Thursday, January 26, 2017

Mayo Clinic Proposes Training Neonatal Nurses to Cut Circumcision Costs

According to a recent news article, a new "study" authored by Mayo Clinic suggests that training neonatal nurse practitioners to perform circumcisions instead of having specialists do them could save somewhere between 100 to 200 million dollars every decade.

"If we could get our colleagues across town to do it, (and) if we could get people in New York to do it, this would save a lot of money for society," said author of the study Dr. Dennis Costakos.

There are a few problems with this line of thinking.

First, attention needs to be brought to the fact that cutting costs for a non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals is being considered.

Since male infant circumcision is non-medical surgery conducted without any medical indication whatsoever, not to mention that the procedure is not without the risk of complications, one must wonder why money is being spent, even being made on the procedure at all.

Circumcision is performed on 1.3 million babies in the US yearly. At a dollar each, that's already a 1.3 million dollar a year industry. Hospitals can charge as much as $2000.00 for a circumcision. That's as much as 2,600,000,000 dollars a year.

For non-medical surgery.

Second, enough complications due to circumcision already occur as it is with specialists performing this non-medical surgery. The risks include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Different sources cite different complication rates for different reasons. For one, doctors can't seem to agree as what constitutes a "serious complication." For another, complications aren't always reported, as doctors nor hospitals are required to disclose this information, and they have financial incentive, as can be seen above, to minimize, even hide this data.

But even if we were to go with the commonly cited conservative number of 2%, at 1.3 million babies, that's 26,000 babies who will suffer adverse affects.

For non-medical surgery.

And that's with "specialists" on the job.

Now Mayo is suggesting the job should be pawned off on nurse practitioners?

To save 100 to 200 dollars a decade?

That's 10 years.

Circumcision is worth as much as 2.6 trillion.

Thirdly, the only "cost" doctors at Mayo seem to be considering when it comes to male infant circumcision is the procedure itself. Should there be complications, and it happens to at least 2% of males circumcised a year, repair and treatment would also be an added cost.

Because circumcision would not be performed by specialists, wouldn't it be expected for this rate to rise?

Thereby actually increasing costs?

Because repairing circumcisions isn't free?

So hold the phone.

Instead of working to shave off a few mil, why aren't doctors calling to end this practice which is basically a freebie for American doctors?

70% of the world's men aren't circumcised, and there simply isn't an epidemic of all the horrific diseases circumcision advocates try to scare American parents with.

In the industrialized world, the US is the only country still routinely circumcising its male newborns.

The great majority of the circumcised 30% were circumcised out of cultural or religious custom.

Less than 1% of men ever have a medical problem that calls for circumcision.

Any "benefit" circumcision is supposed to afford is already easily afforded by less invasive, more effective means.

So why isn't it a problem that doctors are reaping profit from circumcision at all?

Billions, if not trillions of dollars a year could be saved if doctors simply stopped soliciting this non-medical surgery.

There are millions who need health care resources for medical needs.

Why are we spending millions on this ethically questionable practice with "benefits" already easily affordable without surgery?

It's amazing how disconnected educated medical professionals can be.

Clearly the doctors at Mayo are out of touch with reality.

Related Posts:
Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Exec' Order to Defund Int'l Planned Parenthood Signed - GOOD

According to Life News, our new president has signed an executive order defunding International Planned Parenthood.

I'm not a fan of our new president. And I'm not too keen on completely defunding Planned Parenthood, as they do provide many important services, as I've already said on another post.

However, as long as they're trying to normalize male genital mutilation, standing in the way of legislation that would defund elective, non-medical infant circumcision (though such defunding would be of zero consequence to them), and promoting male genital mutilation in Africa in the so-called name of "HIV Prevention," I say, GOOD.

Perhaps if they weren't so willing to throw the rights of boys and men under the bus in the so-called name of "women's health," I'd be singing a different tune.

Until I see them publicly change this stance, I'm afraid I can only agree that federal funds should be cut.

As a taxpayer, I don't want to be paying into an organization that tacitly approves of, defends, advocates for, even facilitates male genital cutting, and promotes "women's health" at the expense of men's health and choices.

Not all of us agree; some intactivists have different priorities.

But these are mine; any organization that promotes the forced genital mutilation of any sex needs to be defunded. At the very least, it shouldn't be paid for by the American tax dollar.

The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.

Related Posts:
INTACTIVISTS: Planned Parenthood is Not Our Friend

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal"

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bill to Defund Circumcision Heard - Dissenters Included Planned Parenthood and a Rabbi

RED HERRING: The Abortion Debate

Thursday, January 19, 2017

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

Colombian boy left in a vegetative state after a circumcision

It seems that recently, reports of circumcision botches are coming to light all over the world.

Just a few days ago, on January 17th, there was a report on a Colombian news show, 90 Minutos, about a child who was left in a vegetative state when he was circumcised 3 years ago.

The mother is trying to press charges on the doctor who has been since, nowhere to be found.

Not much detail is given about the boy's necessity to be circumcised, only that this was supposed to be an outpatient procedure, and that apparently, the doctor used too much anesthetic.

The YouTube video can be seen here:

It is not clear whether there was an actual medical indication, but given the recent history of circumcision, where doctors give phony excuses to circumcise healthy children, it may be possible that there was in fact none.

Another botch also made news reports earlier, this time in Malaysia.

According to Nation, 3 cases of botched circumcisions have come to light, and the Health Ministry is urging the child's parents to take the cases to court.

In South-East Asian countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, etc., both boys and girls are circumcised as a matter of religious course, as genital cutting is seen as religious sacrament there due Islam.

Unlike in America, boys in Muslim countries tend to be circumcised at later ages instead of as newborns.

According to one Dr. Subramaniam, "Hundreds of thousands of circumcisions were carried out every year in the country and that minor complications were bound to happen, but there were never any serious cases like these, even when traditional methods were widely used."

One of the victims, a 10-year-old boy, has to use a catheter and a urine bag after suffering severe damage to his penis. A portion of the boy’s private parts was severed by an assistant medical officer at a mass circumcision ceremony at a surau in Sungai Buloh on Nov 25.

The bleeding could not be stopped and the victim was rushed to Hospital Selayang.

The doctors were unable to reattach the head of the boy’s penis, which had already turned black.

The boy was then sent to a private hospital and underwent three surgeries, which were also unsuccessful.

In a different case, a nine-year-old boy had the glans of his penis severed during a circumcision at a private clinic in Jalan Ipoh on Dec 15.

And five days later, a 10-year-old boy lost the head of his penis as he was undergoing laser circumcision at a Taman Cheras Utama clinic.

The YouTube video for this report can be seen here:

It must be noted that both male and female circumcision are an ingrained part of the culture in South-East Asia.

These are cultures who, like America, should be used to this custom, and whose doctors, having done thousands of circumcisions, should be assumed to be well-trained.

In cases like these, circumcision advocates like to chant the old adage "Well if the circumcisions were performed by trained professionals, this wouldn't happen."

I don't think there could be any better trained professionals to do this than those who do it thousands of time for a living.

And they STILL happen.

It happens to trained doctors in America (The AAP gives a complication rate of 2%. What's 2% of 1.3 million babies a year?), it happens to Jewish mohels, it happens in the hospital, it happens when using the best equipment.

And the question must be repeated; how is this conscionable considering that circumcision is non-medical surgery, performed on healthy, non-consenting minors?

These are healthy children with no medical need for surgery we're talking about.

How is the complication rate anything above ZERO???

Instead of questioning the method, the persons who did it, where it was done, what setting, age, sex, WHATEVER, why aren't we questioning the need to circumcise ITSELF???

These children are going to suffer for the rest of their lives.

All for needless genital cutting.

Circumcision has risks.

The risks include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Are these worth it for non-medical surgery?

For "benefits" already easily attainable through non-surgical means?

Related Posts:

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA 

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU


INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves


CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

 CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

 FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise


Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game
Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud 

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage
FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision
What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child
FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision
EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life
BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life
TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

Tuesday, January 17, 2017


Circumcision claims yet another life. This time, it happened in Russia.

According to the Moscow Times, a 3-yo boy at Krasnoyarsk, Russia, died following a circumcision performed at home.

The child underwent a circumcision at home on Jan. 6, performed by a surgeon summoned by his mother. The boy became seriously ill, and his mother tried to treat her son with various medicines. The boy as never even taken to the hospital, and he died at home.

Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights, Anna Kuznetsova, says criminal charges should be brought against the parents of a three-year-old boy, and that they must be held accountable for his death, regardless of whatever religious reasons they had for circumcising him at home and denying him proper medical attention.

But Yulia Zimova, a member of a presidential council on family issues, says that criminal charges would be inappropriate, given that the deceased boy’s parents “have already been punished by fate.” (Aw, poor parents...)

Before attempting to dismiss this case "because it wasn't performed in a medical setting," I'd like to remind readers that children have died in the hospital or clinical setting.

And I'd like to remind readers that in most, if not all cases, there was no medical or clinical indication.

Death is a risk of male infant circumcision, whether performed by "trained professionals" or amateurs with box cutters.

For other cases that have made the news, see the related posts below.

These are cases that have surfaced; there will be other cases that have not made the news because doctors and parents are complicit in keeping them secret, and American medical organizations whose members profit from male infant circumcision, aren't interested in documenting male infant circumcision deaths.

Death is a risk of male infant circumcision.

Are parents being properly informed of this risk?

Related Posts:
CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)
CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel
FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light
EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life
INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

Saturday, December 31, 2016

Carrots and Mushrooms: My Awakening to the Circumcision Issue

In this blog entry, I retrace my steps to when I first became aware of circumcision, and how deeply it was ingrained in American culture. Up until a certain point, it hadn't dawned on me that having anatomically correct male genitalia could be any kind of concern in the country where I was born and raised. I had known somewhat about circumcision, but until something prompted me to actually start looking up circumcision, I was blissfully unaware.

It all happened one afternoon at high school. I must have been 15 or 16 years old. It was during a P.E. class, and we were all walking from the gym to the football field to do our routine run around the track. All students had just finished changing into their P.E. clothes, and we were all walking slowly out of the locker rooms, slow enough that one could hear casual conversations among students. (At my high school we didn't get naked nor shower in front of each other, so no one ever saw each other naked. Cut and intact status was unknown amongst us.) I overheard a conversation among a group of 3 or four students. A male friend was pontificating to a group of 2 or 3 girls on the truths of the male penis. "Circumcised penises look like mushrooms, and non-circumcised penises look like carrots," the guy said. "Oh! So that's the difference," I heard one of the girls say. "Yes." They all agreed. It all sounded so matter-of-fact.

I remembered thinking "Circumcision? Now let's see... where have I heard this before... Circumcision, circumcision... Oh yes! This is something Jews do to their children as newborns." At that time, what I knew about circumcision was second-hand information, and limited to what I'd heard about. For example, I knew that circumcision was some important ritual for Jews. I think I've mentioned before on this blog, that I came from a very conservative protestant church that was very pro-Israel, very pro-Judaism. This church would have rabbis come speak, they would hold menorah lightings at Chanukkah, some homes had metzuzot on their door frames, and sometimes male members would wear yarmulkas to church. Now that I think of it, how pretentious and silly! I hope some members didn't take it as far as circumcision. I'm almost sure that some members thought they were being more Jewish by opting for circumcision for their children at hospitals. If Jewish scholars like Leonard Glick are correct, that's not the way it works.

I first became aware of circumcision as a religious ritual by overhearing others discuss it at bible studies. As far as I knew, it was something Jews did, but wasn't required by Christians because we've got baptism. Being called "uncircumcised" was supposed to be an insult in the Bible from Jews to non-Jews, and not being circumcised was, I guess, a problem back then. So I knew from a young age that not being circumcised could be seen as a problem by some, but I wasn't sure to what extent. To be sure, even though I knew there was a difference, I wasn't quite sure what that difference was, and what it actually meant to be circumcised.

I remember that one time I asked my mother this question. My father and some friends who were over at our house were having a bible study one day, and one of the topics that came up was circumcision. I must have been eight or nine. I take my mother to a different room and I ask her "Mom, what's circumcision? Why is it talked about in the bible?" The way she explained it was "Well, in Jewish families, when a boy is born, they cut off a little bit of skin from his little bird." (That's what she used to call it.) "Oh." I thought. "That's what this is all about? Cutting off a little bit of skin off a child's pee-pee? Doesn't sound like too big of a deal. Why is this always a big deal when people discuss it in the bible?" But those were just thoughts in my head. With my mother I just said "Oh! OK..." And that's where the conversation ended.

The image I had in my head following that conversation was light years away from the reality that is circumcision. I imagined someone taking a knife or blade and literally just taking a small piece of top layer of skin from the top of the penis. I didn't even think it had anything to do with the sleeve of flesh that covers the head of the penis. As a child, I thought maybe the piece of skin may be taken from the glans of the penis itself. I had absolutely no idea that circumcision actually meant taking a blade and actually cutting off the entire flesh hood covering the head of the penis to leave it exposed and raw.

My idea of circumcision as a 8 or 9yo...
In retrospect, circumcision may be closer to this...
Except it's not removing a top layer of skin,
but cutting off an entire sleeve of flesh.

At some other point, a few years later, my father would try to introduce me to the ritual of circumcision in his own way. I must have been 13 at this point. How did he do it? He showed me the movie "Europa, Europa." Before showing me the movie, he told me "This movie is a movie about the Jewish ritual of circumcision. It's right at the beginning of the movie, just so you know. It's about all the hardships that Jews have had to face, all because of circumcision," he briefed me before showing me the movie. So I watched the movie, and I thought "Now I'm going to see what it's all about. I'm going to see what was being talked about all these years." What I saw was a semblance of the ritual, people gathered, a baby screaming and a mohel there, but the movie didn't quite show the actual cutting. I think had the movie actually showed a real live circumcision, I might have been made an intactivist there and then. But it didn't happen this way.

After the movie, just like after any other holocaust movie, I felt real bad for Jewish people living in the Hitler era. It left me with the feeling of "Wow. It's so sad that Jews can't be allowed to practice their religion, and this is a part of their religion that they can't hide from anyone should they be stripped naked. When you're naked who is Jewish, and who is not is that obvious. And it's so sad that for Hitler to find out who is Jewish, all he had to do was strip people naked." I was left feeling sympathy for Jews and circumcision. Especially that last scene where two newly freed Jewish prisoners were allowed to "pee freely," to do something that you need to do every day without discrimination. It was touching. And now having grown up and being 35, kind of gross when I think about it... When a man is peeing, you look away, not check out to see if he's cut or not. But after seeing this movie, it makes you kinda wanna look, doesn't it.

Even after having watched that movie, the difference between circumcision and having anatomically correct male genitals wasn't clear. I think I can recall thinking that some guys' penises looked weird, that something was different about them, but I didn't put two and two together and thought that the reason was that those penises had been purposefully distorted to look that way. I can remember going to swimming classes and watching other men shower, and noticing that some men had funny looking penises. I think I can remember thinking to myself "Why do the ends of their penises look bulbous and discolored and dry like that? What's wrong with those men's penises?" At that time, I reasoned "It must be some genetic trait. Just like some people have outie belly buttons, and some people have innies, it must be that some people's penises just look that way." It hadn't dawned on me that I was looking at the results of circumcision.

Until that day in highschool when I heard the mushroom/carrot comparison. Even then, I was confused. I'm not circumcised, but I can assure you, when I get an erection and I pull back my foreskin, I most definitely have a mushroom. Even when I'm soft, I don't think my penis looks like a carrot. Maybe a bulbous, deformed carrot, but not really a carrot.

Hearing those words made me want to research what circumcision was once and for all. That same day, when I got home, I decided to look it up. Back then the big search engines were AltaVista and And that's how my interest in this issue all began.

I describe in another post my journey to becoming an intactivist. It would be a while after this before I would finally call myself an "intactivist." It was a difficult thing, coming to grips with how I really felt about male infant circumcision, and putting aside all that I was taught in childhood, that Jews were a special people who had suffered a lot, that circumcision was this important ritual for them etc. I felt, and continue to feel a pang of guilt when I think about it. I acknowledge that Jews have faced persecution for ages, and I understand that circumcision is an important rite for them. Even so, I have decided to break with my upbringing. I realize that in some people's eyes, this makes me look like an anti-Semite, and I accept this, for I feel that the forced circumcision of any sex, at any age, regardless of who does it, and for what reasons, is abuse, mutilation, and a gross violation of the most precious of human rights; the right to one's own body.

Life is short. You're born with one life, one body. Forced infant circumcision destroys this and condemns an individual with a damaged, maimed body for the rest of his life.

What does a human penis look like?

Before comparing it to mushrooms, carrots, anteaters, elephants' trunks or whatever, we must first ask ourselves, what does the human penis look like in its natural state? What does it look like left to be as nature intended it?

This is what the human penis is supposed to look like.

Anything outside of that is a forced, artificial phenomenon.

Related Posts:
I Remember

QUICK POST: "Just a Little Piece of Skin"

CIRCUMCISION: "Just a Little Piece of Skin?"

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

Who am I? Why am I so against circumcision?

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

FACEBOOK: Another Child in Critical Condition After Circumcision

Yet another circumcision botch from my Facebook news feed. These are way more common than circumcision advocates would like others to believe.

This one is unknown; the names have been blotted out for privacy.

What else can I say?

The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, present in all males at birth; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, child abuse, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

The fact is 70% of the men in the world have anatomically correct penises, and there simply isn't an epidemic of "problems."

The highest prevalence of STDs including HIV can be observed in the US, where 80% of males are already circumcised from birth.

Only about 1% of males will ever need to be circumcised.

STDs are already better prevented with sex education and condoms.

The circumcision of healthy male infants is not medically necessary.

The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death.

Are American doctors fully informing parents of these facts?

Related Posts:
FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA 

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU


INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves
CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light
 CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel
 FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise


Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game
Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud 

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage
FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision
What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child
FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision
EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life
BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life
TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Intactivists Relieved By Clinton Loss - Will Things Be Better Under Trump?

Of course for intactivists, high on the priority list for candidate eligibility is where they stand regarding circumcision, particularly the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors.

For a while, it was looking like Bernie Sanders was going to be the democratic nominee. That is until things got hairy in different states in regards to counting people's votes.

Anomalies marred the voting process all over the country, including the sudden change in affiliation or the outright disqualification of some voters in New York, the sudden reduction of polling places in Puerto Rico and Arizona causing long waiting lines and some people not being able to vote in time as a result, the convention mayhem that ensued in Nevada, not to mention the coin tosses that ensued in Iowa, and Hillary Clinton calling victory in California before all the votes could even be counted.

Bernie Sanders was a favorite among intactivists for a few reasons.

For one, though Bernie Sanders is Jewish, he wasn't using his Jewishness on his campaign ticket as Hillary was pushing her vagina; this lead to the hope that perhaps maybe, he doesn't feel as strongly for circumcision as religious Jews tend to do.

Additionally, Bernie was pro-universal health care, which for many intactivists, translated to male infant circumcision being defunded in all 50 states, as universal health care would be expected to pay for only medically necessary treatment and/or procedures, something which male infant circumcision is not.

If the following account is to be believed, Bernie Sanders actually made a statement on the subject of male infant circumcision. The following account was first published on Facebook. I have confirmed the source and the person has allowed me to reproduce it here under the condition of anonymity:
"Hi! I'm a precinct captain for my local Bernie Sanders office. I met him the day our office opened and talked briefly with him. I asked him how he felt about circumcision and he said, "I feel we should be following the lead of more medically advanced nations when it comes to any and all medical procedures." It was said directly to me. There were hundreds of people around. Considering more medically advanced countries do not cut infant boys, I took it as a good thing. He seemed a little taken aback with the question, answered it, and walked off. There was an older guy behind me. He said he was shocked I would ask such a personal question, shook his head, and walked away."
~A friend in the Midwest, Iowa, January 18, 2016

Bernie was a progressive who spoke to the issues of many, and he wasn't looking to further the interest of any one sex, race or religious creed. It was the ideal win-win situation; many intactivists really wanted Bernie Sanders to win.

But after Bernie conceded to Hillary Clinton, the issue of circumcision became very important to intactivists. After all, Bill and Hillary had been actively promoting circumcision in Africa as HIV prevention, and the Clinton Foundation even fronted millions of dollars for the goal of circumcising 28 million men in Africa. (The "science" surrounding this claim is dubious at best, and even if legit, circumcision would fail 40% of the time, so circumcised males and their partners need to be urged to continue to wear condoms.)

Intactivists were split into two camps; the side for which circumcision was issue number one, and the side for which circumcision would have to be put on the back burner because they would rather see Hillary Clinton as president over Donald Trump. Knowing Clinton's background with circumcision, some intactivists decided to vote for Jill Stein, or simply Donald Trump because they didn't want to see a president who was directly involved in the ongoing promotion of circumcision as HIV prevention in Africa rise to power.

It was a tough split. For a lot of intactivists, circumcision was not their sole issue; for some intactivists, preserving women's and LGBT rights, and preventing an unabashedly racist president were issues that were far more important than stopping the promotion of circumcision with pseudo-medical lies. Still others did not want a president who was wedded to the banks and corporations on Wall Street, and who had a history of promoting fracking and who was remaining silent on the ongoing Silent Rock oil pipeline crisis.

Between a president who wants to circumcise Africa, possibly the world, with financial interests in maintaining the status quo, and who seems intent on initiating World War 3 with Iran and/or Russia, and a president who disparages women, minorities and has ties to white supremacist groups, not to mention his inexperience in politics and his reputation as a failed businessman who evaded taxes, it was a really tough call.

Jill Stein had some qualities that made her very attractive to intactivists. For the most part, she echoed Bernie Sanders' progressive views. Like Bernie, she was also Jewish but she didn't wear her religion on her sleeve. The double-whammy was that she also happened to be a woman, who, unlike Hillary, wasn't tying her sex to her presidential campaign.

Something else that made Stein very attractive to intactivists was the allegation that she supposedly endorsed Intact America. The Green Party of New Jersey posted on their Facebook website (last accessed 11/18/2016) that she had given her endorsement back in 2012. A Jewish person taking a stand against the forced genital cutting of all children would be an attractive presidential candidate indeed.

But now it's all over, our next president has been decided, and while some intactivists dread the decision, and are browbeating all of those who didn't vote for Clinton, others are sighing a sigh of relief. At least with Clinton gone, they say, there might be less promotion of circumcision going on in Africa, and children in the US will be a little more safe.

But will the situation improve under Trump?

I'm not sure how many intactivists have been paying attention, but it looks as if Trump may have some incentive to continue promoting circumcision under the guise of medicine

According to Ezra Levant from "The Rebel," all of Donald Trump's children are either married to, or marrying Jewish people. Ivanka is married to Jared Kushner, who is Jewish; she converted to Judaism and actually took a Jewish name. Her kids, Trump's grandchildren would also be Jewish.

Donald Jr. is married to Vanessa Haydon, Eric Trump is married to Lara Yunaska, and Tiffany Trump is dating Ross Mechanic, all of whom are Jewish.

The very Trump Organization has people in high executive positions who are Jewish. Executive Vice Presidents Michael D. Cohen and Jason Greenblatt, along with Chief Financial Officer Alan Weisselberg are all Jewish.

There were Jewish people working within Trump's presidential campaign; his speech writer and opening speaker at many of his rallies, Stephen Miller, his Communications Coordinator, Michael Abboud, his Finance Chair, Steve Mnuchin, are all Jewish.

Now, it's not necessarily the case, that just because a person is Jewish, he or she has religious convictions to defend circumcision. After all, some of the most outspoken people in our movement happen to be Jewish.

But given the fact that Jews who oppose male infant circumcision are a minority, I'd say there's a very good chance that Trump will have plenty of incentive to continue promoting circumcision as medicine in Africa via PEPFAR.

Or, who knows.

Trump may decide PEPFAR is a "yuge" waste of money and an international aid folly the US can do without.

I'm not holding my breath...

Related Posts:
Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

10 Years Later, UNAIDS Still Hell Bent on Circumcising Africa

UNITED STATES: Infant Circumcision Fails as STI Prophylaxis

CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa