Efforts to Ban Circumcision Gain Traction in California
Jena Troutman is campaigning for a ban on circumcising boys in Santa Monica, Calif. “I am just a mom trying to save the little babies,” Ms. Troutman said. Monica Almeida/The New York Times
Rabbi Yehuda Lebovics opposes a ban. Monica Almeida/The New York Times
By JENNIFER MEDINA Published: June 4, 2011
SANTA MONICA, Calif. — When a group of activists proposed banning circumcision in San Francisco last fall, many people simply brushed them aside. Even in that liberal seaside city, it seemed implausible that thousands of people would support an effort to outlaw an ancient ritual that Jews and Muslims believe fulfills a commandment issued by God.
But last month, the group collected the more than 7,100 signatures needed to get a measure on the fall ballot that would make it illegal to snip the foreskin of a minor within city limits. Now a similar effort is under way in Santa Monica to get such a measure on the ballot for November 2012.
If the anticircumcision activists (they prefer the term “intactivists”) have their way, cities across the country may be voting on whether to criminalize a practice that is common in many American hospitals. Activists say the measures would protect children from an unnecessary medical procedure, calling it “male genital mutilation.”
“This is the furthest we’ve gotten, and it is a huge step for us,” said Matthew Hess, an activist based in San Diego who wrote both bills.
Mr. Hess has created similar legislation for states across the country, but those measures never had much traction. Now he is fielding calls from people who want to organize similar movements in their cities.
“This is a conversation we are long overdue to have in this country,” he said. “The end goal for us is making cutting boys’ foreskin a federal crime.”
Jewish groups see the ballot measures as a very real threat, likening them to bans on circumcision that existed in Soviet-era Russia and Eastern Europe and in ancient Roman and Greek times. The circumcision of males is an inviolable requirement of Jewish law that dates back to Abraham’s circumcision of himself in the Book of Genesis.
They say the proposed ban is an assault on religious freedom that could have a widespread impact all over the country. Beyond the biblical, there are emotional connections: checking for circumcision was one of the ways Jewish children could be culled from their peers by Nazis and the czar’s armies.
“People are shocked that it has reached this level because there has never been this kind of a direct assault on a Jewish practice here,” said Marc Stern, associate general counsel for the American Jewish Committee, an advocacy group. “This is something that American Jews have always taken for granted — that something that was so contested elsewhere but here, we’re safe and we’re secure.”
Jena Troutman, the mother of two young boys who is promoting the ballot measure in Santa Monica, said she did not think of herself as a crusader against religion. Instead, she views her work as a chance to educate would-be parents against a procedure that “can really do serious damage to the child.”
“I am just a mom trying to save the little babies,” Ms. Troutman said. “I’d rather be on the beach, but nobody is talking about this, so I have to.”
Ms. Troutman, who has worked as a lactation educator [here's one of the comic's heroines ( http://www.foreskinman.com/sarahsacks.htm {may load slowly})] and a doula, said she often approached women on the beach to warn them about the dangers of circumcising, but she has declined to answer questions about her own children.
Although precise numbers are not known, several studies have indicated that circumcision rates have been declining in the United States for the past several years and now range from 30 percent [ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/17circ.html ] to 50 percent of all male infants.
Many medical groups take a neutral approach, saying that the practice is not harmful and that there is not enough scientific evidence to conclude that it is necessary, and leave the decision to parents and their doctor. Several studies have linked circumcision with a reduction in the spread of H.I.V [ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/health/14hiv.html ]. Roughly half of the 694 baby boys born in the Santa Monica-U.C.L.A. Medical Center and Orthopaedic Hospital in 2010 were circumcised before they left the hospital, officials there said.
Dr. David Baron, a family physician, certified mohel — someone who performs ritual circumcision — and former chief of staff at Santa Monica-U.C.L.A., said that he would not press any parent to circumcise a son but that he viewed the effort to ban the procedure as “ridiculous and dishonest.”
“To say it is mutilation is wrong from the get-go,” Dr. Baron said. “It is a perfectly valid decision to say that it is not what you want for your child. Any doctor who says it is needed is not being honest, but to say that it needs to be banned is shocking.”
If the ballot measure passed, it would certainly face legal challenges. But several legal experts said it was far from certain that it would be struck down in a court. Ms. Troutman said she considered putting religious exemptions in the measure, but then decided, “Why should only some babies be protected?”
Rabbi Yehuda Lebovics, an Orthodox mohel based in Los Angeles who says he has performed some 20,000 circumcisions over several decades, said he often had to soothe nervous mothers.
“I am now doing the sons of the boys I did 30 years ago,” Rabbi Lebovics said. “So I turn to the new mother and ask, ‘Do you have any complaints in the way it turned out?’ ”
ADL Says Anti-Circumcision Comic Book Offends With 'Grotesque' Anti-Semitic Imagery
Press Release San Francisco, CA, June 3, 2011
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today condemned the "grotesque anti-Semitic imagery and themes" in a comic book created by supporters of an anti-circumcision movement in San Francisco. The League called the "Monster Mohel" comic book's imagery, which features identifiably Orthodox Jewish characters as evil villains, "disrespectful and deeply offensive."
"Monster Mohel" is one of two titles in the "Foreskin Man" comic book series -- the creation of Matthew Hess, the president of the Male Genital Mutilation Bill group and one of the leaders of the anti-circumcision legislation movement, which has achieved enough signatures to appear on a ballot for a public vote in November.
Nancy J. Appel, ADL Associate Regional Director, issued the following statement:
This is an advocacy campaign taken to a new low. This is a sensitive, serious issue where good people can disagree and which the Jewish community feels is an assault on its values and traditions going back thousands of years and centered in the Hebrew Bible. It is one thing to debate it, is another thing to degrade it. "Foreskin Man," with its grotesque anti-Semitic imagery and themes, reaches a new low and is disrespectful and deeply offensive.
The comic book portrays mohels -- those specially trained to perform the traditional Jewish circumcision ceremony -- as rapacious, bloodthirsty and bent on harming children. Some of the imagery calls to mind age-old anti-Semitic canards such as the blood libel, the accusation that Jews ritually murder Christian children. Another comic in the series also calls up more subtle anti-Jewish themes, such as when a character complains that the "pro-circumcision lobby" has "all of the well-connected doctors and lawyers."
We would have hoped those backing the anti-circumcision effort in San Francisco would know better than to use this type anti-Semitic imagery to advance their cause. No matter what one's personal opinions of male circumcision, it is irresponsible to use stereotypical caricatures of religious Jews to promote the anti-circumcision agenda.
Sarah Palin snub by Margaret Thatcher aides infuriates US rightwing
Sarah Palin supporters have reacted furiously to reports that Margaret Thatcher's aides have deemed a meeting inappropriate. Photograph: Seth Wenig/AP
Rush Limbaugh joins supporters accusing Thatcher's circle of disgracing former PM with 'Palin is nuts' comment
Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent guardian.co.uk, Thursday 9 June 2011 20.39 BST
A firestorm on the US right has erupted after the Guardian reported that Sarah Palin will be denied a meeting with Lady Thatcher on the grounds that it would be "belittling" for her to meet the darling of the Tea Party movement.
Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host, devoted the opening section of his radio show to denouncing the "preposterous" Guardian report, as Palin supporters accused Thatcher's circle of disgracing the former prime minister.
One Thatcher ally told the Guardian: "Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts."
The former prime minister's friends say she will show the level she punches at when she marks the centenary of the birth of Ronald Reagan by attending the unveiling of a statue of the late president outside the US embassy in Grosvenor Square on independence day, 4 July. The Thatcher ally added: "Margaret is focusing on Ronald Reagan and will attend the unveiling of the statue. That is her level."
"There's a story out there today, and it's an illustration of how things happen, how things are said and reported," Limbaugh told his listeners. "This is preposterous, and I have personal knowledge of this."
Limbaugh said he knew Thatcher well and embarked on a lengthy description of how he had driven her round a Florida golf course on a golf cart: "I have been with her in social and professional settings as well. It's obvious that her health is not today what it was, but back in the day, Margaret Thatcher would in no way allow an aide to refer to anybody, Sarah Palin notwithstanding, as 'nuts'."
La Donna Hale Curzon, the host of Sarah Palin Radio [ http://twitter.com/#!/SarahPalinRadio ], accused the Thatcher circle of disgracing the former prime minister. "Margaret Thatcher would never call a fellow Conservative, let alone Gov Palin 'nuts'," Hale Curzon tweeted. "Thatcher's handlers have disgraced the Iron Lady."
The ally who criticised Palin said the Thatcher circle would not change their minds despite the backlash. "Margaret will not be meeting Sarah Palin. If necessary we will make sure that Margaret has an off day when Palin is in London."
Critics of Palin revelled in the backlash against Thatcher's circle, whose dismissive views of Palin undermine her claim that she is the victim of a witch-hunt by left-leaning mainstream media. Palin regards Thatcher as one of her heroines.
Andrew Sullivan, of The Dish blog, which chronicles Palin's weaknesses, wrote [ http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/limbaugh-palin-and-the-left.html ]: "As usual, the tired old bigoted comedian Rush Limbaugh took offence that anyone could call Sarah Palin 'nuts,' even though she is quite obviously a few sandwiches short of a picnic, and her grip on reality is, shall we say, tenuous. And as usual, Limbaugh blamed it on the left, ie the Guardian's Wintour/Watt blog.
"What he doesn't understand is that Palin's nutsiness is not a partisan matter in Britain, or anywhere else in the world. It is an obvious truth marvelled at by all. Palin's emergence as a serious figure in American politics has made the country a laughing stock across the world. The idea that a stateswoman like Thatcher, in advanced dementia, would be used by such a crackpot is simply unseemly."
Rush Limbaugh: wrong on Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin
Rush Limbaugh, the US talk show host, denounced as 'preposterous' my blog which quoted an ally of Margaret Thatcher describing Sarah Palin as 'nuts'. Photograph: Eric Risberg/AP
US talk show host denounces Guardian for reporting why former prime minister will not be meeting darling of Tea Party movement
Posted by Nicholas Watt Thursday 9 June 2011 02.07 BST guardian.co.uk
There's a story out there today, and it's an illustration of how things happen, how things are said and reported. This is preposterous, and I have personal knowledge of this. Now, this story appears in the New York Daily News, and the headline is: "Margaret Thatcher Won't Meet with Sarah Palin During Her Trip to London, En Route to Sudan: Report – Margaret Thatcher, the former UK Prime Minister - and heroine of the former Alaska governor - has no interest in meeting the 'nuts' potential presidential candidate, Thatcher aides tell British media.
Limbaugh attempted to illustrate the "preposterous" nature of my blog by issuing an earnest "personal disclosure". Yes, the great sage of the US right told his fans, he knows the former prime minister "pretty well", a point he illustrated with a lengthy story about how he drove her round a Florida golf course.
This is no doubt all true. Limbaugh fondly recalled his time with Thatcher and her late husband, Sir Denis, and spoke sensitively of how her health has declined in recent years. But he admitted that he has not spoken to Thatcher in years and appears to have little idea of the approach of the loving group of friends and staff who are dedicated to ensuring that her final years are lived in dignity.
Members of the Thatcher circle are highly protective of the former prime minister, 86, who has suffered from dementia for some years. They ration her appearances with great care and are careful to ensure that she is not used by unsuitable politicians. This is why they feel so strongly that Thatcher should not meet Palin: they believe it would be beneath the dignity of the Iron Lady to meet such a lightweight figure who would use the meeting to burnish her credentials as the keeper of the Reagan flame.
Why should Lady Thatcher have any interest in meeting Palin?...One is a giant figure; the other, politically speaking, a carnival pygmy better suited to life on a second-rate reality television show.
Massie was highly critical of Palin's attempts to meet Thatcher:
There is something loathsome about this attempt to use a frail 86-year-old stroke victim (who has largely retired from public life) as fodder to enhance your own domestic political agenda. It is vulgar and it is vainglorious and therefore entirely typical of Palin's political style.
The article by Massie, a former Daily Telegraph Washington correspondent, will not help Limbaugh who sought to portray my blog as an example of the left's media bias against Palin. The transcript [ http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060811/content/01125106.guest.html ] of his remarks on Wednesday carries a grainy picture of Palin above the words: Enemy of the Left.
Limbaugh is angry with my blog because the Thatcher circle's dismissive view undermines at a stroke Palin's defence when her weaknesses are regularly exposed by the likes of Andrew Sullivan at The Dish [ http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/ ]. This is that she is the victim of a witch-hunt by the mainstream media which peddle lies to prevent the great American people appreciating the full glories of Palin. If allies of one of her own heroines believe Palin is "nuts" – coupled with the clear signals from Downing Street that David Cameron will be steering well clear of Palin – then that line of defence looks somewhat threadbare.
Limbaugh pointed out that he has "no brief for Palin". But he really is upset that a figure on the right could dare to criticise Palin:
I can't let this go by, all of these things that are happening, this continued effort to literally destroy her. I mean I understand the Democrats wanting to do it, but there are people on our side engaging in this. That's unseemly.
The likes of Limbaugh do find it troubling when people supposedly on the right dare to criticise Palin. I remember some were upset when I blogged [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/nov/05/john-mccain-sarah-palin ] after the 2008 US presidential election that John McCain's private thoughts about Palin were detailed in a British diplomatic cable. I wrote:
In one joke doing the rounds, the Republican presidential candidate has been asking friends: what is the difference between Sarah Palin and a pitbull? The friendly canine eventually lets go, is the McCain punchline.
The lesson is clear. Report people's real thoughts about Palin with care or Rush Limbaugh will take a run at you with his cigar.
As usual, the tired old bigoted comedian Rush Limbaugh took offense that anyone could call Sarah Palin "nuts," even though she is quite obviously a few sandwiches short of a picnic, and her grip on reality is, shall we say, tenuous. And as usual, Limbaugh blamed it on the left, i.e. the Guardian's Wintour/Watt blog. What he doesn't understand is that Palin's nutsiness is not a partisan matter in Britain, or anywhere else in the world. It is an obvious truth marveled at by all. Palin's emergence as a serious figure in American politics has made the country a laughing stock across the world. The idea that a stateswoman like Thatcher, in advanced dementia, would be used by such a crackpot is simply unseemly.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
