A judge yesterday cut back the dream of Orthodox rabbis being able to practice snip-n-suck circumcision without a parent's written consent. Despite the loud protest of some in the Jewish community, yesterday's decision means that the city can move forward with its plans to require permission slips for the practice of Metzitzah B’Peh. The Department of Health had previously volunteered to put a hold on the slips while the courts chewed on the issue.

"Based on the records presently before us, we conclude that [the] plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of any of their claims," Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote in her decision dropping the injunction. "Additionally, in light of the quality of the evidence presented in support of the regulation, we conclude that a continued injunction against enforcement of the regulation, would not serve the public interest." She also pointed out that the "ample medical evidence that direct oral suction places infants at a serious risk" far outweighed rabbis desire to perform the religious ceremony "uninhibited."

In case you haven't been following along at home here's the gist of the issue: In the circumcision practice of Metzitzah B'Peh, a mohel uses direct oral suction to clean the blood off an infant penis after the foreskin has been cut off. Unfortunately this practice can lead to the infants contracting herpes. And that infection that can be fatal. According to the Department of Health, since 2000 11 cases of infection have been confirmed, with 10 newborns then being hospitalized and two dying. As such, the Department of Health last year voted unanimously to require parents to sign a consent form before such a ceremony to make sure everyone understands the dangers involved. Nobody actually tried to ban the practice.

The city, for one, is happy with the news. "We are gratified the Court is allowing this significant public health rule to proceed unimpeded," Michelle Goldberg-Cahn, a Senior Counsel in the City Law Department said. "Informing parents about the grave risks associated with this procedure is critical to safeguarding infants' health."

The plaintiffs, meanwhile, were less amused. Andrew Moesel, a spokesman for them, is promising to appeal. "We continue to believe that this case is a wrongful and unnecessary intrusion into the rights of freedom of religion and speech," he said.

But in the meantime? Consent forms it is!