They Know: AAP Makes Children's Rights Argument
"The only rights that the child has is what is determined for them by their parents."
If you ever wonder if those in positions of power in the medical industry understand the arguments against genital cutting, watch this clip of American Academy of Pediatrics CEO Mark Del Monte:
“Just politically, we're seeing a number of themes around the country right now that seem somewhat disconnected, but I think are very much very much connected. And so if you look at efforts to seek individualized permission, for example, about curriculum decisions in schools, so, you know, parental rights as a as a term for being able to determine exactly what is spoken in a classroom to your particular child, or efforts to rollback child abuse protections or deny that there's such such a thing as abusive head trauma and to develop a literature that discredits child abuse, pediatricians, or opt out of public health approaches, from vaccines to masking to fluoride, you add up all of these things and, and even though they seem like different topics, what I worry about and maybe this is just my perspective as a lawyer, but what I worry about is what they when you add them together, what it seems to suggest to me is that it is a consistent and steady diminution of the rights of a child as a child, that the only the only rights that the child has is what is determined for them by their parents that really the the rights, the rights and privileges of children are determined exclusively by the choice, the religion, the philosophy, the decision making of parents. And so essentially that is to roll back 100 years of legal development around the rights of children and turn them back into property.” - AAP CEO Mark Del Monte [emphasis added]
That is one of the clearest articulations of the arguments against the AAP’s previous statements on circumcision that I’ve ever heard from someone in the organization.
“But maybe he just isn’t aware of how that applies to genital cutting.”
Well, he knows me:
In order to block an account that hasn’t interacted with you, you have to see it on your timeline or search to their account, find them, and block them. Either way, the CEO of the AAP is aware of my documentary American Circumcision.
After watching that clip, let me ask: do you think the issue is that he isn’t convinced of the arguments, or that his job requires him to be complicit in harmful systems?
He can clearly understand the arguments. If he knows the truth but doesn’t act, the problem is not persuasion, but complicity, as I wrote here:
If the problem is complicity, not persuasion, then the response should not be to attempt to persuade, but to pressure.
The other interesting thing about this clip is that the CEO of the AAP is concerned about… parental rights arguments.
Given that they pushed the parental rights narrative, and I wrote an article explicitly warning that this position contradicted their stance on other issues, I have no sympathy for their current plight. This is the wolf they fed. They can’t complain if they reap what they sow.
There is much more I could write about this, but I wanted to share that clip and find out: What do you think? Leave a comment below.