Opinion: Protecting privates

EDITOR's NOTE: This article originally published in The Advocate on Sept. 14, 2011. To view original post, visit AccentAdvocate.com.

A second wall of separation needs to be erected.

This protective barrier needs to shield children from those who have the greatest influence on their lives — their parents.

San Francisco resident Lloyd Schofield tried to prevent the city's youngest and most vulnerable from their gripping rulers, but his efforts were cut down before the climax of election season.

Schofield, 58, proposed a law making it illegal to "circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years."

The federal government outlawed female circumcision, or female genital mutilation, in 1996 and the World Health Organization classifies the act as a violation of human rights.

"The practice also violates a person's rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death," according to the WHO website.

If the mutilation of one child's genitals is universally recognized as a violation of human rights, it is a violation to mutilate any child's genitals.

But male circumcision is not only accepted, it is promoted for religious and social reasons with insignificant medical benefits.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi ruled in July that Schofield's proposed ban violates state law — cities have no authority to regulate medicine or its practice.

Schofield's "intactivism" movement to end male circumcision rubbed people the wrong way, however, and caused legislative backlash.

Giorgi's ruling and analysis quickly inspired a pair of Southern California lawmakers to ban circumcision bans.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) and Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles) introduced legislation preventing the criminalization of circumcision to their chambers in Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, respectively, in response to Schofield's proposition and Giorgi's overruling.

According to Assemblyman Gatto in the headline of a press release, Assembly Bill 768 prevents "frivolous attacks on religious, parental and medical choice."

But interfering with the right to choose is common practice for lawmakers. Oklahoma voters approved a ballot measure last November banning American judges from considering Islamic or international law when ruling. In April, the French enacted a nationwide ban of burqas. California voters justified voting against Proposition 8 three years ago, citing religious and cultural taboos.

Gatto's bill passed Sept. 7 and awaits Gov. Jerry Brown's signature. Sherman's House Resolution 2400, "Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act," is in the introductory phase of legislation, being reviewed by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The eight-term congressman's bill not only boasts exaggerated and unfounded medical claims, but also exploits two of the world's largest religions to deflect opposition and dissent.

The first finding in Section 2 of HR 2400 says, "Male circumcision carries significant medical benefits, including lower risk of sexually transmitted diseases, certain kinds of infection, and overall improved hygiene."

This is a blatant lie and asserts unfair assumptions.

The medical benefits of circumcision are scientifically proven to be minimal, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

"Benefits are not sufficient to recommend all infant boys be circumcised," said its website, HealthyChildren.org.

The WHO, on the contrary, supports circumcision to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS.

However, the WHO, the United Nation's authority on global health, emphasizes, "Male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence."

The WHO promotes circumcision as only one element of a comprehensive package for fighting HIV/AIDS, which includes more significant preventions — exposing more men to safe sex practices, prevention and counseling.

All measures to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS across the world are important and should be discussed, but the WHO is not referring to America when it suggests circumcision to prevent HIV.

America is nowhere near experiencing an HIV epidemic on the same scale as other countries, voiding Sherman's first finding to Congress and making HIV prevention an insufficient reason to promote circumcision.

The California Medical Association supports AB 768, citing a disruption in the doctor-patient relationship.

It is true that government's role is not to regulate or limit medicine, from therapy to abortion or medical marijuana, and doctors should perform whatever procedure they think is best for patients.

However, in the aforementioned instances, the decision makers are the doctor and a conscious, consenting adult. This is the not the case for infant circumcision, a procedure more cosmetic than medically necessary.

When combined with the fact that most babies receive either insufficient anesthesia or none at all, contemporary medicine cannot justify circumcision practices in their current form.

The second finding in HR 2400 explains, "Male circumcision is an important part of many world religions, including Judaism and Islam, and observers have safely embraced its practice for generations."

Religious superstitions and rituals should never be the sole basis for medical laws, and this situation epitomizes an obvious cherry-picking mentality for separation of church and state.

Sherman says Jewish children must be circumcised within eight days of birth, save for medical emergencies.

But a medical emergency should be the only reason to perform that operation.

Additionally, HR 2400 protects the parents' right to choose to raise their child according to a particular holy book and its references to a child's family jewels.

But there is no mention of the child's choice.

After the location, time and name of a newborn, religion is one of the last lifestyle choices decided by parents. If that boy's parents are Jewish or Muslim, he has — and, as Sherman suggests, deserves — no choice in his circumcision.

Scriptures calling for circumcision contradict the notion that God created humans in His image. Theology also asserts thousands of years of human assumptions as wiser than millions of years of primate evolution. In fact, the foreskin is not a superfluous body part.

The two concerns regarding circumcision are medical and traditional, yet neither provides an undisputed, significant benefit for circumcising infants.

Binding a child to the laws of a religion he did not choose and cutting his body in the name of said religion is callous and appalling.

If by the time a person reaches the age of consent for a tattoo, piercing or other forms of body markings and mutilation and wishes for a doctor or religious leader to perform a circumcision to feel closer to God or for any reason beyond immediate health concerns, that is a different matter.

But children represent the most vulnerable among the population and infants have no say in the choices of their parents, which, in this case, can literally leave a lifelong scar.