Month: June 2011

Congressman Brad Sherman Is Wrong On Circumcision

This is why I don’t like the political process for ending non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors.

Congressman Brad Sherman announced today that he will be introducing the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011, a bill to prevent San Francisco and other municipalities from banning the circumcision of males under the age of 18.

Sherman’s new bill is in reaction to a measure that has qualified for the November 2011 ballot in San Francisco that would make the performance of circumcisions on males under 18 a misdemeanor—with a possible $1,000 fine and one-year prison term.

He’s framing the problem incorrectly, which allows him to protect a “right” that doesn’t exist and ignore a right that does. The proposed bill in San Francisco would prohibit non-therapeutic circumcisions on males under 18. Healthy children do not need surgery, even if the parents’ god says so. California law already restricts the rights of parents to cut the healthy genitals of their daughters for any reason, including religious claims. Is that an infringement? Of course not. Likewise, there is no First Amendment right to inflict permanent harm on one’s children sons (only).

Sherman expressed concern over the motivation of the provision. “To infringe the religious rights of so many Americans, San Francisco should have some compelling medical reason; however, the medical literature actually shows clear benefits of male circumcision.”

The provision, shown by its generally-applicable wording, would protect the right of all healthy males to keep their normal body intact and free from the objective harm of non-therapeutic surgery to which they do not consent. It’s the same right U.S. and California law protects for their sisters. That right is being violated. It must stop. This is a way to achieve that, even if it may not be the best way.

But if we incorrectly assume this infringes a legitimate religious right, San Francisco (and every other locality) has a compelling medical reason to prohibit non-therapeutic male child circumcision: it’s non-therapeutic genital cutting imposed on a non-consenting individual. The healthy child does not need circumcision any more than he needs an appendectomy. If he has an appendectomy, he will never get appendicitis. That is a potential benefit. Should we therefore allow parents to have a surgeon cut their healthy children sons (only) to remove his potentially harm-producing appendix? In the name of parental rights? No, because that would be stupid. The ability to chase some possible benefit can’t be an ethical justification to perform an invasive, unnecessary surgical intervention on a healthy child.

Congressman Sherman added:

“Congress has a legitimate interest in making sure that a practice that appears to reduce disease and health care costs remains available to parents,” Sherman said. “And, nothing in my bill prohibits statewide law ensuring that male circumcision occurs in a hygienic manner.”

To the extent that Congress has a legitimate interest¹ here, it’s in protecting the individual rights of every citizen, including male children. It already protected female children with the Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996. That prohibits non-therapeutic genital cutting on non-consenting female minors for any reason, including religious claims by the parents. Does that infringe on parental religious rights? Are we illegitimately denying religious rights by not permitting other acts by parents sanctioned by various religious texts? Are the healthy genitals of male minors beneath the equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment?

“Congress has historically legislated to protect the free exercise of religious rights from state and local intrusions,” Sherman said. “In 2000, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, designed to protect religious institutions from unduly burdensome local zoning laws.”

The logic of the law Congressman Sherman cites favorably requires the conclusion that his proposed bill is flawed. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act establishes that the government may not impose a burden

…unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution–
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(A) Protecting children from unnecessary, objective harm is a compelling governmental interest. Circumcision, as surgery, inflicts objective harm in every instance. When there is no offsetting medical need, the harm is the only guaranteed result. Preventing that is the premise behind prohibiting all female genital cutting on healthy female minors, even genital cutting that is less severe, damaging, or permanent than a typical male circumcision. The government recognizes that girls are individuals with rights that deserve to be protected. Infringing on a non-existent parental right to cut the healthy genitals of their daughters children is a legitimate state action.

(B) The least restrictive means would be for parents to understand that non-therapeutic genital cutting on healthy children is ethically and medically wrong and, thus, refrain from imposing it on their sons. Yet, religious and non-religious parents alike cut the healthy genitals of their sons. How else is the state supposed to stop it without exercising its legitimate police power?

Congressman Sherman should withdraw the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011 immediately. He should also introduce a bill to remove the gender bias from the Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 to create the Anti-Genital Mutilation Act of 2011, if he’s serious about using the powers of Congress correctly to protect the rights of all American citizens.

Update: More from Congressman Sherman:

Sherman said he did not consult the text of the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995 in composing the bill he will put forth in Congress.

“I think people who make that analogy are so wrong that their thinking does not color my thinking,” Sherman said.

Since he’s working with a closed mind, I’ll simplify: non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting person is wrong. The extent of the damage is irrelevant. The reason cited is irrelevant. The gender of the victim is irrelevant. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong.

¹ I want to be proved wrong on this, but Sherman’s statement is further evidence of my prediction that ceding power to the government on health care would lead to arguments that child circumcision provided fiscal benefits to the nation. It wouldn’t change the ethical violation involved, but Congressman Sherman doesn’t provide a cost-benefit analysis for his claim. Only in Congress can spending money always mean saving money.

Much Ado About Individual Rights

Timothy Sandefur links to essays by two secular humanists regarding the San Francisco proposal to prohibit non-therapeutic male child circumcision. The essay in favor of the proposal is by Tom Flynn of the Council for Secular Humanism. Mr. Flynn is correct. The essay against the ban is by Ronald Lindsay of the Center for Inquiry. Mr. Lindsay is wrong. I wish to address his essay.

Mr. Lindsay begins:

First, let’s cut through the misleading rhetoric. Some proponents of the ban refer to male circumcision as genital mutilation and equate it with female “circumcision,” the term sometimes used to describe a clitoridectomy, or complete removal of the clitoris. Clitoridectomies are carried out in some cultures, principally in rural Africa. (In some instances, not only is the clitoris excised, but the labia minora and parts of the labia majora are also removed.) Obviously, the removal of the clitoris results in loss of sexual pleasure.

To equate clitoridectomies with male circumcision is nonsense. The latter is a clip job, resulting in removal of the foreskin from the penis. …

It is not nonsense. They are different in degree, not kind. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong. That principle is universal, not gender-specific or discounted if we can figure out some possible benefit. Anything becomes acceptable if we accept possible future benefit as a relevant standard for intervening on healthy children. Of course female circumcision genital cutting is mutilation. Western societies agree on that almost universally. We’ve demonstrated that understanding by enacting laws against any procedures involving the healthy genitals of female minors.

But Mr. Lindsay is incorrect in limiting his point to a comparison of male genital cutting (i.e. circumcision) and clitoridectomies. The latter is an example of FGM, not the definition of FGM. The scope of what qualifies as mutilation mirrors what is illegal in most locations in the United States, including California. The World Health Organization defines female genital mutilation as follows (emphasis added): “Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” In other words, any surgical intervention less damaging than male circumcision, inflicted for the exact reasons we cite for male circumcision, would still qualify as genital mutilation. Every one of those procedures (i.e. Types I – IV) is already illegal to inflict on healthy female minors. Applying the principle and rights in that accurate definition equally, non-therapeutic male child circumcision is genital mutilation.

After mentioning various possible risk reductions from male circumcision, Mr. Lindsay writes:

The foregoing medical discussion is important because it undercuts the argument made by some secularists that there’s no valid medical reason for this procedure. Granted, the possibility that a newborn boy will experience some avoidable health issues unless he is circumcised is very small. Furthermore, depending on how one evaluates the risks, the potential benefits may be outweighed by the risks of harm. But isn’t this precisely the type of decision we usually leave to parents — and which we should leave to parents unless we want to become even more of a nanny state?

To avoid confusion, any reason for circumcising a healthy male is non-medical. Again, if we are to pretend that chasing potential benefits counts as a medical reason for non-therapeutic surgery, then parents may impose any intervention they wish, unrestrained by society. Protecting children from that is not a nanny state action. It’s the legitimate role of government to protect the rights of all its citizens, including male minors. We shouldn’t need new laws here. But parents shouldn’t mutilate their children.

Mr. Lindsay raises a legitimate question:

Speaking of the state, do we really want to give more power to the government to control what can only be described as a sensitive, highly personal matter? How exactly is this criminal ban supposed to be enforced? Are we going to have special police units to stamp out circumcision? Undercover cops posing as physicians willing to carry out back-alley quick cuts? Will there be search warrants issued based on confidential information that Johnny was seen at the urinal less than fully intact? I don’t know about you, but I don’t care if my junk is scanned or touched at the airport security line, but I do reject the notion that the government can tell us how it should look.

I agree that enforcement is a challenge. That assumes it would be enforced, which I don’t believe would happen in the unlikely event it passes. Still, the question is relevant. What I think it would most likely do is provide better support for circumcised males to sue for the obvious battery inflicted. That’s not everything, but it’s something.

The biggest flaw in Mr. Lindsay’s approach is the conclusion he draws. I care if my genitals are scanned or touched at the airport security line. Do my rights not matter because Mr. Lindsay thinks differently? Are individual tastes and preferences not unique to each individual?

While I also reject the notion that the government can tell us how our genitals should look, that isn’t what this law would do. It would prevent parents from dictating how their child’s son’s genitals must look for the rest of his life. It would leave the individual male himself to say “yes” or “no” to non-therapeutic circumcision. I’m no more mollified that my parents mutilated me than I would be if my government had ordered it. The result is the same.

Later, he inadvertently proves that he misunderstands the issue:

I’m tired of secularists fighting the wrong battles. We shouldn’t care whether Johnny, Joel, or Jamal keeps his hood on.

I don’t care whether Johnny, Joel, or Jamal “keeps his hood on.” I care that he gets to choose whether or not to keep his healthy foreskin. The emphasis is on his and healthy, not foreskin. That’s the debate, not this incorrect view that male circumcision is “a clip job” that may be imposed at the will or whim of parents.

Related post from 2008.

Teaching Compliance, One Traveler At A Time

On Thursday I experienced the new TSA screening procedures for the first time. The security line I went through had both a metal detector and a backscatter X-ray scanner. (Two lines fed to these machines.) A TSA employee “randomly” directed citizens to one of the machines. My informal count suggested that approximately two-thirds of the lines were directed to the backscatter X-ray scanner. The randomness seemed to be more about time. Observationally, as the line for the backscatter filled, overflow was directed to the metal detector.

I got the backscatter X-ray machine. I opted out. After confirming that I wished to opt out, the TSA employee directed me to the individual screening area. As I stood on the mat, I told him that I wanted to let him know upfront that I would cooperate with his search but did not consent to having my genitals touched, and that if he touched my genitals, I would file a complaint. He stared at me dumbly for a moment before going to get his supervisor.

I repeated to the supervisor what I’d told the first agent. I told him I’ve had skin cancer and do not wish to be exposed to more radiation than necessary. That’s true, though incomplete. I’d rant about the 4th Amendment, but that wouldn’t be any more productive than the implication of my statements already.

He seemed mildly surprised but remained focused. He asked me to clarify, telling me what they would be doing. After I repeated my position, he asked if I was refusing to be screened. I told him that, as I said before, I would cooperate but do not consent to having my genitals touched and would file a complaint if anyone did so. I also stated that I understood he did not set the policy.

The supervisor opted to perform the pat-down. He asked if I’d like to have the screening performed in private. I declined because I wanted everyone to see my objection. Once underway, he informed me of each step he was going to take before he proceeded. He ran his hands over my clothing but did not press into my body. When he finished the pat-down, he asked if I wished to file a complaint. I declined because, as I told him, he behaved reasonably within an unreasonable policy. He showed a level of professionalism that I have not encountered in any other encounter with TSA (c.f. August 2008).

I will engage future TSA experiences the same way, even in the inevitable likelihood that someone will be unreasonable and deny me access to my flight. I would have filed a complaint if he’d touched my genitals, regardless of his professionalism. He did not touch my genitals. I did not believe a complaint would be a useful means of protest in the context. I want more people to object, as I explained to the woman receiving a pat-down next to me. But dumping on the TSA employee wouldn’t convince him I’m right that he’s wrong to continue violating other’s rights by following unreasonable policy. Our representatives are the ones we should be blatantly and repeatedly antagonizing.

The kicker is what demonstrates the stupidity of this: to get to the individual screening area, I had to walk through the metal detector. It didn’t buzz.

Opposition to Circumcision and Anti-Semitism: Follow-Up

Continuing on yesterday’s post, I’d like to expand a bit with evidence. For context, consider this from a post at Hot Air Green Room on the Foreskin Man comic book:

Note that these circumcision-haters could have addressed the issue as one of science, medicine, personal autonomy, or even just a social issue on which reasonable people can disagree.

My archives demonstrate exactly that. But the issue is obviously larger than me, and currently focused on the proposal in San Francisco. The question is whether we’re going to rightly hammer those involved in the creation of the Foreskin Man material for pushing anti-Semitic filth, or are we going to set aside logic and tarnish everyone opposed to circumcision who favors the plain language of the proposal, regardless of their demonstrated determination to engage the issue only as one of science, medicine, and personal autonomy devoid of anti-Semitism? Do we criticize and ostracize those directly involved or do we simply stop thinking altogether, ignore the issue involved and just self-congratulate?

To demonstrate what I wrote yesterday about my behind-the-scenes efforts, this is an e-mail I sent on December 3rd when I first encountered Foreskin Man issue #2. (I’ve omitted references to the recipient because, as I said yesterday, I don’t wish to embarrass, if appropriate. Those involved rectified the problem immediately.)

To whom it may concern:

I do not believe [you] should be promoting the Foreskin Man issue #2 comic in any forum. The caricatures within this issue suggest that those of us against non-therapeutic infant circumcision can’t see the difference between what is done and why it is imposed on healthy children. We understand the reality of circumcision and how parental intent does not justify or improve its imposition. But we must act against the procedure being forced on children without engaging in stereotypes and ad hominem. Issue #2 isn’t close to being acceptable on those points.

We already encounter mindless accusations of anti-Semitism by people who refuse to engage in any critical thinking beyond the silly notion that challenging circumcision is an attempt to destroy Judaism. This charge is nonsense, but we are able to counter it with our words and deeds. The wording of the various MGM bill initiatives demonstrates this neutrality in seeking only that individuals choose for themselves, not the complete elimination of circumcision. Promoting anything the [sic] depicts “Monster Mohel” wielding machines [sic] guns and stealing children from parents who already don’t consent to a bris for their son is damaging to us.

I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, although I can only hope this was promoted because no one reviewed it before … . Such an action wouldn’t be acceptable, but it would be a forgivable one-time error. However, I will not be associated with this type of material or anyone who supports it. …

Thank you for your time.

Tony

I should’ve stated rather than implied that Foreskin Man #2 is anti-Semitic. But I think the understanding is sufficiently clear. And in an e-mail I sent to alert someone I knew would be equally furious, I wrote this on December 2, 2010:

I don’t know if you’ve seen it yet, but the 2nd issue is appallingly vile and anti-Semitic. …

I can’t control who creates anti-Semitic filth in a mistaken push against non-therapeutic child circumcision. I can somewhat influence who promotes it after it’s been created, but that’s limited where there is no organizational structure among independent activists. What I can do is expect to be treated fairly based on my own words and actions. If you’re inclined to disagree with me, do so fairly on the principled arguments involved, not because some other guy created something disgusting to ostensibly support the same goal.

Opposition to Circumcision and Anti-Semitism

Ken at Popehat has a post today on the proposal in San Francisco to prohibit non-therapeutic male child circumcision. Specifically, he addresses propaganda materials created by individuals associated with MGM Bill, including its founder, Matthew Hess. The charge is that these materials, including a comic book series and trading cards, are anti-Semitic. I’d like to challenge what Ken wrote about it. I can’t, though, because I agree that the materials are anti-Semitic and despicable.

I, and others, have worked behind the scenes to counter this sort of nonsense whenever it’s popped up, including the original release of these materials from Mr. Hess. This will unavoidably appear, since infant circumcision involves religion and not everyone involved in a movement will have the sense to reject the wrong, unethical approach. As I’ve read in a few smart places recently, any movement like this will have its anti-religion fringe, but that should not tar the entire movement. There is a principled approach against circumcision that is easily stated and powerful in a way that anti-Semitism can never be. The words of the proposal are straight-forward. As Ken wrote, “there are many arguments to be made against circumcision that do not depend on denigration of religion.” We should make them, and only them. Those who do shouldn’t be tainted by those who don’t.

So, yes, I’ve encountered anti-Semitism. I do not stand for it when I encounter it, although the only evidence is what I’ve written here. Being a loosely organized movement, at best, chastisement is the only way to counter disagreement on the means of achieving the necessary goal. I prefer to challenge it behind the scenes where possible to educate rather than embarrass. Unfortunately, this example won’t go away, despite behind-the-scenes efforts. And now it threatens to undo any progress principled activists have made. I am furious and powerless, a frustrating combination.

My only hope is that people will not heed this one sentence from Ken, my only objection to his post. He writes: “I hope that it comes to represent the anti-circumcision campaign in San Francisco.” It may. It probably will. But it shouldn’t. There is already too little thinking involved in most decisions to circumcise. We shouldn’t encourage less.

Some Debates Don’t Have Two Sides

Yesterday in the Los Angeles Times Op-Ed section, Cato policy analyst David Rittgers wrote about the renewed discussion of waterboarding and whether or not it’s torture.

The successful raid on Osama bin Laden’s safe house in Pakistan has reinvigorated debate over the role that “enhanced interrogation techniques” have played in fighting Al Qaeda. No one is switching sides, which has turned the argument into a theological one between two sets of true believers. Each views the other as heretics.

Get over it. The whole of the debate is pointless posturing. There is no way to prove or disprove the real worth of America’s experiment with waterboarding and coercive techniques. More important, enhanced interrogation isn’t coming back.

I agree that what is now happening is posturing. I disagree that it’s pointless. In the same way I wanted to know in the middle of the Bush Administration, I want to know now who supports the use of torture. Those people should be exposed as quickly and as completely as possible so that they’re removed or kept away from public office. If they wish to expose themselves, so much better.

Link via Cato @ Liberty.