Jail and fines for performing circumcision: Massachusetts Judiciary Committee rejects bill

A bill calling for prison time and fines for those who perform circumcision on any male under the age of 18 was rejected by the Judiciary Committee of the Massachusetts state legislature.  

The text of the proposed measure specifically mandated that no exception be given, even though the law would obstruct religious observance of the commandment of circumcision.  

The measure also called upon the Department of Public Health to implement an educational program to discourage religious groups from carrying out the commandment of circumcision.

A goal of the legislation, according to an advocate group's website, included enforcement by local police.

In a letter to the Committee following their vote, the Community Guardians Group (CGG) wrote that the people of Massachusetts "are inheritors of a rich heritage of courageous thinkers and leaders who have sought to advance the causes of righteousness and justice for all people...  But there are also matters which lie outside the power entrusted to government."  The CGG mentioned that included among the things not to be restricted by government, is the commandment of circumcision, given by G-d Almighty.

The CGG offered thanks to G-d Almighty that this attack on their religion was halted, and commended the members of the Judiciary Committee for definitively rejecting this hateful plan.  

Source:

Community Guardians Group

Comments

  1. Gregor Gregor United States says:

    If anything, the article reports on Jewish zeal, which is unrelated to medicine. Routine circumcision of children is not medicine and is not even medically ethical because it is unnecessary and obviously harmful. No physician should be amputating body parts without legitimate and immediate NEED. Anybody who fights to mutilate boys should be fighting harder to make it legal to mutilate girls, otherwise, such people are hypocrites.

  2. Hugh7 Hugh7 New Zealand says:

    97% of circumcision in the US is not Jewish. This is not "an attack on their religion" but an attempt "to advance the causes of righteousness and justice for all people" of all ages and sexes. Babies do not consent to have part of their genitals (that they may well value in adulthood) cut off, and retrospective acquiescence, where it is given, is neither here nor there.

    This measure specifies a long maximum jail term only because it was copied word for word from existing legislation outlawing the cutting of female genitals. The only changes were to make it gender-neutral. And female cutting is not necessarily "much worse" than male. The AAP recently flirted with allowing a "ritual nick" of girls, "much less extensive than male circumcision" to prevent worse befalling, and all hell broke loose, and they ignominiously withdrew the policy. When will boys get equal protection with girls?

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Post

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.