Why the New York Times is no longer accepting new submissions from uncircumcision advocates

The New York TIMES has decided not to accept new submissions for a controversial new article titled “Can You Uncircumcise Your Daughter?” by a blogger and columnist named Johnathan Lebovitz. 

“In response to the petition calling for the NYT to be removed from its ‘Circumcision Watch List’ as a public nuisance, we’ve decided not do so,” a Times spokesperson told The Huffington Post.

“We’re not going to give in to a campaign that’s based on fear, misinformation and fearmongering.”

Lebovitch said the article should have been published long ago.

“The truth is, we are in a new era in which parents and children are being taught that circumcision is an act of genocide against our children,” Lebove told HuffPost.

“There’s no doubt that there is no scientific evidence that shows that circumcision causes disease or harms any of our children.

This is not a new debate.

It’s been going on for over 40 years.”

LeBovitz wrote the piece in August in response to a post from a woman who said she was circumcised in the mid-1980s after having a child at the age of 13.

“As a result of being circumcised at 13, I became an adult and then, as a result, was forced to undergo unnecessary medical procedures and surgeries to make myself look as normal as possible,” the woman wrote.

“It has made me a man.

And I am an adult because of it.”

In the post, the woman said she and her husband had to wait for years to be able to visit their daughter after being told by her pediatrician that she was too young to have children.

She said she now has two children and that her parents’ religious faith was a factor in their decision to circumcise her.

“It is a very simple truth that we are not normal and our bodies are not,” the mother wrote. 

A spokesperson for the Times said in a statement: “The Times has a long-standing policy against any content that is defamatory or abusive.

It is the policy of the Times to not comment on individual cases of child abuse.”

The Times said the policy had not changed since the first edition of the article. 

However, in a follow-up article on Monday, the Times published a correction.

It said the woman’s original article “did not properly reflect our view on circumcision.”

“We were unaware of the policy and its implications when the article was written,” the statement said.

“While we have changed our policy in light of this article, we do not feel it is necessary to make any further comment on this matter.

We have already removed the article from the Times’ website.”

Lebsovitz has received thousands of comments on his Facebook page, which has nearly 3,000 likes, since the story first appeared.

The New York City-based writer said he decided to speak out about the article after learning about the comments on Facebook.

“I realized there was a lot of misinformation out there, a lot that was based on the idea that the New Testament says that circumcision kills, that it’s not an act that should be done,” Lebsovitch told HuffPost, adding that the woman had a valid point.

“But when I looked at the Bible, there was no such thing as a cure,” he added.

“The Bible says that you’re to be saved and to be forgiven.

And that’s it.

And you’re going to be judged, judged on the actions of your actions.”

Le Bovitz said he believes that the Times should be removed for what he describes as “misinformation,” rather than for having a policy against circumcision.

“My argument is not that they should remove the article, but that they are using their position to promote misinformation,” he said.

“I think that they’re not being fair to the readership, and they’re certainly not being transparent to the parents.

I think they’re being deceptive.”

The New Yorker’s decision to not allow the article to be published was announced on Monday by Times editor-in-chief Jill Abramson.

“When we first heard of this campaign, we decided that the only way we could defend the Times and our commitment to accuracy and objectivity was to stop publishing this article,” Abramson said in an email.

“We are continuing to do this.”

The article, which appears to have been written by Lebavitz, was published on Aug. 30, 2017, on the Times website.