Congressman To Introduce Bill To Protect Male Circumcision Rights

A new bill aims to cut short a proposed ban on circumcision in San Francisco.

US. Representative Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) will introduce the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011 to prevent S.F. and other municipalities from banning male circumcision, which is religious obligation for Jewish males and is a common Muslim and Christian practice.

Sherman, who is Jewish, currently has one co-sponsor on the bill, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the first Muslim elected to Congress, JTA reports.

"The Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011 ensures that Jewish and Muslim families will continue to be able to enjoy the free exercise of their religious beliefs," Sherman said in a statement, adding that proponents of a ban have an obligation to provide compelling medical evidence against male circumcision. In fact, he said, the medical literature shows the opposite.

Announcement of the bill comes as the San Francisco "intactivist" effort heats up. Voters won't be able to weigh in until November, but the anti-circumcision movement is already gaining support.

Matt Hess, president of San Diego-based group MGM Bill (MGM stands for "Male Genital Mutilation"), recently raised claims of anti-Semitism after the release of a second issue of his comic, "Foreskin Man," which featured a sinister Orthodox Jewish villain by the name of Monster Mohel.

The San Francisco effort would ban circumcision for males under the age of 18, carrying a fine of $1,000 and up to one year in prison.

Comments

[Landin]

09:40 PM on 07/11/2011

Some sanity from Washington..............

[Tulipss]

07:54 PM on 07/15/2011

Insanity.

[Landin]

10:35 AM on 07/16/2011

It will never be illegal....get over it! Some people still have class in this country and it isn't the foreskinners!

[Uncutistheway]

06:14 PM on 07/11/2011

The foreskin is not extra skin, but a part of the penis, which rolls back when erect, adds girth, has nerve endings and works in unison with the penis.

[Landin]

09:39 PM on 07/11/2011

It adds no girth and most still cover the nob! A foreskin only gets in the way of great sex. Uncircumcised males basically masturbate inside their partner. When you are circumcised you give and receive direct and pure stimulation, like god wants it.....Not some half baked sex act where only the guy gets off in less than a minute! So sad you are so clueless....you are just another insecure uncut guy!

[Rodrigo Girao]

04:31 AM on 07/12/2011

Yeah, keep telling yourself that, it keeps yourself safe from facing the harsh truth: you're deprived of the most sensitive part of your genitals.

[Tulipss]

01:17 AM on 07/14/2011

Go do some research instead of trying to make your opinion into facts. The uncircumcised penis is supposed to work the way nature made it work. It does not masturbate inside their partner because the skin goes back and only moves a short distance back and forth keeping the lubrication inside it. It doesn't pull over the head of the penis completely and if it does that means the guy doesn't know how to have sex properly or doesn't have much experience. Cut men lasting longer is a myth. Even if he did last longer, the dry and and abrasive sex would be too painful to continue longer. It is better when both women and men have the same feeling in their genitals and cut men only have at least 75 % of feeling instead of 100%.

[Rodrigo Girao]

02:53 AM on 07/11/2011

So much for "freedom of belief" when you're imposing your beliefs onto a child's body with a knife.

[Landin]

11:55 AM on 07/14/2011

Did your parents baptise you and celebrate christmas and easter (both with Pagan roots)? Having an uncircumcised boy would be like wearing clothing from Walmart which would never happen. I have never even been inside a Walmart!

[Tulipss]

05:03 PM on 07/14/2011

That is ridiculous . How would you know what it feels like to have an uncircumcised penis. You can only assume and guess, but your assumption is wrong. you say you have 15 years old nephew but it is you who sounds like 15. Your 15 year old nephew called it an anteater in the locker room because he saw a penis that was covere and not exposed like the cut one. When the uncut penis becomes erect you can barely notice the skin because it goes back as far as you want it to go and it looks circumcised. What does a 15 year old know about foreskin and sex? He is probably a virgin and has no idea of his own immaturity.

[Tulipss]

01:20 AM on 06/27/2011

NATURAL VAGINA + NATURAL PENIS = NATURAL PLEASURE.

[JackieNO]

05:31 PM on 06/23/2011

So much of the discussion of cutting off parts of a baby boys penis fails to mention that pleasure giving nerves are cut. The kids sensory system is altered. Many in the US do not understand the main function of the parts cut off. These penis parts provide the owner with pleasure and sexual function. Many think it is "only skin" and is not sensitive. The parts provide touch sensation akin to fingertips but there is also stretch pleasure sensing and this is not anywhere else on the male.

I am sick of people posting that sexual pleasure before and after prepuce amputation is subjective blah blah blah. The issue is very clear. The parts cut off have stretch and touch sensors. One touches or is touched at these parts, one stretches or one is stretched at these parts and the result is pleasure. Remove the parts, the result is removal of pleasure from ones life for good. What is subjective?

Circumcision is a weird thing a cutting off of erogenous tissue. It is a very creepy thing to do to a baby.

[yahtbrkr]

07:28 PM on 06/21/2011

The funny thing is i read the article that SF is becoming a childless city....so much for the hippies stomping out circumcision!

[Todd70]

12:47 AM on 06/21/2011

I think circumcising baby boys should be illegal for the same reason it is illegal to cut any other healthy body parts off babies. No medical organization in the world says that circumcising baby boys does more good than harm, so I don't think it is justifiable to circumcise baby boys for health reasons. People just use claimed health benefits as an excuse. I think it should be against the law to circumcise baby boys, but I think there should be an exception in the law to allow Muslims and Jews to do religious circumcisions though, only because otherwise there would be too much protest from them.

[Tulipss]

12:29 AM on 06/27/2011

So what if there is protest. Sexism should not be allowed in this country or else we should let the Muslims cut girls as well. Why should Jews have an exemption but Muslims should not. What if Jews were cutting one eyelid and started protests and riots on the street then they would be arrested. There were many other barbaric things that they stopped doing so why not circumcision?.

[Todd70]

12:12 PM on 06/27/2011

Since they weren't able to outlaw Muslims circumcising little boys in Europe, I don't think there could be much success outlawing religious circumcisions in the U.S. Hopefully San Fran will set a precedent that many more cities and even states will follow, and I think San Fran would be a much more successful precedent if there was an exception for religious circumcisions. But even though San Fran doesn't have an exception for religious circumcisions, I am very hopeful that they succeed and that they are a very successful precedent. Protecting all little boys from genital mutilation would best if that can be done.

[Todd70]

12:20 AM on 06/21/2011

The infant male circumcision rate in California is only around 20%. So people in California who believe it is so much better to circumcise, you might want to do some research to see why 80% of California parents protect their baby boys from circumcision.

[sjbeacher]

01:47 AM on 06/21/2011

It is 33% and 67% of babies born in CA are Mexican and they don't circumcise. Whites only make up 17% of births,,,,,I bet white circumcision is still 90%! Who wants their kid to have a Mexican penis.......Across the country we have a problem with the Mexican birth rate! We need to deport the animals and have troops on the border!

[Todd70]

11:44 AM on 06/21/2011

The latest National Hospital Discharge Survey which was done a few years ago, showed that the infant male circumcision rate in California was about 20%, the national rate was about 56%, and if I remember right the national rate for hispanics was 30 some percent.

Last year a major study which was reported by a CDC official at an AIDS conference showed that the U.S. national infant male circumcision rate has fallen to 32.5%.

[Gonzo36]

06:31 PM on 06/20/2011

Common Foreskin Problems Part 1:

Conditions that may affect the foreskin include:
Inflammation – sore and red foreskin. Common causes include forced retraction, irritants such as bubble baths or dirty nappies.
Infection – the most common include posthitis and balanitis. Posthitis is infection of the foreskin, usually caused by fungus thriving in the hot and moist conditions. Balanitis is infection of the foreskin and glans, and is usually caused by poor hygiene. Smegma encourages the growth of infection-causing germs.
Chronic infections – for some males, posthitis or balanitis tends to recur. A complication of chronic infections is scar tissue, which could stick the foreskin to the glans and make retraction impossible. Chronic infections of the penis and foreskin also increase the risk of urinary tract infections. Repeated kidney infections can affect kidney function.

[altoplano]

07:24 PM on 06/20/2011

Common foreskin problems: my religion tells me it must be removed.

[yahtbrkr]

02:29 PM on 06/21/2011

More common: Mexican's invading the USA with their nasty Foreskins!

[DeuxExMachina]

10:22 PM on 06/20/2011

So being cut protects you from all and sundry UTIs???
Ha! ha! ha!....
You pulling your third leg too much.....

[Gonzo36]

11:20 PM on 06/20/2011

Dont take my word on it. There are actual studies that prove it!

In 1982 it was reported that 95% of UTIs in boys aged 5 days to 8 months were in uncircumcised infants [Ginsburg & McCracken, 1982]. This was confirmed by Wiswell in 1982 and a few years later Wiswell and colleagues found that in 5261 infants born at one US Army hospital, 4% of UTI cases were in uncircumcised males, but was only 0.2% in those who were circumcised [Wiswell et al., 1985]. This relatively captive population in Hawaii was said to be more reliable than the rate reported for hospital admissions [Wiswell, 2000].

Wiswell then went on to examine the records for 427,698 infants (219,755 boys) born in US Armed Forces hospitals from 1975-79 and found that the uncircumcised had an 11-fold higher incidence of UTIs [Wiswell & Geschke, 1989]. During this decade the frequency of circumcision in the USA decreased from 84% to 74% and this decrease was associated with an increase in rate of UTI [Wiswell et al., 1987]. Reviews by others in the mid-80s concluded there was a lower incidence in circumcised boys [Roberts, 1986; Lohr, 1989].

[Gonzo36]

06:31 PM on 06/20/2011

Common Foreskin Problems Part 2:

Phimosis – the foreskin is abnormally tight, which prevents it from retracting. This can cause recurrent balanitis because good hygiene is difficult or impossible. An erection may cause the foreskin to split and bleed. The tight foreskin can also hinder urination – in some cases, the foreskin fills up with urine like a little balloon. Phimosis is the most common reason for circumcision after infancy.
Paraphimosis – permanently retracted foreskin. The foreskin gathers like a tight rubber band around the penis, causing swelling and pain. This condition is the second most common reason for adult circumcision.
Tumour – rarely, abnormal growths develop on the foreskin. In some cases, the tumour is cancerous. Penile cancer is extremely rare in circumcised men.
Zipper trauma – the foreskin (or other parts of the genitals, commonly the scrotum) gets caught in a zipper. Wearing underpants is the best prevention.

[altoplano]

07:25 PM on 06/20/2011

Hah, that's so funny. You realize that each of these is exceedingly rare, right? It's like saying, "I'm going to remove my kid's foot so he won't get athlete's foot".

I think the real issue that circumcision address for you is a religious one. Stop pretending otherwise.

[Gonzo36]

07:32 PM on 06/20/2011

So they are rare? So what? They are still problems that will need to be addressed by the poor soul that has them. And one can have more then one reason to be for or against an issue. I have now shown you why it is important to Judaism, and I have shown you there are many medical benefits, both widespread and rare, that come from circumcision, which is why to should stay legal in the United States. If someone isnt Jewish (or IS Jewish and chooses otherwise) and they decide the benefit of the foreskin outweighs the benefit of circumcision, then that is their choice- just as it is my choice to decide both the religious and/or medical benefits outweigh the problems of foreskin.

[altoplano]

07:57 PM on 06/20/2011

Why don't you remove the scrotum also? That would prevent any additional zipper trauma.

[Gonzo36]

08:04 PM on 06/20/2011

Frank

[Gonzo36]

08:43 PM on 06/20/2011

Oops! I meant franks and beans! LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evdbooUlBas

[Gonzo36]

05:38 PM on 06/20/2011

Circumcision can help prevent Trichomonas in Women:

Trichomoniasis — often called "trich" — is the most common, curable STD in young, sexually active women. The infection is caused by a parasite called Trichomonas vaginalis, and it is spread through sexual intercourse or genital contact.

Results from a randomized controlled trial in Uganda, showed reduced Trichomonas vaginalis (adjusted prevalence risk ratio [adjPRR] 0.52), bacterial vaginosis (adjPRR 0.60) and severe bacterial vaginosis (prevalence RR 0.39), as well as genital ulceration (adjusted PRR 0.78) in women whose male partner was in the circumcised arm of the trial [Gray et al., 2009a]. Thus the risk of Trichomonas vaginalis was 48% lower in the wives of the men who were in the circumcised arm of the trial. It was suggested that the moist nature of the subpreputial space might enhance the survival of Trichomonas

[altoplano]

06:15 PM on 06/20/2011

Another condition that can be addressed with proper hygiene.

Proper hygiene = soap and water.

No mutilation necessary.

[Gonzo36]

06:21 PM on 06/20/2011

You are assuming all men clean their stink all the time. Well guess what? Studies prove they dont clean very well all the time:

A survey in London of 150 uncircumcised and 75 circumcised men found 4% of circumcised compared with 26% of uncircumcised men had inferior genital hygiene behavior, i.e., did not always wash the entire penis (the uncircumcised men did not always wash under the foreskin) [O'Farrell et al., 2005].

[Tulipss]

12:53 AM on 06/27/2011

ALL LIES. Any virus enters the opening of the penis and enters the bloodstream regardless of whether you have foreskin or not. Don't compare men in Uganda to USA men who are able to take daily showers. Women should not be having sex with homeless men who live on park benches or men who have bad hygiene habits. That is no reason to circumcise all infants.

[Gonzo36]

05:25 PM on 06/20/2011

Circumcision can help prevent Chlamydia in Women:

Chlamydia trachomatis is the second most frequent STI (HPV being the most common) and is the most common bacterial STI. The World Health Organization estimates there are 92 million new cases annually, with 3 million in the USA, where annual cost for care is $2 billion [Peipert, 2003]. In Australia, Chlamydia infections have more than tripled between 1999 and 2006, reaching record levels [Kang et al., 2006; Anonymous, 2007c].

Women whose male partner is uncircumcised have been found to exhibit a 5.6-fold increased risk of infection with Chlamydia trachomatis than women whose partner was circumcised [Castellsague et al., 2005]. Thus in this large multi-nation study circumcision reduced the risk 82%. Data were identical for women who had only ever had one sexual partner. The study involved 305 couples in 5 countries from different parts of the world. A prospective study of 5,925 women in Uganda, Zimbabwe and Thailand found no significant difference, however, in risk of Chlamydia or gonorrhoea [Turner et al., 2008].

[altoplano]

06:25 PM on 06/20/2011

Proper

Hygiene

Soap

and

Water

[Gonzo36]

06:28 PM on 06/20/2011

Which. Was. Readily. Available. When. These. Studies. Took. Place.

And yet it seems the men didnt do such a good job at keeping themselves clean, did they?

[Gonzo36]

05:22 PM on 06/20/2011

Circumcision can help reduce prostate cancer:

In the USA 1 in 6 men get prostate cancer during their lifetime [American, 2005a]. Annual cases in 2006 were 0.25 million [Laumann et al., 1997]. Average age of diagnosis is 70 years [National, 2006a] and circumcision rate for these men (born in 1933–1947) is approx. 60% [Laumann et al., 1997]. Across the range of a 1.6-2.0 fold increase in risk, calculations show that for these 40% of uncircumcised US men at the average age of prostate cancer diagnosis, there are 24–40% (45–67,000) more prostate cancer cases due to lack of circumcision [Morris et al., 2007].

[altoplano]

06:27 PM on 06/20/2011

How disingenuous. The reason may not be "due to lack of circumcision", but rather, because of bad hygiene. There is no way to conclusively say that it is related to circumcision. BTW, please provide complete citations.

[Gonzo36]

06:39 PM on 06/20/2011

You mean bad hygiene on the uncircumcised penis? That would be the WHOLE POINT of getting a circumcision- to not have to deal with the smegma that grows under the foreskin creating a petri dish of germs and foulness. And once again, you notice that soap and water was plentiful in the years the study took place. So what were you saying about having to assume men took care of their units?

[Tulipss]

01:33 AM on 06/27/2011

LIES. Foreskins don't cause cancer. The prostate is not even located on the penis. This is ridiculous. If a penis is not washed for several weeks the most that would happen is it would become very red and would start to burn, but even old men eventually wash their penis.

[Gonzo36]

05:15 PM on 06/20/2011

Circumcision helps prevent cervical cancer in female partners:

In the USA there are 12,000 new cases and 4,000 deaths from cervical cancer each year [Centers, 2006]. In 2002, a large, well-designed multinational study by International Agency for Research on Cancer published in the New England Journal of Medicine has irrefutably implicated the foreskin in cervical cancer [Castellsague et al., 2002]. This involved 1,913 couples in 5 global locations in Europe, Asia and South America. Penile HPV was found in 20% of uncircumcised, but only 5% of circumcised men (odds ratio = 0.37). The women were more than 5.6 times more likely to have cervical cancer if their partner was uncircumcised. This was seen in monogamous women whose male partner had had 6 or more sexual partners (adjusted odds ratio = 0.42), but circumcision was also protective in women whose partner had an intermediate sexual behavior risk index (odds ratio = 0.50).

Genital HPV types are highly infectious and can infect skin throughout the genital region. Interestingly, the uncircumcised men washed their genitals more often after intercourse, but the circumcised men had better penile hygiene, when examined by a physician. So why are uncircumcised men much more highly infected? One suggested reason was that the more delicate, easily-infected, mucosal lining of their foreskin is pulled back during intercourse, and so is wholly exposed to vaginal secretions of an infected woman, so infecting them, and increasing risk of infection to any future woman the uncircumcised man has sex with.

[altoplano]

06:15 PM on 06/20/2011

This one can be addressed by soap and water and condoms.

No mutilation necessary.

[Gonzo36]

06:40 PM on 06/20/2011

And yet these men had plenty of soap and water and condoms when they gave their partners HPV. Is there a reason you think soap was just invented and now all men will take care of their junk? Because these studies prove otherwise.

[Tulipss]

01:41 AM on 06/27/2011

ALL LIES. There are studies that show that circumcised men have more std's and aids because they lack the immunological system of cells that are in the foreskin that fight bacteria and viruses. That might explain why the rate of aids in Europe is less than in circumcised USA.. Aids is on the rise in the middle east even though 90 % of men are circumcised.

[cylixdemas]

02:53 PM on 06/20/2011

"Male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection" - PMID [peer reviewed medical journal] pubmed.gov

[altoplano]

03:08 PM on 06/20/2011

Condoms reduce the risk of HIV transmission.

[yahtbrkr]

02:31 PM on 06/21/2011

You realize condoms were designed for a circumcised penis.....they don't work well on the imperfected model......

[cylixdemas]

04:57 PM on 06/21/2011

You first fact of the day!

[Jaime Delgado]

04:03 PM on 06/20/2011

"When the raw data are combined, a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis (odds ratio (OR)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.12). Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded." - R. S. Van Howe MD FAAP
Department of Pediatrics

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/

[Gonzo36]

04:50 PM on 06/20/2011

On 28 March 2007 the World Health Organization and UNAIDS issued a statement endorsing circumcision in prevention of the spread of HIV [World, 2007]. This stated "the efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male HIV transmission has now been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention". It went on to recommend circumcision for men and boys. Infant circumcision was also advocated because it is "less complicated and risky".

[sjbeacher]

01:50 AM on 06/21/2011

LMAO! Go back to Mexico.......