|
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
March 3rd, 2010
|
|||
|
|||
Massachusetts MGM Bill Hearing 2010-03-02 Eyewitness summary of proceedings
by Peter W. Adler, MA, JD
This Tuesday the Judiciary Committee of the Massachusetts legislature held a public hearing on Senate 1777, a bill that would make it criminal to cut anyone’s genitals before age 18 except when medically necessary. MGMBill.org’s spokesman Matthew Hess said that identical bills are pending in Congress and 44 other states. Massachusetts became the first state to hold a hearing on a gender neutral bill. The bill’s sponsor, Charles Antonelli, noted that the subject is uncomfortable and emotionally charged, but important to discuss openly. A 1996 federal law made female genital cutting (FGC) criminal, and 14 states have enacted similar statutes. At issue then is whether to abolish male circumcision (MGC). Circumcision rates have dropped from the 90% plus range to 55% today, but this still represents more than one million American boys per year. Eighteen people testified in support of the bill and three against. Beginning with the proponents, Georganne Chapin, an attorney and Executive Director of Intact America, testified that the foreskin is important to normal sexual function, and that it is painful and risky to remove it. The U.S. is the only Western country to circumcise boys routinely, and no medical association in the world recommends it. She called it unethical to remove a body part that might many years later become diseased. She said that more than 500 supporters have submitted testimony through Intact America. Matthew Hess said that articles, books and films are making the public aware that that MGC, like FGC, causes physical and psychological harm. We do not remove breasts, he said, even though breast cancer is common. He cited a court ruling that parents are free to make martyrs of themselves, but not of their children. A physician’s assistant argued that doctors suppress evidence that circumcision is harmful, and that it is difficult for them to admit to causing harm. Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Circumcision Resource Center, said that the surgery traumatizes infants, who sometimes go into shock, and can cause long-term psychological harm similar to post-traumatic stress syndrome. Anthony Losquadro called circumcision medieval and barbaric, and easy money for doctors, who also sell foreskins to biomedical companies. He argued that innocent infants have a right to make their own decisions about their own bodies as adults, and that government has a duty to protect them. He called circumcision a cure in search of a disease, and said that it has no medical benefit. He argued that the false belief that it protects men from STD’s and AIDS will do more harm than good, and undo years of safe sex education. Two scientists supported the bill. One said that the mobile foreskin protects the glans, and that its movement is plainly pleasurable. A Massachusetts physics teacher said that female and male genitalia look identical during development, and that both deserve protection. He said that male sexual organs evolved over 65 to 100 million years, that the foreskin is 15 square inches in size in an adult, has 240 feet and tens of thousands of nerve fibers and fine touch receptors, and is the most sensitive part of the penis. Similarly, the authors of the book “Sex As Nature Intended It” argued that circumcision makes normal sex impossible and blunts sexual response. In testimony that clearly made the female co-Chair squeamish, one author said that the penile shaft is internal, and permits a “gliding action” that benefits both man and woman, reducing friction and preventing loss of lubrication, and that women are more likely to climax during sex with an intact man, which studies show women prefer. Speaking for the opponents, a physician, Thomas Friedman called the bill an abrogation of parents’ rights. He expressed concern that doctors could be criminally liable for tattoos and piercings. Two Jewish mothers also opposed the bill. One said that circumcision is mandated by God and part of the Jewish faith. She called the bill an assault on religion and the rights of parents. The other said that what the Bible commands cannot be mutilation and should not be infringed upon, and that her son showed no sign of discomfort during the procedure. A Jewish proponent, by contrast, was devastated that her son had been circumcised in the hospital without her consent. Laurie Evans, a Jewish director of New York’s NOCIRC chapter, also countered that she left her son intact despite intense pressure, and that he was grateful. She said that many Jewish mothers confide to having been horrified by their boy’s circumcision ceremony. She said that the ceremony initially involved removing only a small amount of foreskin, not all of it, and that several Jewish organizations oppose circumcision. She urged the panel to watch a circumcision and spoke of botched circumcisions. Finally, Peter Adler, an attorney, argued that circumcision is already illegal, regardless of any “pros and cons” and parental beliefs. He argued that it constitutes criminal assault in Massachusetts, child abuse - which includes impairing any organ or risking harm - and violates human rights law guaranteeing children security of the person and freedom from cruelty. Congress also found any FGC to violate constitutional and statutory laws, which Mr. Adler argued includes the federal and state Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy and bodily integrity. He argued that since both constitutions apply to every person, boys have the same constitutional rights as girls. He also argued that protecting females without giving equal protection to males violates the Equal Protection clause. He said the law is clear that parents can hold religious beliefs but not risk harm to their children (circumcision risks death), and that children have their own right to choose a religion. He also argued that parental consent to unnecessary surgery is invalid. He said that the legislature is sworn to uphold the federal and state constitutions and laws, and thus has a duty to pass the bill. The legislature certainly gave the public a full opportunity to present its views, for and against. An article in the Boston Herald called passage of the bill a “long shot”, and it could be killed in committee. On the other hand, the historic Massachusetts Constitution, a model for the U.S. Constitution, recognizes every person’s right to freedom, equality, enjoyment of life and liberty, and safety and happiness. Massachusetts highest court extended marriage rights to same gender couples based on that Declaration of Rights. Massachusetts also took the lead in passing universal health. So we shall see, perhaps on March 17, when the committee expects to decide the fate of the bill. ----- (This is the testimony I gave orally to the Judiciary Committee, a possible alternative Op Ed piece.) I am Peter Adler, a Massachusetts attorney. It is a privilege to address this famous legislature on such an important matter. Congress and 14 states have made female genital cutting illegal. At issue is whether to ban male circumcision as well. The legal memorandum I have submitted argues that circumcision is already illegal, even with parental consent. This makes your job much easier. You need not address the merits of circumcision, consider parents’ beliefs, or create new law. This bill is needed, however, to enforce the law. First, cutting anyone’s genitals without consent is criminal assault. There is no exception for boys. We may not prosecute circumcision, but only because it is routine, as were slavery and discrimination against women. Secondly, in banning female genital cutting, Congress found that it violates the 14th amendment right to privacy and security of the person. The Massachusetts Constitution contains the same provision. Since everyone has the same rights, both female and male genital cutting are unconstitutional. The 14th amendment also prohibits protecting females without extending equal protection of the law to males. The government is sworn to uphold the Constitution, and thus I believe to abolish all genital cutting. Third, circumcision is unlawful child abuse, defined in Massachusetts as “impairment of any organ”, and causing or even risking physical or emotional injury. Fourth, circumcision violates human rights law adopted by the United States, including the right of minors to security of the person and freedom from cruel treatment. Parental consent does not make circumcision legal. The law does not allow parents to expose their children to harm for religious reasons. Parental consent to what medical associations agree is unnecessary surgery is also invalid. Congress found that banning genital cutting does not violate parents’ religious rights. Moreover, children have their own rights to choose a religion. Ignoring the law, if anything is sacred, our bodies are sacred, and our most fundamental values are freedom and equality. We should let each man decide for himself whether circumcision is such a good idea. Men have decided that it is a terrible idea, as reportedly only one intact man in 10,000 opts for circumcision! Your vote will let our defenseless boys reach adulthood intact to use their most private parts as nature intended; will help abolish this gruesome, unnecessary surgery nationwide; and will save taxpayers’ money as well. 
|
|
#3
March 4th, 2010
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Massachusetts MGM Bill Hearing 2010-03-02 Eyewitness summary of proceedings
Another eyewitness summary of the hearing, from Chaz, the Massachusetts citizen who submitted the bill.
http://mc4bbs.livejournal.com/213408.html
|
|
#4
March 4th, 2010
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Massachusetts MGM Bill Hearing 2010-03-02 Eyewitness summary of proceedings
The parental rights argument should just be thrown into the garbage. It can easily be contradicted with something as simple as murdering a child.
All that's left is religion, basically. But I really liked the argument that circumcising a Jewish baby could potentially violate his freedom of religion. I know many have been feeling that this bill is a longshot and hasn't got a chance at passing, but I don't know, I'm starting to lean the other way.
|
|
#5
March 4th, 2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Massachusetts MGM Bill Hearing 2010-03-02 Eyewitness summary of proceedings
After reading all that it makes me a LOT more optimistic for this bill. The people against the bill clearly had no ground to stand on. The facts are for the bill.
This is still a longshot but I'm definitely rooting for it!
|
|
#6
March 5th, 2010
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Massachusetts MGM Bill Hearing 2010-03-02 Eyewitness summary of proceedings
Here is my testimony, as presented:
Public Hearing Testimony of Charles Antonelli, Massachusetts State Office, MGMbill.org for The Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary concerning Bill Number S. 1777 on March 2, 2010 I would like to extend my appreciation to the Commonwealth for allowing me to speak at this hearing today. My name is Charles Antonelli, and I am here to testify in favour of Senate Bill 1777. I understand the hesitation and difficulty in discussing the politics of circumcision in a public venue as I’ve been doing it for 20 years now. The topic of male circumcision is uncomfortable, at best, for most and is generally brought up only in public in the form of a joke. Most people actively avoid any serious discussion about male circumcision as it can instil strong emotion – and rightfully so, as it's directly associated to one of the most personal and private parts of a man's body. Circumcision only remains a culturally acceptable mutilation because people don’t discuss it, let alone question it. I feel it’s time for our leaders to look at the abuse we subject our newborn children to. It’s obvious that our culture is destined to continue this immoral and unethical practice unless the government steps in to protect its most precious and delicate citizens. Please allow me to set the record straight: I am not an anti-circumcision lunatic. I support any consenting adult’s right to choose circumcision for himself, just as I believe it’s a person’s right to choose to get pierced or tattooed. The word "circumcision" can be a pleasant sounding word -- but in all honesty, no matter what it’s called, it's just sugar-coating for genital mutilation. Some people balk when I call it by its true name, but they do so only out of ignorance. I stand firm against male genital mutilation for anyone who can't speak for themselves. I feel our elected representatives should as well. There are a few extremely vocal persons that disagree with me, denouncing me as an anti-semite because of my relentless passion for this bill. I have had threats made upon my life… attempts have been made to publically humiliate and discredit me… and some have gone as far as to encourage others to harass my employer due to my beliefs. Why would a religion, especially one which claims itself peaceful, make such threats against me? I find it strange that many religious people who don't practice many of their own laws themselves are so passionate about butchering the penises of their babies. In the original version of the Torah, the book of J, God did not mandate circumcision. Circumcision is not even mentioned. Man devised circumcision as a way to curb masturbation. Furthermore, considering that about 66% of boys in the Commonwealth are routinely circumcised and of this, only about 4% are Jewish, it should be obvious that this bill isn't, nor ever was meant to single out any one religion. Furthermore, there are a growing number of Jewish people that do not circumcise, opting for a peaceful "naming ceremony". A more pleasant mitzvah, wouldn’t you think? I have no doubt that parents honestly want to do what is best for their child, but turning a blind eye to the horrible truths about male genital mutilation is a mistake -- a mistake that has become entrenched in American society since it was incorrectly deemed a healthful practice. In the 1900's, tonsillectomies were considered to be a healthy prophylactic against disease and were routinely practiced -- we now know better. The tonsils have been shown to be a part of a healthy body's immune system. The major medical societies in Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and The United States do not recommend routine non-therapeutic infant circumcision. There has been a lot of chat about how circumcision prevents disease; however, these inaccurate claims have been made since Victorian times, blaming the foreskin for virtually every ailment of the time from epilepsy and “dim sight” to today’s AIDS epidemic. Don’t you find it odd that in the United States, one of the most circumcised countries in the world, that in yesterday’s (02 MAR 2010) news the headline “AIDS Epidemic in Some US Cities Worse Than Global Hot Spots” appeared? The absence of a foreskin does not prevent the spread of disease, education does. Circumcision prevents nothing except living a fulfilled sex life. A complete penis has two to three times the length of skin that a circumcised penis has, the foreskin contains branches of the dorsal nerve and about twenty thousand specialized nerve endings. Circumcision is amputation of a healthy, erogenous body part. When this surgical procedure is performed without consent of the patient, it violates the basic human right to a complete and un-mutilated body. If we were discussing the forced removal of any other body part of a healthy baby, there would be no question that it is an abomination. In the United States it is illegal to circumcise girls. Even drawing a single drop of blood from the genitals of a girl with a needle is protected – there are no exemptions: religious or otherwise. According to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, boys are guaranteed equal protection under the law – why aren’t they? As uncomfortable as you may personally feel about this bill, please try to see it for what it’s trying to do: Protect our citizens from socially acceptable assault and mutilation. We respectfully request that you pass this bill out favourably. Thank you for your time and consideration. My personal "report" about the event can be seen here.
|
|
#7
March 5th, 2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Massachusetts MGM Bill Hearing 2010-03-02 Eyewitness summary of proceedings
Please show your support for MGM Bill: Comment to the online articles in the links below
Help enlighten the masses by speaking in favour of Massachusetts Senate Bill 1777 and against infant circumcision! Login daily (or more often if you can) to the websites below have 'comment' sections and NEED your input! The alarm has been sounded on some of the pro-circ sites -- the MGM Bill's day in the State House is truly "the shot heard 'round the world" for intactivists!!! You can bet the people that believe it's a parent's right to mutilate and maim their children will be speaking out -- and those that already have harmed their children will defend their decision, as not to admit any possible wrong doing. I know you can't possibly reply to each and every message, but please tick the "LIKE" or "thumbs up" buttons (or 'report abuse' for off-topic/hurtful messages or click the "thumbs down" button). An influential voting member of the committee COULD be reading and may vote upon what they perceive as "public opinion"! In order of highest reader/viewership: NEWS SOURCES Fox News (National): http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...-circumcision/ -- Only 68 comments so far, is it moderated? FOX25 Boston: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/...ision-ban-bill *HOT TOPIC!* Over 680 comments so far! WBZ (CBS:Boston): http://wbztv.com/local/ban.infant.ci...2.1535064.html -- Still, only THREE commnets. Boston Herald: http://bostonherald.com/news/regiona...icleid=1234372 Although the article ran 21 February (over a week ago), comments are still flowing! Worcester Telegram & Gazette: http://www.telegram.com/article/2010...S/2250678/1116 - The most prominent quote in this article is "The Jewish people will never allow this to happen" WELL-READ BLOGS Rant/Rave: http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Mass-Bi...cumcision.aspx -- comments area digressing to name-calling Rolling Doughnut: http://www.rollingdoughnut.com/circumcision/ -- Very ANTI-RIC -- Please show your support for this blog. WorldNetDaily.com: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126935 **NEW** The Imperfect Parent: http://www.imperfectparent.com/topic...ion-be-banned/ **NEW** Daled Amos's BLOG: http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2010/0...cumcision.html **NEW** MetaFilter Network: http://www.metafilter.com/89750/Circumcision-ban-bill **NEW** RELIGIOUS NEWS/WEBSITES AGAINST THE BILL The Jewish Journal: http://www.jewishjournal.org/index.p...massachusetts/ (don't expect much support here!) Vos Iz Neias: http://www.vosizneias.com/49655/2010...-circumcision/ *MODERATED*, don't expect our messages to post. Israel Matzav's BLOG: http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/201...achusetts.html Write to the Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary: Michael Avitzur, Legislative Counsel to Senator Creem (Michael.Avitzur@state.ma.us) Rep. Eugene O’ Flaherty, House Judiciary Chair (Rep.GeneOFlaherty@hou.state.ma.us) Senator Cynthia Creem, Senate Judiciary Chair (Cynthia.Creem@state.ma.us) Senator Steven Baddour, Senate Judiciary Vice-Chair (Steven.Baddour@state.ma.us) Senator Gale Candaras (Gale.Candaras@State.MA.US) Senator Jack Hart (John.Hart@state.ma.us) Senator Thomas McGee (Thomas.McGee@state.ma.us) Senator Bruce Tarr (Bruce.Tarr@state.ma.us) Rep. Christopher Speranzo, House Judiciary Vice-Chair (Rep.ChristopherSperanzo@Hou.State.MA.US) Rep. James Fagan (Rep.JamesFagan@hou.state.ma.us) Rep. Colleen Garry (Rep.ColleenGarry@hou.state.ma.us) Rep. Marie St. Fleur (Rep.MarieSt.Fleur@hou.state.ma.us) Rep. John Fernandes (Rep.JohnFernandes@Hou.State.MA.US) Rep. Katherine Clark (Rep.KatherineClark@HOU.State.MA.US) Rep. James Dwyer (Rep.JamesJDwyer@hou.state.ma.us) Rep. Danielle Gregoire (Rep.DanielleGregoire@hou.state.ma.us) Rep. Lewis Evangelidis (Rep.LewisEvangelidis@hou.state.ma.us) Rep. Daniel Webster (Rep.DanielWebster@hou.state.ma.us) When you write them, please carbon copy me, so I can pass the letter onto Matthew Hess. Also, be sure to spread this message to your family and friends, you need not be a U.S. citizen nor a Massachusetts resident to speak out!! Like I've said in several interviews: At the very least this is raising awareness of the issue and getting parents and people to discuss it before signing consent for a procedure that could harm their child. As for passing a law to banish the procedure, even I said in the Worcester Telegram, “Our bill doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of getting passed”; however, criminalizing circumcision by making it illegal (MBM Bill) is only ONE avenue intactivists are pursuing. Others actions include: - Getting circumcision de-funded by many health insurance companies and Medicaid (14 states do far!) - Educating the masses online, in print, on television, on billboards and more - making parents aware of the consequences of their actions and making those injured by circumcision also aware. - The pièce de résistance will take place in 2014 when males circumcised after September 30, 1996 (when the U.S. FEDERAL FGM law went into effect) will become adults. With the help of our agencies, there will be a LOT of angry, educated, circumcised 18 year old men who will sue individual States and the United States Government for not enforcing the law protecting their genitals from mutilation without gender bias under the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. If that's not good enough, with circumcision rates estimated to go below 50% by 2014, circumcised men will become "the odd man out" and we'll see more charges of assault against doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and parents! (They love to sue in the United States.) The saturation of information about circumcision, as facilitated by the uncensored internet is helping to get the word out avoiding religious/zionist censorship in the mainstream United States media. People are learning. Comments can be seen from people from the rest of the civilized world, calling infant circumcision barbaric. People are questioning tradition, religion, their health care providers and circumcision. I can pretty much assure that there will be a recommendation for circumcision from the CDC soon. We need to be ready for this. It will feel to be a crushing defeat. Read the regular updates on http://MGMbill.org/ and read my BLOG entry about MGMbill.org's day on the hill: http://mc4bbs.livejournal.com/213408.html Sincerely, Charles A. Antonelli, MGMbill.org Massachusetts State Office 47 Washington St, Box 690762, Quincy, MA 02269-0762 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is ILLEGAL in the United States to circumcise girls. Therefore, according to the 14th amendment, boys are guaranteed equal protection under the law. One of the problems with that is that many people see female and male circumcision as totally different things. Many people who view female circumcision as barbaric, but view male circumcision as perfectly acceptable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
#8
March 5th, 2010
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Massachusetts MGM Bill Hearing 2010-03-02 Eyewitness summary of proceedings
Quote:
But to get any further, a majority of the committee have to stick their necks out and vote to pass the bill to the senate, then the senate has to debate and vote for it, then the house has to debate and vote for it, then a governor has to sign it. I say that even the present committee (and certainly these other entities) will find it politcially less painful to incur OUR wrath by letting it fail than the pain they would feel from both the wacko Fox conservatives and the apathetic left if they were seen as supporting the measure.
|
|
#9
March 5th, 2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Massachusetts MGM Bill Hearing 2010-03-02 Eyewitness summary of proceedings
Quote:
UGHHHHHHHHHHHHH I hate this, but you are right.
|
|
#10
March 6th, 2010
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Massachusetts MGM Bill Hearing 2010-03-02 Eyewitness summary of proceedings
Quote:
If we ever got on a European modelled health system where doctors are on salary and have no incentive to sell procedures, that would help. The next law we could get through would be requiring a more thoroughly informed consent and a registry of the victim, cutter, attendents, consenting family member, location, payor, the diagnosis or lack thereof, affirmation by a second doctor, etc., all to be maintained by the govt. for perusal by victims. We're talking about an AMPUTATION upon a well person. I don't think this one's a long shot at all. Who has Matthew Hess's level of knowledge and energy to initiate two other parallel MGM Bill initiatives?
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
