I found the following web-page that pointed to this blog:
I’m glad that you found this one tid-bit of information useful. But you quoted only the first part and represented it as though it were the whole story. It’s not. Don’t do that. It’s not cool.
The don’t-slice-your-baby’s-dick-apart argument is strong enough that it doesn’t need to be supported by half-truths, even by the well-meaning.
The whole story is that in fact, the question of circumcision, in North America, in case of a dispute is typically handled by each hospital differently, and that a recorded objection might quite easily scare the hospital into refusing to do the procedure and recommend court.
I agree that New York’s Mt. Sinai’s position, if I’ve accurately reflected has some room to improve on procedures. It would be fair to demand the signature of both parents, when available. Ideally, I’d like to see circumcision limited to the same criteria where female circumcision procedures are called for. Life or health threatening only. But they are subject to the law as much as we are.
Do not misinterpret one single fact as a global truth without context. You would be better off addressing the laws themselves.
Thanks for listening.