Dr. Richard Roberts has been placed on the “Known Genital Mutilators” directory at neonatalcutting.org.
From his website theroyalmohel.com:
“About Dr. Roberts
I’m a board certified Obstetrician-Gynecologist located on Long Island, licensed in the State of NY and successfully performed circumcisions for over 20 years. I’m also a certified mohel and completed the Berit Milah Program for physician Mohalim.
This comprehensive program is sponsored by: The Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR); The Hebrew Union College- Jewish Institute of Religion (HUC-JR); and the Union for Reform Judiasm (URJ).”
Under “FAQs” we read:
What happens to the foreskin?
Traditionally, the foreskin is buried after the Bris — covered in dirt or sand. This custom may relate back to the Jews wandering in the desert for forty years. Others believe that the soul of the individual who your son is named after will be brought back to this earth with the burial of the foreskin. Another tradition, is that the mohel gives the foreskin to the parents (after the ceremony in a sealed pouch) and they plant the foreskin in their yard under a new plant or new tree; thus symbolizing a new life that has been brought to this earth.
Nice custom; fully functioning genital tissue is cut off and left to rot in the ground or a pouch, all for some superstitious belief. I’m sure the boy has more use for it.
More “FAQs:”
How do I explain the Bris to his older sibling(s)?
I would suggest that you say that this is a ceremony where “your brother will meet with his Jewish family and relatives. All Jewish boys have a Bris on the 8th day of life.” There is also a wonderful book entitled “Rosie and the Mole. The Story of a Bris.” It explains the Bris ceremony in words and pictures that children from ages 2 to 15 should enjoy. It is available through Amazon.com. The authors are Judy Silverman and Katherine Janus Kahn.
Attempting to sugar-coat the act of infant genital mutilation doesn’t negate the violation of that infant’s human rights, something that the child will one day know.
Under “Basics” we read:
The circumcision itself is not the core element of the service. It is the blessings and intention to bring the child into what is also known as “the covenant of Abraham” that gives the ritual its religious significance. A Jewish male who has not been circumcised is still Jewish-he is considered simply a Jew in need of a “bris.” Likewise, a Jewish male who was circumcised without Jewish rites is considered in need of a symbolic, “ceremonial bris.”
Circumcision itself has been deemed safe by the American Academy of Pediatrics. A circumcision performed in the home, rather in the hospital, is also very safe and may be better tolerated by the baby. Although he does feel some pain, the baby’s discomfort will be brief (the procedure takes only a few minutes), and can be easily soothed following the procedure.
If the ceremony isn’t about the circumcision, why do it at all? The bloodless naming ceremony is fine for the girls, why not for the boys?
Since the doctor has incomplete information about the risks of circumcision, you can read that here at neonatalcutting.org.
Dr. Roberts’ practice information follows:
Cell: 516.455.2374 | Office: 516.466.4128 | Email: RR@TheRoyalMohel.com
Intactivism Update: I received this email from Steven Svoboda of NCFM and ARC regarding progress in the intactivist movement against the pro-circumcision establishment:
Subject: ARC’s Peter Adler Publishes CDC Article
ARC is proud to annnounce that our Legal Advisor, Peter Adler, has published his article critiquing the December 2014 draft circumcision regulatons from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “The Draft CDC Circumcision Recommendations: Medical, Ethical, Legal, and Procedural Concerns,” in the Spring 2016 issue of the International Journal of Children’s Rights (IJCR).
Surprisingly, the IJCR violated accepted ethical standards for journals by also publishing in the same issue a response to Peter’s article that is actually longer than Peter’s article without informing him the reply was coming and without giving him an opportunity to respond to it. The response is titled, “Critical Evaluation of Adler’s Challenge to the CDC’s Male Circumcision Recommendations,” and is authored by Beth E. Rivin, Douglas S. Diekema, Anna C. Mastroianni, John N. Krieger, Jeffrey D. Klaussner, and Brian J. Morris. Morris is of course the Australian author who is notorious for self-citation and for bullying journals and authors with whom he disagrees. Diekema is the ethicist associated with the American Academy of Pediatrics who was an unofficial second opponent of Steven’s at the 2013 pediatric ethics debate in Charleston, South Carolina, the paper from which (written by Steven, Peter, and Bob Van Howe) was published in July 2016 by the Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics. Both Peter’s paper and the Rivin reply can be found at http://arclaw.org/announcements/arcs-peter-adler-publishes-article-cdc-guidelines.
Dr. Richard Roberts of LI, NY, “Known Genital Mutilator” https://t.co/yjSNicIgSE @AndreaHardie #nocirc #MGM pic.twitter.com/1lf9DhNud2
— gary costanza (@jerrytheother) August 16, 2016
