Who would have thought that circumcision — circumcision, for heaven’s sake — would be the next frontier for busybodies determined to impose their choices on the rest of us?
What prompts this musing is an article in Thursday’s Denver Post by Diane Carman of the Solutions Health Policy Network reporting that Colorado will soon drop coverage for circumcision under Medicaid. That’s fair enough, I suppose, since the procedure is purely discretionary in most cases.
What caught my eye, however, was the news that Matthew Hess, a notorious anti-circumcision zealot, “said Colorado also has a bill ready to go, if a sponsor can be found. The measure would amend the existing law outlawing female genital mutilation, extending the same protections to males.”
If you’re curious about Hess’ handiwork, you only have to look to San Francisco, where a measure he backed recently wound up on the ballot after supporters collected more than 7,000 signatures. It would outlaw circumcision on “male minors” without exception, with the penalty being a 1,000 fine and/or up to a year in jail.
The measure does not ban synagogues or mosques, admittedly, but it could hardly be a more direct assault on religious freedom if it did, since circumcision is important to both Jewish and Muslim traditions.
Did I say “important”? That hardly begins to convey circumcision’s centrality to Judaism. “Predating the entire body of Jewish law are three rituals,” Rabbi Hillel Goldberg, executive editor of Intermountain Jewish News, told me. “One of them is circumcision,” which goes back basically to the era of Abraham. And support for it “cuts across the usual divisions within the Jewish people,” Goldberg said. “It’s universal. There’s no division of opinion on this.”
You can’t outlaw a practice central to religious tradition without courts concluding that you’re trampling on the First Amendment, so supporters portray it as a human rights issue. And let’s be clear: It’s true you can’t do just anything to kids in the name of faith. If circumcision were dangerous or damaged a boy’s future health or sexual pleasure, then proponents of a ban would have a case worth considering. But neither is true.
The American Academy of Pediatrics tells parents that “Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient . . . to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised. Because circumcision is not essential to a child’s health, parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks.”
Saying circumcision is “not essential to a child’s health” is light years from saying the procedure ought to be outlawed.
We allow parents to make all sorts of decisions involving the health, safety and, yes, appearance of their children — including cosmetic surgery of various kinds — and that’s where such decisions mostly belong.
My wife and I struggled over the pros and cons of circumcision when our son was born, as do many parents with no religious reason for it. If those who oppose circumcision can persuade a majority to reject it, great. As it is, however, their intolerance for parental choice and religious freedom is simply stunning.
But perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. Earlier this month, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders noted that Hess is associated with , which features a comic with a “blonde superhero” poised to rescue a baby from an “evil rabbi.”
Asked if the comic was anti- Semitic, Hess replied, “A lot of people have said that, but we’re not trying to be anti-Semitic.”
Actually, the comic isn’t a close call. The images are classically anti-Semitic. Let’s hope Colorado lawmakers have the good sense to steer clear of someone who is so insensible to unvarnished bigotry.
E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.
