writing to share your concerns about circumcision and urge support for an Oregon statute on the practice. I will save your message as background on the bill when it comes up in the next legislative session in 2007.

I appreciate hearing from you. I will start sending my electronic newsletter, The Mac Report, to your email address so you can follow the legislation I'm working on. I send it out every month or so. I do not share the addresses with anyone else. If you prefer not to receive them, just reply to this or any future newsletter with "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

Best regards,

Greg Macpherson

State Representative

House District 38

MGMbill.org looks forward to working with Rep. Macpherson and his staff when the Oregon MGM Bill proposal is resubmitted to the Oregon Legislature in 2007.

The following letter from Oregon Senator Alan Bates's office was forwarded to us by Ms. Trisha Darner in Medford, Oregon:

Trisha, thank you for your email. Senator Bates feels this is personal freedom for which the state government should not interfere.

Senator Bates has one thing right: circumcision is about personal freedom, but it's the child's personal freedom that is being violated through forced circumcision. Why not let men decide for themselves if they want to alter their own genitals when they reach the age of consent?

The following letter from Oregon Citizens' Contact Analyst Joe Guerra (on behalf of Governor Ted Kulongoski) was forwarded to us by Ms. Trisha Darner in Medford, Oregon:

Thank you for contacting the Governor's office regarding your support for passage of the MGM bill. Governor Kulongoski appreciates your suggestions and has asked me to respond on his behalf. I apologize for the delay in responding.

As you know, the Oregon Legislature is responsible for creating new laws and making revisions to existing laws. The House and Senate need to approve legislation before it is forwarded to the Governor for consideration. I would urge you to contact your state legislators directly and share your ideas and concerns with them. Information on your legislators is available by calling 1-800-332-2313, online at www.leg.state.or.us, or by calling your local county elections office.

Thank you again for contacting the Governor's office and for sharing your concerns.

As Governor of his state, Ted Kulongoski has significant power to influence the agenda of the Oregon Legislature. Rather than brush off Ms. Darner's letter, we feel that Governor Kulongoski should be taking a leadership role in the genital integrity movement by introducing the Oregon MGM Bill through one of his political allies in the House or Senate.

The following letter from U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell was forwarded to us by Ms. Katherine Tylczak in Federal Way, Washington:

Thank you for contacting me with your opposition to the practice of male circumcision. I appreciate the opportunity to learn about your views, and regret the delayed response.

As you know, male circumcision has not received the widespread scrutiny or condemnation directed towards circumcisions performed on females. In the United States, the circumcision of a female minor has been criminalized under federal law. Title 18, section 116 of the United States Code requires that offenders pay a fine or serve a prison term of not more than five years.

I am aware of efforts by certain organizations to prohibit circumcisions performed on males. At this time, a bill that would achieve this has yet to be introduced in the 109th Congress. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should the Senate consider this issue in the future.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. Finally, you may be interested in signing up for my weekly update for Washington state residents. Every Monday, I provide a brief outline about my work in the Senate and issues of importance to Washington state. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Three days after writing this letter, Senator Cantwell urged the Senate to strengthen laws protecting children from sex offenders. Missing from her impassioned speech was any mention of male circumcision - the most common American sex crime of all.

If Senator Cantwell truly wants to protect children from sex offenders, she needs to publicly recognize male circumcision for what it is: sexual assault of male infants. She can begin that process by introducing the MGM Bill to the U.S. Senate.

The following letter from U.S. Rep. Adam Smith was forwarded to us by Ms. Katherine Tylczak in Federal Way, Washington:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns over the medical procedure, circumcision. I appreciated hearing your comments and would like to take a moment to respond.

As you know, circumcision is a medical procedure given to male infants where some or all of the foreskin is removed from the reproductive organ. The practice of circumcision has a long history in many different cultures and countries. Circumcision remains the most common surgical procedures performed on young males, predominantly members of the Muslim and Jewish faiths, but also the majority of Americans, South Koreans and Filipinos.

The reason to circumcise infants vary depending on the culture religion, and history. Proponents point to medical studies that contend circumcision may reduce the rate of HIV and other STD transmissions. However, this issue remains unclear as there is no true consensus in the medical community.

I appreciate you voicing opposition to this procedure. Thank you for bringing my attention to the Genital Mutilation Prohibition Act, which would prohibit this procedure. To my knowledge, this bill has not been introduced in either the House or Senate during the 109th Congressional Session. Please let me know if this proposed legislation is, but as I evaluate other healthcare policies, I will be sure to keep your comments in mind.

Thank you again for taking the time to write me on this important issue. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any additional comments or concerns.

We appreciate Rep. Smith's response, and we hope that we can count on his support if the MGM Bill finds a sponsor and makes it to the House floor for a vote.

The following letter from U.S. Senator Mel Martinez was forwarded to us by Mr. Van Lewis in Panacea, Florida:

I am proud and humbled to serve as Florida's thirty-third United States Senator, and I intend to work hard to represent all Floridians here in the United States Senate. Through your correspondence, I am informed of the issues that are important to you and am better able to serve your interests in the Senate.

I appreciate being apprised on issues of importance to the people of Florida. I will be sure to keep this information in mind as we proceed in the 109th Congress.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to let me know. In addition, for more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.

Although Senator Martinez does not reveal much about his position on circumcision, we do appreciate his response. We will continue to contact his office to push for his public support of the federal MGM Bill proposal.

The following letter from Washington Program Manager of Maternal Infant Health Kathy Chapman (on behalf of Governor Christine Gregoire) was forwarded to us by Ms. Katherine Tylczak in Federal Way, Washington:

Governor Gregoire has asked me to respond to your letter regarding male circumcision. Thank you for sharing your research and views with us.

Circumcision of the male infant is a complex and controversial issue. Over the last twenty years, the medical community has moved from promoting circumcision on all male infants in the newborn period, to not routinely recommending the procedure. This has led to questions and varying responses from parents throughout the country.

In response to questions posed by parents, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued the policy statement regarding circumcision and referred to in your letter. In their policy, the AAP states, "...to make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and provided the opportunity to discuss their decision." The policy continues, "It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision." The AAP also recommends if neonatal circumcision is to be performed, adequate analgesia should be provided.

Given the complexity of the issue, the AAP policy is widely supported, allowing parents to make the decision in concert with their own views and traditions. I appreciate your sharing your views and the continued public discussion of this very important issue.

MGMbill.org urges legislators, physicians, and parents to disregard the outdated AAP Male Circumcision Policy Statement and to refer instead to MGMbill.org's Male Genital Mutilation Policy Statement, which contains more accurate information on the harmful effects of male circumcision.

The following letter from New Jersey Deputy Commissioner/State Epidemiologist Eddy Bresnitz (on behalf of Governor Jon Corzine) was forwarded to us by Mr. John Soemer in Flanders, New Jersey:

Your letter to Governor Corzine concerning the controversial issue of male genital mutilation has been referred to me for reply.

Female circumcision or genital mutilation does not have a medically beneficial purpose. For this reason, it is essential that there be laws to protect females from these procedures in spite of cultural or religious practices.

Male circumcision has been studied and medical benefits of the procedure have been identified. There are also medical conditions which require removal of the foreskin from the penis. Over the past several years, some of the conclusions of these studies have been questioned and there continue to be studies surrounding the issue. While the medical societies do not endorse routine male circumcision on neonates, they do not strictly prohibit it either. The published guidelines place the risk/benefit discussion of this procedure between the medical practitioner and the parent. Also, male circumcision has been a major tenet of two major world religions, Judaism and Islam for thousands of years. The State and US Constitutions supports the rights of people to practice their faith within current secular law.

Circumcision of the male is a surgical procedure and therefore requires informed consent within a medical setting. This means that before any circumcision can be performed in a health care facility in New Jersey, the individual or the parent, in the case of the child, must be informed of the risks and benefits of the procedure and this individual must sign a consent form.

Deputy Commissioner Bresnitz states that female circumcision does not have any medical benefit, but there is actually some evidence that it has a preventive effect against AIDS. Does that mean that doctors and parents should start forcefully circumcising baby girls? Of course not. If a woman wants to have her genitals altered when she reaches the age of consent then that's her decision, and her decision alone. Why aren't men given the same choice?

Although it is true that most medical societies advise against (but do not strictly prohibit) male circumcision, that situation is rapidly changing. The College of Physicians & Surgeons of British Columbia declared in 2004 that "an infant has rights that include security of person, life, freedom and bodily integrity. Routine infant male circumcision is an unnecessary and irreversible procedure." In addition, the British Medical Association 2003 male circumcision guidance statement advises that "The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view."

Regarding Deputy Bresnitz's religious defense, female circumcision is also an important tenet in Islam. Does that mean he supports religious female genital mutilation? Freedom of religion means that the child is free to choose his own religious beliefs. When another person cuts off part of a child's penis in the name of religion, the child's rights have been irreversibly violated.

As far as informed consent, preventive mastectomy would virtually eliminate breast cancer, saving millions of lives each year. Do parents have the right to amputate their daughter's breasts after being informed of the "risks and benefits"? Most people would rightfully consider that to be assault, and amputation of a baby boy's foreskin is no different.

As Deputy Commissioner and State Epidemiologist for the state of New Jersey, it is Mr. Bresnitz's duty to protect the health and welfare of all children in his state. On the issue of protecting infant boys from genital mutilation, he has failed miserably.

The following letter from Washington Rep. Mark Ericks was forwarded to us by Mr. Jacob Dahl in Bothell, Washington:

Thank you for contacting my office and bringing this issue to my attention. I appreciate the insight and information in regards to your bill proposal and will certainly share your comments with my colleagues. I will also forward your bill draft to the Office of Program Research for their review.

I rely on feedback, opinions, and positions on issues to help me with my decisions. I take all such information very seriously whether it is presented in person, through email, or on the phone. Please don't hesitate to contact me in the future if you have further comments or concerns, and again, thank you for taking the time to write.

We welcome Rep. Ericks's response to Jacob's letter. As a representative of all the people in his district, it is Rep. Ericks's responsibility to speak for those who cannot. His reply and planned follow-up action are the first step in fulfilling that responsibility.

The following letter from New Jersey Deputy Commissioner/State Epidemiologist Eddy Bresnitz (on behalf of Governor Jon Corzine) was forwarded to us by Mr. John Soemer in Flanders, New Jersey:

The issue of circumcision has been controversial for some time. There has been debate within both the medical community and the consumer community. The consumer community in New Jersey is made up of individuals from many different cultures including many ethnic and religious backgrounds with some viewing circumcision as a religious rite.

Medical circumcision is a surgical procedure and therefore requires informed consent. This means that before any circumcision can be performed in a health care facility in New Jersey, the individual or the parent, in the case of a child, must be informed of the risks and benefits of the procedure and this individual must sign a consent form.

Although Deputy Commissioner Bresnitz acknowledges that circumcision is controversial, his response exposes his gender bias against male children. No parent can legally consent to having their daughter's genitals altered for religious reasons, and virtually all circumcisions performed in health care facilities are medically unnecessary. Instead of working to find a solution to this important men's health issue by endorsing the New Jersey MGM Bill proposal, Mr. Bresnitz has chosen to look the other way.

The following letter from U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch was forwarded to us by Mr. Trevor Perry in North Logan, Utah:

Thank you for your letter concerning the Male Genital Mutilation Bill proposal. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me.

As you may well know, circumcision is a common practice, performed on more than 50 percent of newborn males in the United States. While several studies have shown that neonatal circumcision may be linked to emotional problems in adulthood, no definitive information has come forth as to the long-term emotional effects that neonatal circumcision may have. As is the case in all elective medical procedures performed on children, parental consent must be given before a doctor can circumcise a newborn child. Ultimately, I believe that parents should decide what is best for their children.

Once again, I thank you for your letter and hope that you will not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding any question or comment you may have.

It's unfortunate that Senator Hatch (who introduced the Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2003) is unwilling to sponsor legislation to protect infant boys from genital mutilation. We also find it discriminatory that a senator who voted to protect girls from circumcision feels that boys are not worthy of the same protection.

If parents cannot legally consent to cutting off any part of their daughter's genitals for medically unnecessary reasons, why should they be able to consent to cutting their sons? We ask Senator Hatch to read some of the letters that we have received from victims of male genital mutilation before he dismisses the long-term physical and emotional effects of circumcision.

The following letter from U.S. Rep. Wayne Gilchrest was forwarded to us by Mr. James Pinkley in Bel Air, Maryland:

Thank you for contacting me about a proposed bill that would prohibit male circumcision. I was glad to hear from you.

As you know, this legislation has not been introduced in Congress. However, I will certainly keep the information you sent me and give it every consideration should pertinent legislation be introduced. I look forward to learning more about this issue, something it is obvious you are very passionate about.

Thank you again for taking the time to write. I hope you will not hesitate to be in touch with further information, or comments or questions about issues in Congress.

We appreciate Rep. Gilchrest's response, and we'll continue to stay in touch with him as the MGM Bill proposal builds support in Congress.

The following letter from Oregon Rep. Greg Macpherson was forwarded to us by Ms. Trish Darner in Medford, Oregon:

Thank you for writing to share your concerns about circumcision. I appreciate you taking the time to forward the attached legislation.

I will save your message and consider your suggestions in the event that legislation moves forward.

As Vice-Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Macpherson would play a pivotal role in preparing the Oregon MGM Bill proposal for a full House vote. We encourage him to discuss our legislation with his committee colleagues so they can familiarize themselves with the issue of male genital mutilation and the damage that it causes to male sexual health.

The following letter from California Assembly Member Wilma Chan was received by Matthew Hess in San Diego, California:

My office has received numerous worthwhile ideas for new legislation for the upcoming session, including your own. Unfortunately, the number of ideas far exceeds the number of bills I am able to introduce in the upcoming session.

I will keep your views in mind should I have an opportunity to consider any future bill that addresses this issue.

Once again, thank you for contacting me and communicating your strong feelings on this matter. If I can be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

We're disappointed that Assembly Member Chan will not be sponsoring the California MGM Bill proposal in 2006. Forced circumcision of male infants affects one out of every three boys in California, making it a top health priority for our state.

MGMbill.org will continue to provide information and materials to Assemblywoman Chan and her staff to emphasize the importance of this health and human rights issue.

The following letter from U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes was forwarded to us by Mr. James Pinkley in Bel Air, Maryland:

Thank you for getting in touch with my office to express your support for legislation that would ban circumcision on boys under the age of 18. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this issue.

While legislation has yet to be introduced on this matter, you may be assured that I will keep your views in mind should the full Senate have the opportunity to consider relevant legislation.

Again, I appreciate your taking the time to share your views. Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding other matters of interest or concern to you in the future.

Senator Sarbanes states on his website that the health and well being of our children should be a national priority. We agree, and we ask Senator Sarbanes to take some initiative by sponsoring the MGM Bill proposal so that our boys will be legally protected from a genital altering surgery that damages their sexual function for life.

The following letter from New York Assembly Member James N. Tedisco was forwarded to us by Michael in Albany, New York:

Thank you for your recent correspondence in support of amending New York State's ban on female genital mutilation to include males. It was a pleasure to hear from you on this matter.

I appreciate you sharing your views and the information that you have provided regarding the proposed legislation creating the "New York State Prohibition of Genital Mutilation Act," which would create a ban on performing genital mutilation, including circumcision on males. Be assured that I will keep your support for this measure in mind during this legislative session.

If you have any questions or further concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Our thanks go out to Assembly Member Tedisco for his response. As Minority Leader of the New York State Assembly, Mr. Tedisco is in a key position to help build support for the New York State MGM Bill proposal among members of his own party. We hope that he chooses to so.

The following letter from Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich was forwarded to us by Mr. James Pinkley in Bel Air, Maryland:

Thank you for your letter regarding genital mutilation. I appreciate the time and effort you have put into writing to me about this issue.

As your Governor, I give serious and thoughtful consideration to all matters that come before me. Accordingly, I will keep your comments and suggestions in mind when considering legislative initiatives before the Maryland General Assembly during the 2006 Legislative Session. I also invite you to visit Maryland's government website at www.maryland.gov. You may use this website to access information on current events, legislative initiatives, and federal, state and local resources as well as contact information so that you may directly communicate with members of the General Assembly.

Thank you again for sharing your views with me. Knowing of your opinion helps guide me to better serve Maryland. Please do not hesitate to contact my office if I may be of any additional assistance.

In 2005, Governor Ehrlich declared in a press release that his administration is serious about providing the tools needed to help our most vulnerable children grow up safe. As the most vulnerable children of all, infants need and deserve protection from medically unnecessary circumcision, and we urge the Governor to publicly support the Maryland MGM Bill proposal now circulating in the General Assembly.

The following letter from Maryland Delegate Don Dwyer was forwarded to us by Mr. James Pinkley in Bel Air, Maryland:

Thank you very much for your letter regarding male circumcision. It is because of constituents such as yourself that I am able to keep in touch with the voting public and understand what issues are truly important to them.

I understand your concern about male circumcision. Unfortunately, because the timeline for submitting new legislation expires today, it will not be possible for me to submit this legislation this session. However, in the future I will consider developing legislation that will outlaw male circumcision.

Thank you again for your letter, if you have any other questions please feel free to contact me.

We're very encouraged that Delegate Dwyer shares our concern regarding male circumcision. MGMbill.org will continue to provide information on circumcision to Del. Dwyer and his staff in preparation for next year's bill season.

The following letter from Virginia Delegate A. Donald McEachin was forwarded to us by Ms. Kari Kilgore in St. Paul, Virginia:

Thanks you for your email regarding the Virginia MGM bill. I appreciate your input and comments and will certainly take them under advisement. Although I have not yet decided how I am going to vote on that bill, you can be assured I will study it carefully.

We appreciate Delegate McEachin's willingness to study the Virginia MGM Bill proposal. Amputation of a healthy, functional body part (the foreskin) is not in any child's best interest, and the Virginia MGM Bill proposal would protect boys from medically unnecessary circumcision until they are old enough to decide for themselves if they want to undergo the procedure as an adult.

The following letter from South Carolina Rep. Nikki Haley was forwarded to us by Ms. Brandy Walters in Lexington, South Carolina:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me in reference to the possibility of MGM legislation. I am a strong advocate for families making decisions on what they feel is best for their family. I admire you for getting involved in this legislation. I would be happy to help you at anytime but I don't feel that I am the right person to help you sponsor this legislation. Thank you for taking the time to contact me. If I can be of service to you or your family at anytime, please don't hesitate to contact me.

While we understand Rep. Haley's support for parental decision making rights, a parent's right to raise a family does not supersede their child's right to be free from physical harm. Male circumcision is medically unnecessary and sexually damaging, which makes it a form of physical assault.

The following letter from South Carolina Rep. Kenneth Clark was forwarded to us by Ms. Brandy Walters in Lexington, South Carolina:

I thank you for your interest and concern but do not share your view. I personally requested circumcision, at age 23, while a Midshipman at the US Naval Academy, under a program for graduating seniors who were allowed to request elective surgery before commissioning. Others had "dumbo ears" trimmed, scars and tattoos removed, etc. Circumcision is not in my mind mutilation, does not effect sexual sensitivity and in fact is cleaner. So while it may not be really needed, it really is a very personal choice. Parents have a right to make that decision for their children or they can delay it till the child is old enough to decide for themself, but it should not be legislated.

Perhaps someone else may agree with you and want to pursue it with you. Thanks for your initiative and concern.

We thank Rep. Clark for sharing his personal story regarding circumcision. Clearly his experience differs from those of other men who reported a significant decline in sexual sensitivity after undergoing adult circumcision.

The South Carolina MGM Bill proposal would not stop any man from having a circumcision if that is his choice. Instead, it would give men a choice by protecting them from being forcefully circumcised until they are old enough to decide for themselves whether or not to undergo this elective surgery.

Rep. Clark wrote in his letter that in addition to choosing circumcision, some of his Midshipmen elected to have their ears cropped. Should parents have the right to crop the ears of their children, too?

The following letter from Missouri Rep. Jeanette Mott Oxford was forwarded to us by Mr. Ariel Stepp in St. Louis, Missouri:

Thanks for drawing this issue to my attention. Intersex rights are important to me, so I will continue to inform myself about MGM. The best time to approach legislators about introducing legislation in Missouri is in summer or fall. We like to pre-file legislation in December or at least get it filed in the first month of Legislative Session. (Legislative Session in MO is Jan.-mid-May.)

I am working on all the bills that I believe I can competently handle at this point, so I will not file an MGM bill in 2006. I also need to research the religious freedom implications as I think the model language is based more on the practice of female genital mutilation. If you'd like to talk about how to organize a grassroots campaign around this issue, I'd be glad to talk with you by phone, e-mail, or in person.

We thank Rep. Oxford for her willingness to explore sponsorship of the Missouri MGM Bill proposal, which would protect all children - female, male, and intersex - from forced genital cutting. As Rep. Oxford reviews the religious freedom implications of a ban on forced circumcision, we remind her that all state and federal female genital mutilation laws protect girls from having any part of their genitals cut or altered in the name of religion, and boys and intersex children deserve the same protection.

The following letter from Massachusetts Rep. Bruce Ayers was forwarded to us by Mr. Charles Antonelli in Quincy, Massachusetts:

We welcome Rep. Ayers' response to our Massachusetts MGM Bill proposal. In the coming year we will work with Rep. Ayers and his to staff to ensure that they are fully informed of the harmful effects of male circumcision.

The following letter from South Carolina Senator Larry Martin was forwarded to us by Ms. Brandy Walters in Lexington, South Carolina: