Wow! On the same day that I was coming here to brag about my new bumper stickers, I hear about a new development from the Center for Disease Control.
But first the good news.


Aren't they beautiful!
ok - not sure why they're so small, but as soon as Tuan gets home with the car I'll take more pics and post them.
The left one says "Circumcision? NO! Moroni 8:8"
The right one says "If God wanted me to have a foreskin, I would have been born with one."
Now, the bad news.
The Centers for Disease Control need to hear from you. Today! I would also strongly urge you to cc your
Senate and Congressional Representative.For those interested in where this is all coming from, there was a conference in the last few weeks that resulted in two very important presentations. The first was a study by
Millett et al. that confirmed the Sydney study that male circumcision has no value for gay men, who are the major risk group. Then there was
this presentation that seems to recommend mass infant male circumcision anyway on a cost-effectiveness basis. No human rights issues were discussed or apparently even contemplated in recommending genital surgeries on children.
If you have never written to your Congress(wo)men, now is a great time to start!
Here is the letter I sent:
December 10, 2007
Julie Louise Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Office of the Director
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Rd Atlanta, GA 30333
RE: Recommendations viz neonatal male circumcision and HIV
Dear Dr. Gerberding:
I have learned with grave concern that you and the Centers for Disease Control are considering recommending neonatal circumcision as public health policy in the effort to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS in the United States. I oppose this recommendation in the strongest possible way.
Neonatal circumcision has run into national grassroots opposition from a sizable and highly active group of people for at least the last 25 years. This opposition on human rights grounds has resulted in the major medical organizations gradually moving away from support of a marginal procedure that damages sexual response and violates the individual human rights of the infants on the receiving end.
Whatever marginal gain individuals may receive from male circumcision must be in the context of informed consent and voluntariness. Infants can provide neither. The variables involved in the effectiveness of such a procedure over the longer term are many, including the changing dynamics of the disease, changes in provision of healthcare impacting cost-effectiveness, the possibility of new treatments, prevention technologies, and eventually a vaccine. Male circumcision has not served the United States well heretofore in comparison with non-circumcising countries and regions where the HIV/AIDS rate is much lower, e.g. Japan, most of Europe, and Latin America.
I urge you to reject neonatal male circumcision as public health policy in order to safe guard your credibility with the American people and throughout the world. The United States can ill-afford another dubious policy with scant input from American stakeholders.
Very truly yours,
Maria Le
www.tuansprincess@yahoo.com