80s London Oi! band, the 4 Skins.
Posted on 05/18/2015 4:06:31 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The case of a Florida woman who fled to avoid her son's circumcision is entering a federal courtroom for the first time.
Thirty-one-year-old Heather Hironimus was arrested Thursday in the long-running dispute over the removal of her 4-year-old child's foreskin. She went missing with the boy nearly three months ago and ignored a judge's warnings that if she didn't appear in court and give consent for the circumcision to proceed, she faced jail.
The case originated in state courts but will be heard in a federal courtroom Monday in West Palm Beach. An attorney for Hironimus filed a federal civil rights complaint as legal options faded.
A judge is due to hear a motion asking for a restraining order against the boy's father to keep the surgery from happening.
No one should be circumcised against their will...this kid is 4 years old....leave him alone and let him decide whenever he wants to....the mother is right...PERIOD...
These people are not Jewish, or at least their dispute is not over Jewish ritual circumcision. Maybe they have some non-typical religious beliefs and/or they are just kooks. Weird.
80s London Oi! band, the 4 Skins.
Circumcision was the routine medical procedure for boys in the U.S.A. for decades. Queer neo-Nazis have been behind the putsch to stop it for more than a couple of decades now.
It appears that there are also some opinions toward harassing or vexing non-envious people who simply feel drawn to have their boys circumcised. To no effect, though, in the long run, except maybe to more quickly bring what is to come.
>> Queer neo-Nazis have been behind the putsch to stop it for more than a couple of decades now. <<
Yep! An argument over a gay fetish in a federal court.
If the guy isn’t Jewish, then it must just be a power play on both sides. Bet the federal judge isn’t happy with a domestic relations case on his or her docket.
Has never been as routine as you make it sound, and falling.
Over the decades the rate of circumcision in hospitals varied from a high of nearly 65 percent in 1981 to a low of slightly more than 55 percent in 2007, Owings said.
Rate is approx. 90% in in the majority white population of males [O'Brien et al., 1995]. About 90% of their circumcisions had been carried out neonatally. A representative, nation-wide survey of all states (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2004, survey) published in 2007 by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that the overall rate in the USA was 79%, with rate varying by race and ethnicity, being 88% in non-Hispanic whites,...The rate has always been highest in whites at 55% (born before 1890), 44% (1890s), 46% (1900s), 52% (1910s), 61% (1920s), 73% (1930s), 80% (1940s), 90% (1950s), 93% (1960s), 94% (1970s) and 88% (1980s) [Stern & Lachenbruch, 1968; Laumann et al., 1997; Xu et al., 2007].
In San Francisco 56% of 58,598 STI clinic patients examined between 1996 and 2005 were circumcised [Mor et al., 2007]. Rate was Blacks 62%, Whites 60%,...It should be noted that the San Francisco Bay Area is the heartland of the anti-circumcision movement, being where it started and where its leadership and main activists reside. Clearly this cohort of San Francisco residents differs from the rest of the USA, where circumcision rates are much higher.
Trends in Circumcision for Male Newborns in U.S. Hospitals: 1979–2010
And a Google yields many other articles showing similar percentages and the downward trend.
And whatever is or isn't happening in SF will have little or no affect on the US as a whole. There is simply a trend where more parents have been questioning the benefit or lack thereof. You could have all your teeth pulled in your early teens to avoid tooth decay. Or you could take care of your teeth.
Rate is approx. 90% in in the majority white population of males [O'Brien et al., 1995]. About 90% of their circumcisions had been carried out neonatally. A representative, nation-wide survey of all states (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2004, survey) published in 2007 by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that the overall rate in the USA was 79%, with rate varying by race and ethnicity, being 88% in non-Hispanic whites,...The rate has always been highest in whites at 55% (born before 1890), 44% (1890s), 46% (1900s), 52% (1910s), 61% (1920s), 73% (1930s), 80% (1940s), 90% (1950s), 93% (1960s), 94% (1970s) and 88% (1980s) [Stern & Lachenbruch, 1968; Laumann et al., 1997; Xu et al., 2007].
Lol, there is quite a difference in stats from different sources. The CDC stats do not indicate a "routine" procedure. 65% is not routine, let alone 55%.
I don't believe for a second it has ever been 90% in the white population of the US.
These paragraphs from the study reprinted by circinfo.net that was posted by familyop explain the differences in the findings in the scientific studies and in the CDC data:
“In earlier surveys, rates have been recorded by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) [National, 2003]. Since only those circumcisions recorded are included in these statistics, the data are under-estimates [Schoen, 2006b], and are more useful for determining trends rather than absolute rates. The statement of an overall rate of 65.3% is thus much lower than the true rate [Schoen, 2006b].
Despite being underestimates some trends can be noted in NCHS data. For Whites there was no change over the years studied (65.8 vs 65.5%). For Blacks it rose from 57.9% to 64.4%. The rates recorded in the north-east region were steady at 70%, while rates rose in the mid-west (80%) and South (70%). For the western region rates have been falling due to the influx of Hispanics (50% of all births, so diluting out the overall rate in California to 35%). Overall the statistics show an increase in circumcision rate for Non-Hispanic Whites. In the West individual hospital data have shown, moreover, the rate for non-Hispanic Whites is in fact 75-80%. Interestingly, for the next generation of Hispanics, 29% of boys are circumcised (San Francisco General Hospital data).
Importantly, as noted, the actual rates are higher than indicated by these data since the latter represent only the numbers reported, whereas not all are: under-reporting being more than 10% in one large study [Gelbaum, 1992]. Even when they are supposed to be, they are often not listed on the medical record face sheet used in NCHS surveys, so that after the oversights were corrected in one study, infant circumcision rate increased from 75% to 89% [O’Brien et al., 1995], i.e., is consistent with the 2006 report by the CDC [Xu et al., 2006]. The true neonatal circumcision rate for the 1980s is probably 82% [Waskett, 2007].”
Not very sound reasoning. If they had such significant under-reporting of actual circumcisions, how can anyone be confident that the total number of males births was correct? Suspect numerator and suspect denominator.
I thought that the “reporting” related to whether or not the baby was circumcised, nit whether he was born.
In any event, there appear to be dozens of studies with circumcision percentages much higher than the CDC rate, and, unless all of them are wrong, it sounds like the CDC numbers exclude many circumcisions.
OMG Do you have *any* idea about the process of nerves regenerating after they are cut? You do *not* want to screw with those nerves. Well, you do, but not after they're cut.
If you’re not Jewish, it could be considered male genital mutilation...
We're talking about skin. The medical profession has been grafting skin all over the body for years. And I am talking about the coming new technologies where new body parts will be grown from stem cells
New body parts from stem cells
And, Lol, I caught the build in humor in your post. And I think foreskins should be one of the easier body parts to grow in a lab (but I'm no medical scientist).
Will - skin is filled with nerve endings and blood vessels. Are you talking about epithelium? You can’t have epithelium without the underlying support systems.
Glad you caught the comment about screwing with the body part. It was only after I typed it did I realize the pun.
I think that is why growing new skin from stem cells would be the method. Any new organ would also have to be attached wherever it belongs and nerve ending would have to regenerate. And most of foreskin is not attached to anything. It’s overlays, sort of like the upper and lower lips.
What a conversation.
`
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.