How far are we from making MGM illegal?

[hunnybumm]

I am curious. I posted somewhere on MySpace (in an intact board) that circumcision just needs to be illegal and that would make things a lot easier. But a couple people pointed out we are a LONG way from that happening. Does anyone have any information on this?

I know the MGM bill has been going around for a while but nothing has happened yet. And the latest stats I saw which were from 2003 they were 55% circ, 45% intact (in infants). So if half the country are keeping their boys intact then wouldn't we assume that at least some states could get MGM banned? Isn't CA something like 70% intact infants?

I know there is the whole religious issue, and not wanting to trample on religious rights. Is there some way to appease all involved?

I still stand by my feelings that if this were illegal it would solve a lot of the unnecessary circs (ie to look like daddy, because *I* like the look of cut, because it's MY choice, etc).

[WonderWild]

I think if they just made circ. in a medical setting illegal that would do a lot. It would still allow people to hold a bris for their child if they so choose but it would put a stop to people doing for reasons other than religious ones.

[Daisie125]

One of the biggest hurdles IMO, is that a large majority of people with intact sons still think it's a personal choice issue. I've had many conversations with moms of intact sons and they are usually horrified that I think of it as abuse.

So while the rate in CA may be 70% intact, probably over half of those people wouldn't be supportive of it being illegal.

Not to mention the ramifications of making a "religious requirement" illegal. I agree 100% with it being illegal, however I just don't know how that would work... it would turn into a slippery slope.... think of all of the other things that are protected by religion.

[Ruthla]

There's no way it could pass without a religious exemption. Many who circ for cultural reason would probably use the religious exemption, but many others would not.

If we could just get insurance companies to stop covering it, we'd get far! First, in directly making it difficult for many parents to pay for the circ, plus indirectly by saying "This isn't medically necessary- so why do it?".

[gottaknit]

I think it's about as likely as formula being made available by prescription only.

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

I think that it wont happen till my kids have grandkids if then. why? because the medical establishment would have to admit how much damamge they have done and that isnt gonna happen easy. Maybe by the time my great grandkids are here circ rates will be so low it will make it easy for them to say it was a mistake years ago but for now it isnt gonna happen.

[MommytoB]

I'm thinking once there gets a 'better medical education for doctors on intact males- they will start treating foreskin like any other body part of the body by saying no.

Because as I stated we wouldn't even get our finger amputated unless it had severe frostbite or gangrene .

[dynamohumm6]

Not in our lifetime.
Regardless of whether or not there's a religious exemption, religious groups would be totally up in arms over the procedure itself being deemed "bad" enough to warrant a law against it. Won't happen.

[calngavinsmom]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

There's no way it could pass without a religious exemption. Many who circ for cultural reason would probably use the religious exemption, but many others would not.

Why not include all boys under the umbrella of protection though? Wasn't it in Finland that a parent/doctor just got charged with circumcising a minor? (ALL circumcision is regulated there) That circumcision was done under for "religious" reasons.

IMO, if it is illegal for one, it should be illegal for all. Just like if someone from a culture that circumcises female children wants to get their daughter circumcised in North America, they need to look elsewhere to get it done. Boys should have the same protection afforded to them. The harder it is to get it done, the less likely that it will happen.

ETA: I do think it will happen, but have no idea how long it will be. With the mounting evidence of the harm it does, how can we continue to circumcise and claim to be a "civilized" society. The two are mutually exclusive.

Take care,
Tara

[rozzie'sma]

they just reintroduced legislation on federal and state levels to ban mgm http://www.mgmbill.org/sitemap.htm they still need sponsors. i see it happening. i really don't see how they can continue to deny males equal protection under the law, it's against the constitution. Either FGM needs to be legal or MGM needs to illegal as well. (I am not pro-FGM in any way).

[trmpetplaya]

Farther than I'd like to be...

love and peace.

[travisandjill]

whatever happened to that law in MA? did it pass yet?

[jessjgh1]

The law in MA did not pass and I doubt it would ever have a chance.... we were not able to get a nursing in public law passed, even with the Victoria's Secret nurse in that happened in Boston.

NIP has a chance, MGM really, in my opinion, does not.

Personally I think that pushing it now (too early) only hurts the effort because it comes across as being too radical. Plus w/o a religious exemption it is just something that very few politicians would ever touch.

That's just my opinion.

Jessica

[trmpetplaya]

Originally Posted by jessjgh1

The law in MA did not pass and I doubt it would ever have a chance.... we were not able to get a nursing in public law passed, even with the Victoria's Secret nurse in that happened in Boston.

NIP isn't protected there??? Wow...

The MGM bill wasn't meant to pass at this time I don't think... I think it was mostly to get awareness levels up. Which it definitely did.

love and peace.

[kxsiven]

Nope. Not happening for a long time.
We will reincarnate and have this fight manymanymany times before there is any real hope.
To even suggest (locally or globally) that there is something harmfull in MGM would be a political suicide to any individual politician/political party/human rights organisation.

[dynamohumm6]

Originally Posted by trmpetplaya

NIP isn't protected there??? Wow...

Nope. Annoying. Though, through my two kids and 12 years living in/around Boston, I've nursed everywhere under the sun (including Fenway park ) and have never, ever had one negative comment.

[babygrant]

I think just getting insurance companies to stop paying for them.

I'm in Canada and circumcision is NOT covered by insurance. In 2005 the circumcision rate was LESS than 10%. Over 90% of boys are intact!!!!!!

[jessjgh1]

Originally Posted by babygrant

I think just getting insurance companies to stop paying for them.

I'm in Canada and circumcision is NOT covered by insurance. In 2005 the circumcision rate was LESS than 10%. Over 90% of boys are intact!!!!!!

Yes, I think this is a more realistic fight to fight. Enough of this happening and then the MGM laws can move forward.

Jessica

OFF TOPIC:
Oh, and any MA or MA-visitors should check out MA Citizens for Breastfeeding Reform http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MCBR/ if you are interested in getting MA NIP legislation passed.

[Ivan's Mom]

I think once our sons are older and in office it could happen. There will be more intact adults that are making decisions. While most of the men and women who make decisions and vote are cut or the partner to someone who is cut, the law will not seem necessary nor important.