Kennedy autism link fuels push to ban circumcision
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. did not eplicitly call for outlawing brit milah — but in asserting that the use of Tylenol (acetaminophen/paracetamol) to ease a baby’s pain following circumcision is a cause of autism, he added fuel to a growing anti-circumcision movement whose goal is exactly that: to stop brit milah. Rabbi Hayim Leiter, a world-traveling mohel, explores this troubling phenomenon.
By Rabbi Hayim Leiter
As my plane touched down in Thailand, I received the check-in email for my journey back home. Despite the 11-hour flight, I could only stay one day. I had a wedding to officiate upon my return to Israel.
As a “freelance rabbi” — meaning I’m not the head of a synagogue — I serve in a few capacities including that of a mohel, performing the sacred ritual of brit milah in Israel and around the world. That was the purpose my visit to the Far East.
I make these trips regularly because many places in the world don’t have a resident mohel, and if I didn’t go the mitzvah would not be fulfilled. But these trips have become more complicated of late.
Much of the recent news coverage about circumcision has been negative — from Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. linking the practice to autism to new data indicating declining rates of circumcision.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine report that neonatal circumcision rates have fallen since 2010 to below 50 percent for the first time. This number has been in decline since its peak of 80 to 85 percent in the 1980s. This may seem staggering to some, given how widespread the procedure has been. But for those of us who’ve been following the topic, this downturn seems almost inevitable.
There has been a protracted war fought on the backs of babes for some years now. Many fringe groups around the world are deeply committed to ending the practice of neonatal circumcision. The largest is known as the Intactivists, with chapters throughout the United States and abroad.
But they are not alone. Other groups, such as the Bloodstained Men & Their Friends, can be seen picketing across the United States in white outfits with red crotches.
• • •
My first interaction with the anti-circumcision movement was disturbing. I shared an article referring to the movement’s “16 functions of the foreskin” doctrine. My post read: “I’m pretty sure it only has two functions.”
These groups tout the benefits of the foreskin, such as protecting from sunburn and frostbite. The response to my post was an unabated social-media storm.
The vitriol the respondents poured out was downright frightening. I was called a rapist, a pedophile; some even called for my life. I deleted the post. I didn’t know what else to do.
Over time, I began intentionally engaging these armchair warriors. As it turns out, most of the members are women and are angrier than the men who were so-called “victims” of the crime. Their MO is to troll unsuspecting parents who proudly post about their son’s recent procedure and proceed to spew nonstop hate in the comments until the parents delete the post, just as I did.
Since that first foray into this world, I’ve spent a great deal of time fighting for the protection of the practice.
I’ll admit that advocating for brit milah is an uphill battle. It’s easy to persuade people — especially the unindoctrinated — to opposed a perceived injury to a newborn. But like most modern debates, education is key.
• • •
Those who oppose circumcision greatly exaggerate certain facts while ignoring others.
All reputable practitioners use some forms of pain management, greatly reducing the baby’s discomfort; circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of UTIs as a neonate and STDs later in life. Additionally, there is no conclusive evidence of a significant decrease in sensation. And no, circumcision does not cause autism.
I watched as the movement gained momentum. The New Yorker began running regular articles denouncing circumcision, and recently, even Esquire magazine joined the chorus. The most prominent anti-circumcision story was Gary Shteyngart’s personal essay about his botched circumcision. The length and explicit detail of the article are not for the squeamish.
If this had been where the story ended, it would have been concerning, though not a cause for alarm. However, after outlawing Jewish ritual slaughter, many European countries began the movement to ban circumcision.
One of the major battles in this ongoing war was an explosive case in Ireland during the summer of 2024, when a visiting mohel from the United Kingdom was arrested and denied bail. During his detention, the mohel, a rabbi himself, was refused kosher food and tefillin. He was ultimately released on bail, but the case is still awaiting trial.
• • •
This fight has implications beyond the babies in question. If these countries succeed in outlawing circumcision, then they have, in effect, banished the Jewish communities in their midst.
What seems highly debatable in a secular context has close to unanimous agreement in the religious sphere. Jews continue the practice at rates of 95 percent, irrespective of observance level. There is no equal in our tradition.
To be denied access to the ritual is untenable in our eyes. For this reason, even if the laws were to change, ritual circumcisers such as myself would still travel to the ends of the world to help families in need.
Brit milah has been our national identity marker for more than 3,000 years. Jews have died preserving the practice — and to stop now would be akin to spitting on their graves.
