Earlier today, a federal appeals court unanimously ruled that a motion by Agudath Israel of America, the Satmar-dominated Central Rabbinical Congress of the United States and Canada, the International Bris Association, and several haredi mohels to have an injunction issued against enforcement of NYC’s informed consent requirement for Jewish ritual circumcisions involving metzitzah b’peh (MBP), the dangerous direct mouth-to-bleeding penis sucking done by many haredi mohels after removing a baby’s foreskin, must be heard.
Above: Metzitzah b'peh
Appellate Court Rules Haredi Claim That NYC’s Regulation Of Dangerous Circumcision Practice Infringes On Freedom Of Religion Must Be Heard
Shmarya Rosenberg • FailedMessiah.com
Earlier today, a federal appeals court unanimously ruled that a motion by Agudath Israel of America, the Satmar-dominated Central Rabbinical Congress of the United States and Canada, the International Bris Association, and several haredi mohels to have an injunction issued against enforcement of New York City’s informed consent requirement for Jewish ritual circumcisions involving metzitzah b’peh (MBP), the dangerous direct mouth-to-bleeding penis sucking done by many haredi mohels after removing a baby’s foreskin, must be heard, Reuter’s reported.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that US District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald had been too deferential to the city when she rejected the plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the informed consent rule by ruling that the city's regulation addressed "legitimate societal concerns." The appeals court ordered Reice Buchwald to use "strict scrutiny" to see if the regulation infringes on the plaintiffs' free exercise of religion.
In the appellate court ruling, Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston wrote that the city’s regulation was not neutral toward religion because it "purposefully singles out religious conduct performed by a subset of Orthodox Jews," and applies exclusively to them.
But this “subset of Orthodox Jews” is the only group in America to perform this dangerous procedure, making the appellate court ruling appear nonsensical.
Livingston also reportedly wrote that, “The Department (of Health) may have legitimate reasons for addressing HSV infection risk among infants primarily, if not exclusively, by regulating MBP. On the present record, however, the plaintiffs have made a sufficient case for strict scrutiny by establishing that the risk of transmission by reason of metzitzah b'peh has been singled out."
Health departments issue regulations based on disease transmission, not based on religion of ethnicity or sexuality. But if a particular subset of the population is doing an act that endangers children, and no other subset is doing that, to assert the regulation is discriminatory is nonsensical and would likely be reversed on appeal – if the city chooses to appeal it.
Alternately, the city could broaden the regulation to include other forms of disease transmission through any form of circumcision – athough those regulations generally already exist.
The US Supreme Court has already ruled that cases involving public health or threat to lives of children overrule religious freedom issues. That ruling came in case involving a Christian Scientist family which refused lifesaving treatment for one of its children on religious grounds.
MBP has repeatedly transferred herpes and other diseases to infants in New York City, killing at least two sickening others, including one baby left with permanent brain damage.
MBP also has a documented 200 year history of killing and maiming babies worldwide, as well.
But it is likely the city’s attorneys failed to bring that history as evidence to support its actions.