| |

For Immediate Release - January 8, 2008
•
Contact: Matthew Hess, President
•
comments@mgmbill.org
Should
Circumcision be for Adults Only?
Proposed legislation would require patients to be
eighteen years old before undergoing circumcision.
SAN DIEGO, California –
MGMbill.org is again calling on Congress and state lawmakers
to enact legislation that would require men to be
eighteen years old before undergoing circumcision.
Yesterday, more than 2,500 elected federal and state
officials received proposed bills via email, fax, and
mail from the group’s state offices as part of an
ongoing effort to make circumcision laws gender neutral.
“The legislation that we are proposing would give boys the
same protection from genital cutting that girls have
enjoyed since 1997,” said Matthew Hess, the group’s
president. “Circumcision removes erogenous tissue in
both sexes and results in a measurable loss of sexual
feeling. It is a traumatic and disfiguring surgery that
should not be performed on children unless there is a
clear, compelling, and immediate medical need –
period.”
Genital cutting of girls has been prohibited in the U.S.
since 1997 when the Female Genital Mutilation Act took
effect, requiring women to be eighteen years old before
consenting to any type of genital surgery. The law has
been credited with helping to keep forced female
circumcision from spreading to the U.S. from Africa and
the Middle East, where it is much more common. Boys were
not included in the law, however, and as a result
circumcision is still performed on nearly 60% of U.S.
newborn males by physicians, religious practitioners, or
family members.
The practice is undergoing renewed
legal scrutiny now
that a handful of physicians and health officials are
calling for mass circumcision to control the spread of
AIDS in Africa. South Africa’s Parliament stepped in and
passed the Children’s Act, which took effect in July and
gives significant legal protection to boys under the age
of sixteen from being forcefully circumcised. A month
later, the Tasmanian Children’s Commissioner in
Australia urged the state government to ban medically
unnecessary circumcision of boys, calling it an abuse of
human rights. The Australian Medical Association has
generally backed the Commissioner’s position.
A Frankfurt, Germany, regional appeals court pushed
circumcision further into the legal gray area when it
found that the circumcision of an 11-year-old Muslim boy
without his approval was an unlawful personal injury.
And in November, the Oregon Supreme Court heard a case
filed by the mother of a 12-year-old boy trying to
protect him from being circumcised by his father for
religious reasons (the court’s decision is pending).
“I feel strongly that boys have the same legal rights as
girls to grow up with their genital organs left intact,”
said Michelle Richardson, director of MGMbill.org’s
Texas state office. “If a man wants to undergo
circumcision when he becomes an adult, then that option
will always be there for him. But the decision should be
his to make, and his alone. Circumcision is not
medically necessary, and it can have far reaching sexual
and emotional side effects. It should not be forced onto
anyone, and that includes children.”
Ron Low, director of MGMbill.org’s Illinois state office in
Northbrook, is all too familiar with those side effects.
“I hear from men all around the country about the damage
caused by circumcision,” said Low, who owns and operates
TLCTugger.com, a foreskin restoration device
manufacturer. “They write to complain about loss of
sensitivity, about pain during sex, and about how angry
they are that a part of their body was taken from them
without their consent. Although some of the damage from
circumcision can eventually be reversed through
non-surgical foreskin restoration, even the best
restoration will not make the thousands of specialized
nerve endings grow back. Those are gone forever.”
State legislatures that received MGM Bill proposals yesterday
included California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana,
Maryland, New York, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, and Washington. A federal version was also
submitted to President Bush and all members of the U.S.
Congress. |