view counter
City Council Bill Would Prevent Regulation Of Circumcision
Councilman Greenfield calls Board of Health interference ‘outrageous.’
Jewish Week Correspondent
Photo Galleria: 

Citing freedom of religion, Councilman David Greenfield has introduced legislation prohibiting the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Board of Health from taking any formal action against the controversial practice of metzitzah b’peh.

The legislation, introduced at the Sept. 12 City Council meeting, has since been referred to committee for hearings. It addresses the Board of Health’s requirement last year that mohels obtain written consent from parents before performing the oral suction practice, which has been linked to dangerous infection and two deaths.

“This is one of the most outrageous examples of government intruding into the ability of residents to freely practice their religion without restrictions based on questionable findings,” said Greenfield, a Democrat, in his remarks, which were forwarded to the press.

Greenfield, an Orthodox Jew, represents parts of Borough Park and Flatbush in Brooklyn.

“I continue to be outraged that the city took this incredibly misguided step last year, and will fight until the board reverses its decision or this bill becomes law. It is imperative that every citizen, regardless of their particular religion, be able to practice and worship without the fear of being restricted or targeted by their own government.”

Samantha Levine, deputy press secretary to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, told The Jewish Week in an e-mailed response Tuesday that the city was acting to save lives.

“Health Department investigations of newborns with herpes virus between 2000-2013 have shown that 13 infants contracted the herpes virus when mohelim, or ritual circumcisers, placed their mouths directly on the child’s circumcision wound to draw blood away from the circumcision cut,” Levine said.

“Two of these babies died. The city’s highest obligation is to protect its children, and it is critical for parents to know the risks associated with the practice.”

A City Council source said the bill was unlikely to come up for a vote before the end of the year, as the Health Committee is dealing with a proposal to raise the legal age of cigarette purchasers from 19 to 21. After January, the Council will have many new members, a new speaker and likely new committee chairs.

The consent requirement has become a citywide political issue, with most candidates for mayor this year decrying the Bloomberg administration’s handling of the matter and the Board of Health vote regarding the rite that many doctors claim is medically unsafe.

In the general election, the two candidates agree in principle that the consent requirement is wrong but differ on how it should be addressed.

“I’ll keep the form in place until we have a better approach,” Democratic mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio, the city’s public advocate, recently said about the issue, referring to the consent forms parents of infants must sign. “I want to work with community leaders on something we can all agree upon, that will help protect the safety of our children. I think we can do better.”

Chasidic backers have urged de Blasio, if elected, to immediately revoke the consent decree, which is the object of a federal lawsuit by a group of Orthodox organizations and mohelim who argue that it infinges freedom of religion.

Joseph Lhota, the Republican mayoral candidate, spoke to The Jewish Week about the subject earlier this summer.

“In no way, shape or form should the government get involved as long as they tell the parents what the risks are,” he said, explaining that his views have evolved, and that as mayor he would attempt to repeal the consent form by bringing the issue back to the Board of Health.

Chaim David Zwiebel, executive vice president of Agudath Israel of America, which is a party to the lawsuit against the city, said he had spoken to Greenfield about the issue recently but was not consulted about the bill.

Zwiebel, an attorney and expert on matters of religion and law, said the language of the bill appears to be designed not to eliminate the consent requirement but to prevent enforcement.

Zwiebel, an attorney and expert on matters of religion and law, added “the most troublesome thing about the city regulation is that it’s the first time ever in the history of this country that bris mila [ritual circumcision] has been regulated in any shape or fashion.”

Asked how the bill, if passed, would affect the lawsuit, Zwiebel said “that hasn’t been discussed internally, but I don’t know if this bill is passing in the foreseeable future. If it does happen, it will have a major impact on our decision-making as we move forward. It could be that there will be no more lawsuit, because the judges themselves may decide it.”

Assistant Managing Editor Adam Dickter contributed to this report.

Last Update:

10/05/2013 - 14:37
The Jewish Week App -- Now Available!
view counter


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.

I am a European living in the USA for many years, I have a point to make about circumcision; most American males (non Jews) are (by default) circumcised. Americans don't seem to care very much about "that" practice. Granted, is not done for religious purpose, and of course there is none of the ritual described above; but nevertheless in my opinion totally unnecessary.

From Kenneth Ellman, email:, Box 18, Newton, New Jersey 07860
In reference to the Sept. 17, 2013 New York Jewish Week article on Metzitzah b’peh and proposals by Councilman David Greenfield the issue is much simpler than it appears.
Sometimes it is best to state what we all know is beyond dispute. The below is my uneducated impression.

1. Male Circumcision is an absolute requirement to be part of the Jewish people. Of this there is simply no question of any kind. Circumcision is a clear and unambiguous commandant in the Torah, also known to Christians as the Old Testament.

2. Circumcision is not a doctrine of the Talmudic development and long preceded the Talmud.

3. In Judaism female circumcision simply does not exist and never did. So we are only talking about Male Circumcision. Female circumcision is unknown to Judaism.

4. You cannot separate Judaism from the religious commandant of Circumcision.
They do not exist separately. Many MOT observe what they choose to observe, but that does not change the Religion or the Jewish Law. The Torah does not change and the words do not disappear because some Jews walk away from it.

5. The practice known as Metzitzah b’peh to the extent it refers to mouth contact with the circumcision wound is not a specific or clear commandant in the Torah. Nor is their any reason to believe that Abraham performed such in the manner it is performed today. At least my ignorant eyes do not read that.

6. There are various ways to allow brief bleeding from a wound, including a circumcision wound. This is sometimes part of the process of a wound being cleaned and treated, brief bleeding can be part of a proper method of treatment, including sanitary suction..

7. There is no doubt of any kind that direct contact between the mouth and an open wound creates an increased risk of infection. How great that risk is has not been specifically determined. But the fact that it increases the chance of infection cannot be gainsaid. However there have been many circumstances when humans and also animals do engage in mouth contact with a wound as an act of wound care. So this is strictly a medical question that can be answered scientifically.
There is no doubt that some cases of Herpes have been transmitted by mouth to wound contact.

8. There is also no question that a religious practice that endangers the life of a child can and should be prohibited by law and such prohibition is authorized under the United States Constitution. Circumcision itself does not endanger such health and safety and may provide significant health and safety benefits . Such Health and Safety benefit is irrelevant to the requirements for Religious Circumcision.

9. There is no rational or religious basis to object to parents be given a writing of the possible health risk of mouth to wound contact and the Religious authority for this and against it. It would be preferable if the Religious Authority/Beth Din gave this notice and indicated alternatives that could be acceptable under Halacha (Halakha). If oral wound contact is used then it is inevitable that some very small number of children will become infected and or die from time to time. No doubt about it. Kenneth Ellman,, Box 18, Newton, New Jersey 07860

Contrary to what Councilman David Greenfield is quoted as saying, the current policy, implemented last year, in no way "intrud[es] into the ability of residents to freely practice their religion." Rather, it ensures that when fervently Orthodox Jews opt to allow a mohel to use metzitzah b'peh on their children, they are doing so only after having been informed about the risks inherent in the practice. (Last year, I studied this controversy in depth as part of the research for my master's degree thesis entitled "Metzitzah b'Peh: The Oral Tradition Meets the New York City Department of Health.")

view counter