Letter to Joyce Foster

From Intact America, I learned that in the State of Colorado, Senator Joyce Foster is sponsoring a bill entitled “Restore Medicaid Funding for Circumcision.” On her web page, she states:
Another bill I will introduce is titled “Restore Medicaid Funding for Circumcision.” Disappointingly, last year Colorado became the 17th state to discontinue Medicaid payments for circumcisions, a very common and many say preventive healthcare procedure. The funding elimination was supposed to save the state $186,000 in Medicaid cost. However, the state then lost the same amount in matching federal funds. 
I recently visited a friend who is a gynecologist and told her about my “Restore Medicaid Funding for Circumcision” bill. She told me that since Medicaid payments for this procedure have stopped, parents choosing to have their children circumcised in the hospital must now have the cash available at time of delivery or they are out of luck. How callous we’ve become. We can now expect private health insurance companies to review their circumcision policy, possibly jeopardizing coverage for this very important health procedure.
I immediately wrote a letter to all of the Colorado Legislators. It contained the text of my blog entry entitled “Domestic Violations of International Treaties,” from a year ago.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Karl Hegbloom wrote:

“Circumcision” is a deprecated euphemism for the atrocity that is more accurately referred to as “Male Genital Mutilation[2].” It is the wanton amputation of a normal, healthy, functioning body part, which is certainly a second degree felony under Utah Statute[3] 76-5-105, “Mayhem.” Infant Genital Mutilation also certainly falls under 76-5-109, “Child Abuse”. In particular, the following definitions given under 76-5-109(1) can be easily shown to be applicable: 
[ . . . ]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Joyce Foster wrote:
Dear Karl, 
Thank you for sharing your concerns with me regarding Senate Bill 90. After reviewing the overwhelming scientific data validating that male circumcision reduces instances of HIV, AIDS, HPV, urinary tract infections, penile cancer and other infectious diseases I remain steadfast with my support to restore Medicaid funding for this important preventative health care procedure. 

A 2009 UCLA AIDS Institute study reports that “Hospitals in states where Medicaid does not pay for routine male circumcision are only about half as likely to perform the procedure, and this disparity could lead to an increased risk of HIV infection among lower-income children later in life”. Senate Bill 90 helps level the playing field for these children, providing them the same protection from contracting HIV as children with non-Medicaid health plans. Organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are working toward the same goal abroad, giving to the Global Fund for AIDS prevention. The Foundation cites studies that say male circumcision reduces HIV transmission by up to 70% in non-industrialized countries. 

In addition, the Journal of the International Aids Society recently reported that “The scientific evidence accumulated over more than 20 years shows that among the strategies advocated during this period for HIV prevention, male circumcision is one of, if not, the most efficacious, epidemiological as well as cost-wise”. Until last year Colorado covered male circumcision under Medicaid, and while the elimination reduced state spending by about $186,000 yearly, we must recognize that preventative care is key to sustainable savings. 

Thank you again for writing and expressing your opinion with my office. I value your input. 
Colorado State Senator Joyce Foster, District 35, State Capitol Rm. 329, Capitol Phone: 303-866-4875, Email: joyce.foster.senate@state.co.us

To which I replied:
Dear Joyce Foster, 
I think that you have most certainly not truly done your homework on this topic. I believe you are under-informed. Whoever gave you that information is not somebody you should trust. I challenge you to do a lot more reading on the subject. Read things by people who oppose genital mutilation, not just things written by the people who stand to profit from it. You need to review the research yourself, and read things that other scientists have said about it. The studies that claim it prevents HIV have been shown to be flawed. They did not pass peer review. What prevents HIV is not sharing needles or having sex with infected individuals. If you abide by the Words of Wisdom -- that is, don't use illegal drugs -- and the Law of Chastity -- don't go around having sex with strangers --- then you're very unlikely to ever contract HIV or HPV. 
That site has quite an extensive reference library. I highly recommend that you read through quite a lot of it before you make a decision that will affect the lives of many young males. Of course, it may be that you know exactly what "circumcision" really is... "Circumcision" is a deprecated euphemism for an atrocity more accurately referred to as genital mutilation. The reality is that genital mutilation is a screaming nightmare. Imagine having someone tie you down with velcro straps to a little crucifix, and then grab your penile prepuce with a hemostat. You scream and struggle, and the masked man acts like nothing unusual is happening, as he crushes it flat, then jams a second hemostat under it to rip it away from the glans, to which it is still attached by a thin membrane. You scream until you turn blue and pass out from exhaustion... See: 
Anyone who thinks it's both Ok to do that to a baby, and Ok for the government to pay the perverts that do it, while knowing exactly what it really is, is not someone I trust. The laws are supposed to protect people from inequity and violence. The laws are supposed to apply to everyone. Claiming that "circumcision is a medical procedure" is like saying that "lobotomy is a medical procedure." And of course, lobotomy cures communism. It probably also cures democracy... and education. 
What we know from reading things like the article about "Solving the Negro Rape Problem" that you can find here: 
... is that the real purpose of prepucial amputation is to deliberately desensitize the penis. Interfering with natural sexuality probably increases the divorce rate. Natural sexuality includes courtship and marriage... 
Natural sexuality also includes self-pleasure (in private). With no culture of peer-pressure compelling people to go out and "get laid" by making them ashamed of taking a little time for themself, people are less likely to have sex with a stranger and contract a disease. We all know that circumcision was, back in the day, ostensibly supposed to be a cure for masturbation. But during the same era that it was being promoted for that, the "gelded age", men fought duels with swords and pistols. Have you read any of the stories about young men who got held down and circumcised against their will? They still do that in Islamic countries! There is a terribly evil culture of jealous violence there. Men are very possessive of women, and repressing the sexuality of other males is part of their game plan. So, circumcised males are probably more likely to masturbate, vs finding a wife.
So, circumcision can also easily be construed as a violent attack; a hate crime. You and your upper-cruft cronies may think that's what you should do to the under-class... Things like this are bound to breed dissent and increase the level of distrust of authority that already exists in this country. "You can't stop the signal, Mal." You're not really making a better world by setting a bad example. Mayhem is illegal, no matter who you are. Misprison of felony is also. Many people world wide think of genital mutilation as a crime. No wonder the USA can not ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child! 
Inflicting painful trauma upon hapless infants increases the likelihood that they will follow that example and commit acts of violence themselves. The work being done to allegedly prevent domestic violence won't do much good unless you stop inflicting violence on infants. (I say "allegedly" because there are some serious problems with the way anti domestic violence legislation is written... Some people are saying that "domestic violence is the new Jim Crow," and that laws ostensibly designed to prevent it are really just a way to persecute the lower class. The government is splitting families up, not bringing them together. But that's almost entirely another topic... under the same heading: oppression of labor.)