Male Genital Mutilation Bill Proposed in U.S

On January 8, 2007 a bill to end male genital mutilation in the U.S. was sent to Congress for the forth time. Proponents of this bill hope that it will rewrite the U.S. Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 that prohibits the genital mutilation of female minors.

The wording of the U.S. Female Genital Mutilation Act is clear. It states that "whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." Exceptions are made for any medically necessary procedures such as during childbirth or for health risks.

Female genital mutilation, or female circumcision, is a cultural norm in several countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Sierra Leon, and Sudan. Though many believe female circumcision has a religious base, experts state that it is more a cultural standard. Christians, Muslims, and Animists are all know to practice varying degrees of female circumcision in the areas where it has become standard. The reasons behind this practice are strikingly similar to the reasons suggested for male circumcision. Beliefs that the clitoris and surrounding labia are unsanitary, that removing the clitoris and labia can prevent everything from cancer to genital order to masturbation, and that those who are not circumcised are at a greater risk of contracting HIV and AIDS. Such claims appear to have little support outside of countries where female circumcision is allowed. Some areas prefer female circumcision as a cosmetic procedure, stating that the look of a circumcised female is more attractive to their male partners when they are older.

MGMbill.org, a San Diego based health and human rights group hopes that they can include minor males into the Genital Mutilation Act giving them the same protection that minor females have. Matthew Hess, the group's president, said that MGMbill.org's proposed legislation is designed to give men control over their own bodies. "Although some men may prefer to be circumcised, there are at least as many men who resent that part of their penis was amputated without their permission. Enactment of the MGM Bill would address this injustice by letting men make their own choices about circumcision when they become adults."
Though the U.S. National Hospital Discharge Survey indicate that nearly 60 percent of U.S. newborn males are still being circumcised the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) has released a policy statement that does not support this practice. Carole Lannon, M.D., MPH, FAAP, chair of the AAP's Task Force on Circumcision was quoted as saying "benefits are not compelling enough to warrant the AAP to recommend routine newborn circumcision." Yet many U.S. doctors still encourage male circumcision without discussing the risks involved with the parents of their minor patents.

Male circumcision is rarely practiced among non-Jewish people in most parts of the world. The majority of Europeans, Central and South Americans, New Zealanders and Australians, as well as virtually all males in China, Japan, North Korea, Vietnam, and surrounding areas do not practice routine male circumcision. According to some an estimate of 82 percent of the world's men are uncircumcised.

Male circumcision has roots as far back the ancient Egyptians. According to the book Babywatching by Desmond Morris "It started as an ancient Egyptian custom and there are wall carvings to prove it. It seems to have its origin in snake worship. The Egyptians believed that when the snake shed its skin, and emerged shiny and new again, it was undergoing rebirth. They reasoned that if, by shedding skin, the snake could become apparently immortal, then humans should follow suit. They made the simple equation: snakeskin = foreskin, and the operation began. From there it spread to many Semetic peoples, both Arabs and Jews adopting it and converting it into an act of religious faith. As the centuries passed, it became popular in other regions of the world for moral, medical, or hygenic reasons." Non-religious circumcision began in England in the late 1800s and became extremely popular in English-speaking countries between 1920 and 1950, including the U.S. The main reasoning behind circumcision was to prevent masturbation which doctors believed caused many diseases, including epilepsy, tuberculosis, and insanity. When doctors understood that masturbation was not the cause for the illnesses blamed foreskin was blamed for penile and cervical cancer, urinary tract infections, and many sexually transmitted diseases.

There are some people who oppose the MGM Bill and support routine infant male circumcision. The common reasons often given for male circumcision, like those given for female circumcision, are that the foreskin is unsanitary, that removing the foreskin reduces chances of illnesses such as urinary tract infections and penile cancer, that a circumcised penile is easier to clean and more hygienic, and that male circumcision prevents infections that can occur during childhood. Many also feel that circumcision is a good cosmetic choice, that a circumcised penis will be more attractive to the child's sexual partners later in life and will be subject to comparison by other males.

Those opposed to routine infant circumcision say that the claims of those who support such do not hold up. Many feel that with such a high world wide number of males uncircumcised and no global reports of problems from intact males that there is no substantial proof that circumcised males are more hygienic or have fewer health problems related to their penises. The AAP refutes the belief that circumcision is necessary for proper hygiene by stating "...good personal hygiene would offer all the advantages of routine circumcision without the attendant surgical risk". Reports that circumcision also reduces the risk of cancer, urinary tract infections, and sexual transmitted diseases are also refuted by many doctors. The AAP reports that "...evidence linking uncircumcised men to cervical carcinoma is inconclusive. The strongest predisposing factors in cervical cancer are a history of intercourse at an early age and multiple sexual partners". D. W. Cameron, MD, FRCP, whose AIDS research was reported as claiming that circumcision would decrease the risk of contracting AIDS, wrote "It is relatively more important to alter exposure to infectious agents than male susceptibility to them,".

Groups seeking to end the routine infant male circumcision in the U.S. often point out what is lost to the child during the circumcision. Often the full procedure as well as the risks and benefits are seldom fully explained to the parents. It is often believed that the foreskin is only an extra flap of skin on the end of the penis. The foreskin itself comprises about 50 percent of the mobile skin system of the penis and is a specialized tissue that covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing, and contaminants of all kinds. Also removed during circumcision is the frenar ridged band which is a primary erogenous zone, thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner's corpuscles, branches of the dorsal nerve, and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types. The Apocrine Glands of the inner foreskin which produce pheromones, Sebaceous Glands which lubricate and moisturize the foreskin and glans, and some of the penis length and circumference because its double-layered wrapping of loose and usually overhanging foreskin is now missing, making the circumcised penis truncated and thinner than it would have been if left intact. Circumcision can also cause health problems because of the removal of several feet of blood vessels including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery, soft mucosa which produces both plasma cells that secrete immunoglobulin antibodies and antibacterial and antiviral proteins, and the lymphatic vessels, the loss of which reduces the lymph flow within that part of the body's immune system.

If the MGM Bill is passed it will stop circumcision on minor males, thus allowing them the same protection already offered to minor females. Supporters point out that according to the 14th amendment boys are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Charles A. Antonelli, Director of MGMbill.org's Massachusetts state office, said "Adults would be free to undergo circumcision without restriction, and children would be protected from medically unnecessary circumcision until they reach the age of consent. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with that."