Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

New York, NY - Councilman Introduces Bill To Prevent City From Regulating Bris Milah

Published on: September 16, 2013 03:01 PM
By: Press Release
Change text size Text Size  
Bookmark and Share

New York, NY - In response to the city’s decision to overstep its authority and regulate the religious practice of metzitzah b’peh, Councilman David G. Greenfield has introduced legislation in the City Council that would prevent the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Board of Health from enacting or enforcing any regulation concerning circumcision.

The proposed law comes after the city Board of Health voted last year to require parents to sign a consent form before their child undergoes the ancient tradition of metzitzah b’peh. This decision by the board to improperly regulate religion is currently being challenged in court by leaders from the Orthodox Jewish community.

At the same time, Councilman Greenfield is pushing this legislation to prevent the city from continuing to enforce the requirement that parents must consent in writing before the ritual is performed.

“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. 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,” said Councilman Greenfield.

Advertisement:

In addition to supporting the community leader’s lawsuit challenging the city’s regulation and introducing this legislation, Councilman Greenfield has consistently and strongly spoken out against the regulation since it was passed last September. In addition, he recently joined his colleague Councilman Lew Fidler in voting against the reappointment of Dr. Lynne Richardson to the Board of Health at the August 22nd City Council Stated meeting in protest of her and the entire board’s vote.

“I am proud to stand up for what is right and defend our community, and everyone who practices religion in New York City, against this outrageous policy and the precedent it sets. Anyone who believes in religious freedom and is against government oversight should join me and my colleagues in opposing this and all other regulations that trample on our constitutionally-protected right to religious freedom,” added Councilman Greenfield.

The legislation was introduced at the September 12 City Council Stated meeting and has been referred to committee for hearings.


More of today's headlines

New York - Another person who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City has been identified. The city medical examiner's office said Monday that... Jerusalem - Israel's supreme court on Monday struck down a year-old law that meant African migrants could be held in detention for up three years without charge. The...

 

You can now automatically hide comments - New!

Don't worry, you can always display comments when you need to.

Total11

Read Comments (11)  —  Post Yours »

1

 Sep 16, 2013 at 03:14 PM Anonymous Says:

It's the American way, and The right thing to do. good luck, if he suc

2

 Sep 16, 2013 at 03:17 PM Anonymous Says:

It's the American way, and The right thing to do. good luck, if he succeeds councilman. Greenfield will have an honorable place in history.

3

 Sep 16, 2013 at 04:20 PM Realistic Says:

This is stupid.

Has no chance of succeeding, might even give it a stamp by the City Council.

Another example of politicians behaving recklessly, without thinking through what the consequences might be.

4

 Sep 16, 2013 at 06:25 PM ALTERG Says:

Wow,,,,,, what a good job david is doing, he is a worker, go david go

5

 Sep 16, 2013 at 06:41 PM woodmerejoe Says:

What is his problem? Nobody is prevented from doing this metizah be peh
They have to sign a consent form.A person must sign a consent form prior to
a medical procedure.

6

 Sep 16, 2013 at 07:26 PM Anon Ibid Opcit Says:

MBP should prosecuted as felonious reckless endangerment of a child. The mohels who practice it and the parents who allow it should be in jail. It really is that simple

7

 Sep 16, 2013 at 07:39 PM Open-Your-Eyes Says:

Reply to #5  
woodmerejoe Says:

What is his problem? Nobody is prevented from doing this metizah be peh
They have to sign a consent form.A person must sign a consent form prior to
a medical procedure.

There is a much greater risk of getting killed by accident or getting sick from polution in the NYC than getting harmed from MBP!

Have parents sign a consent every day when they send their kids off to school or when you take your kid to shop or to shul. Because what's wrong???

8

 Sep 16, 2013 at 07:56 PM villyamsburger Says:

Reply to #5  
woodmerejoe Says:

What is his problem? Nobody is prevented from doing this metizah be peh
They have to sign a consent form.A person must sign a consent form prior to
a medical procedure.

Do you want to have to sign a consent form to Blow Shofer, or to eat Chulent?

This Bloomie is a true Stalin he dosent like noise, he dosent like Fat, he doesn't like salt and he Absolutely doesn't like a frum Yid.

9

 Sep 17, 2013 at 12:58 AM hollo Says:

Thanks david for working hard on helping yidishkeit.

10

 Sep 17, 2013 at 03:14 AM BarryLS1 Says:

I wouldn't be surprised if those of you opposed to government interference in MBP, as interfering in religious practice, are in favor of government kosher inspectors. The same people appear to be wanting both things (like City Councilmembers), which would be a contradiction and hypocritical.

The premise of the consent form is to protect the infant from harm due to Mohelim that may have herpies or other diseases that can and has been transfered to the chil, which has led to a few deaths. The premise of government kosher inspectors was as a consumer protection issue. What is the difference? The government wouldn't be stopping MPB. In both cases it's government involvement in a religious issue and in both cases, the government isn't restricting religious practice.

11

 Sep 17, 2013 at 05:00 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #6  
Anon Ibid Opcit Says:

MBP should prosecuted as felonious reckless endangerment of a child. The mohels who practice it and the parents who allow it should be in jail. It really is that simple

Absolutely correct.

But what exactly is the language of this "consent" form? Normally, a consent form's purpose is to acknowledge awareness of the riskiness of a proposed activity by one party, and serves to shield a second party from liability in the event that the first party's doing the activity results in harm.

WHO EXACTLY IS THE SECOND PARTY WHO IS BEING SHIELDED FROM HARM?

12

Sign-in to post a comment

Scroll Up
Advertisements:

Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!