More

Circumcision Ban To Be Stricken From San Francisco Ballot, Judge Says

Briss

LISA LEFF   07/27/11 10:10 PM ET   AP

SAN FRANCISCO — A judge said Wednesday she intends to strike a ban on male circumcision from the city's November ballot.

Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi said in a tentative ruling that the proposed law prohibiting circumcision of male children violates a California law that makes regulating medical procedures a function of the state, not cities.

"It serves no legitimate purpose to allow a measure whose invalidity can be determined as a matter of law to remain on the ballot," Giorgi wrote.

Giorgi ordered San Francisco's elections director to remove the controversial measure from the ballot that would have made the city the first in the nation to hold a public vote on whether to outlaw the circumcision of minors.

The citizens' initiative, which made the ballot in May after supporters gathered the required 7,163 signatures, would have made the practice a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail.

The initiative did not offer exemptions for religious rituals such as the Jewish bris or Muslim khitan.

The city attorney's office, which had joined several Jewish organizations in challenging the ban in court, said Giorgi plans to hear arguments on the issue Thursday before making her ruling final.

Backers had argued the ban was necessary to prevent a form of genital mutilation from being forced on children.

Critics contended the initiative posed a threat to constitutionally protected religious freedoms and cited comic books and trading cards distributed by the measure's proponents that carried images of a blonde, blue-eyed superhero and four evil Jewish characters.

The ban's sponsor, anti-circumcision activist Lloyd Schofield, said that he disagreed with the judge's interpretation and deliberately crafted a local ordinance "because for 10 years, no one on a statewide or national level would even consider this."

Even if San Francisco voters will not be able to make their views known, the attention surrounding the ballot initiative has been good for circumcision opponents, Schofield said.

"The mission won't be accomplished until men enjoy the same protection as women from forced genital mutilation, but everything we can achieve on the way to that goal is a step in the right direction," he said. "Just getting people to think and discuss this is very rewarding because people don't think about this, they just do it automatically."

Though state law prohibits cities and counties from regulating medical procedures, two California Assembly members have introduced a bill that would specifically pre-empt local governments from enacting laws regarding male circumcision.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST SAN FRANCISCO

Filed by Carly Schwartz  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 641
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
02:56 PM on 09/10/2011
While circumcision was originally employed as a health measure by religious sects, it is like so many other laws out weighed by the times in which we NOW live. A parent can simply tell their doctor not to perform a full circumcision or just a partial circumcision. But then they must be understand how to teach the child to keep that once exposed part, now covered by skin, CLEAN.
I think this fellow has brought to the attention of the many a factor that does need more attention. And again, it comes down to the people. Stand up for your conviction or suffer the consequences. Did you know in NYC it is ILLEGAL (on the books) to kiss in public. So many laws need to be changed. We have become lazy and self-indulgent and apathetic. It is too bad to see our society crumbling as it appears to be, right in front of our 20/20 vision.
12:51 AM on 08/11/2011
Religious rights do not extend to sex rituals, or sex-organ rituals, performed on minors.

His body, his choice - when he's of age to consent.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wholly Guacamole
The world is my country; to do good my religion.
08:43 PM on 07/30/2011
I remember my circumcision like it was yesterday. It was awful, just awful. I couldn't walk for almost two years.
12:49 AM on 08/11/2011
The same could be said of any abuse of an infant. They don't remember it, so no big deal if it's wrong.
photo
Poster9999
Opinion without thought means it's not your truth
12:38 PM on 07/30/2011
I'd like to start a religion where I scratch tiny scars in the head of babies of my faith in honor of the crown of thorns Jesus had to wear. Also, I'd like to smoke pot every Sunday in reverence of the burning bush of God that spoke to Moses. (I'll trade that for minors drinking alcohol on Sundays otherwise known as the blood of christ). According to my religion and my interpretation of the bible, I have to do these things in order to go to heaven. What right does America have to deny me my first amendment rights?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Landin
12:33 AM on 07/31/2011
First off there was never a Jesus....Pagans had the same story 3x in their tradition. The Sabbath is on the seventh day, which is Saturday. There is no heaven or hell thats all Christian BS!
photo
Poster9999
Opinion without thought means it's not your truth
10:46 AM on 07/31/2011
Not sure we are on the same topic here...
10:56 AM on 07/30/2011
Circumcision is cruel and barbaric cuts millions of nerve ending and reduces sensitivity and pleasure for men as well as for women (more stabbing less gliding).
If I get dirt under my nails I clean my nails, I do not remove them, if you think your baby is going to smell bad, buy a bidet and teach him how to clean himself, that is what we use in Europe.
If I would put a nose ring or a tattoo on my infant child, child protective services would probably take my baby away, but I can mutilate his penis thanks to stupid religion customs that were designed for people living in the desert with very little water,
God doesn’t care about foreskin being cut in his name.
The AMA came out with a neutral position despite the fact that they have a financial stake in it.
Please do some research before you cut your baby.
12:28 AM on 07/30/2011
This practice has been literally carved into our bodies for thousands of years and will take a lot to wake up those who have been programmed to except it.

It is clearly primitive and part of the religious desire to squash our sexual urge.

I am not holding my breathe, but I would ask those who are about to have a son to ask themselves why are they really doing it and what purpose will it serve the child. Cause in the end it is certainly not as bad as clitoral removal but it is the same idea.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Landin
12:27 PM on 07/30/2011
Sorry to be there barer of bad news for you but circumcision improves sexual function and makes for much stronger orgasms. Been on bothsides and being uncircumcised sucks! Being circumcised is cleaner, healthier, better looking and I can assure you improves sex! I didn't hesitate a second when it came time to circumcise my boys.....
06:01 PM on 07/30/2011
Many males circumcised as adults say circumcision made sex worse for them though.

Likely sex is better for you after circumcision only because your circumcision fixed a medical problem with your foreskin, even though the medical problem could have been easily fixed without circumcision. For example, if you were over washing your foreskin that could have caused irritation problems with it.
12:33 AM on 08/10/2011
your choice. Some people prefer to cut their tongues out too. You gonna do that to kids?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BKearney
Life is funny, skies are sunny, bees make honey
07:51 PM on 07/29/2011
Let the involuntary mutilation of babies continue. WoooHooo
07:18 PM on 07/29/2011
This "legal" decision is tantamount to saying vivisection is a medical procedure. "Vivisection": The action of cutting into or dissecting a living body.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Jighter
08:57 PM on 07/29/2011
That I think depends on the details of the law and decision (which I will admit I have not read). I agree entirely that, based on the current evidence, circumcision is not a medical procedure in any serious medical sense. But circumcision has been considered a medical procedure and likely the state government regards circumcision as a medical procedure. In that case it is the city government banning a practice that the state government views as a medical practice that they regulated. Moreover at the state level circumcision is legal, so state law would override the city ban, rending the ban meaningless. The point is that this is probably an issue of separation of powers between state and city governments and not so much an issue of the definition of "medical procedure". I agree that circumcision should be regarded as not a medical procedure by the government, but you have to argue that at the state legal for that to become the law, not at the city level.
photo
Spock
Milky Way Pedestrian
01:57 PM on 07/30/2011
I'm an antivivisectionist and I don't see the comparison. Animals in the labs are doomed to a life of misery and death. Circumcised babes go one to live normal lives. Two very different outcomes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Jighter
06:40 PM on 07/29/2011
Note that people do NOT have the religious freedom to cut off body parts of other people who are not members of their religion. If I said this regarding on adult cutting another, this would be obvious. For babies this is a corollary of my remarks above. Your religion freedom ends where other people's bodies and lives begin.

The issue here is not hatred of Jews or Muslims. It is dislike of people cutting of babies' body parts and thereby harming them. It is labeling children with the religion of their parents in disregard of their future religious beliefs. Any religion or ideology who does such things will receive the same criticism.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Jighter
06:38 PM on 07/29/2011
A newborn baby does not have a religion. A newborn has no idea what a god or religion is, what scripture says, what the significance of a ritual is. This should be obvious to almost anyone. Moreover, people do change their religions and their culture. One raised by Jewish parents could grow up to become a Christian, an atheists, or a Buddhist or practice new age spirituality. That isn't a debatable notion. That isn't a notion that will change to suit abstract notions and rules about "peoplehood". This is the way things actually are.

Babies are no property of their parents to do with as they please. Parents are guardians, they have to do a seem reasonable job of guarding their children or the government can and should intrude. If I mentioned child abuse, no one would question this. Nor are babies property of communities in which they are born. They are independent people who will grow up into adults with their own lives and they can and do do with that life what they please.

Consequently the circumcision is NOT an issue of religious freedom. The focus of circumcision should be the baby being circumcised. He is too young to have chosen a religion, so his religious freedom just isn't an issue.
11:21 AM on 07/29/2011
Firstly let me say that I'm not for banning circumcisi­­on. With your kid, for the most part, you do what you think is best, within reason.

That said, were it not for the religious aspect of these partial penectomie­­­­­­­s, which is undeniably a form of genital mutilation as to defenseles­­­­­­­s children, this would frowned upon like the removal of clitorii by the Muslims.

The oft-repeat­­­­­­­ed hygiene argument is nonsensica­­­­­­­l. When it comes to our bodies we don't remove the other bits that tend to require cleaning and/or regular maintenanc­­­­­­­e, like fingers, toes, hair, teeth and ears so why do this for hygienic reasons?

It makes me wonder what kind of penile obsession the writers of these religious tracts had when they came up with this bit of nuttiness. I mean, of all of the things that they might think of to bind a male to his people, they come up with this?

BTW, did you know that with some ultra-orth­­­­­­odox Jewish circumcisi­­­­­­ons the guy who does the circumcisi­­­­­­on, after he cuts it, draws blood from the penis with his mouth? Does it get crazier than that? I'd like to hear how this is justified. This should be banned.
09:53 AM on 07/29/2011
Circumcision is NOT a medical procedure when there is no diagnosis of defect or disease, and no record of other less-destructive remedies tried before resorting to the drastic last-resort step of amputation.

But the California precedent is clear. If the horrid loophole that enshrines the practices of non-therapeutic cat-declawing and dog-tail-docking is valid, then by the same illogic, non-therapeutic foreskin amputation must also be allowed unless baenned at the state level.

One must still ask, why only the MALE foreskin?

NOT ONE national medical association on earth endorses routine circumcision.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
theuniversalcollective
from the ether that is net
03:18 AM on 07/29/2011
Dayenu
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:41 AM on 07/29/2011
I think if we are going to ban circumcision we should also ban breast feeding. I mean if you want someone to give their consent to have a circumcision; shouldn't they also give their consent before ingesting a fluid that comes out of from human being.
08:46 AM on 07/29/2011
If the fluid coming out a human being caused permanent physical harm, that might be a good comparison.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:39 AM on 07/30/2011
One is food and one lowers the risk of certain cancers in both the male and their partner.
TomP100
Read My Lips...No New Texans!
10:44 AM on 07/29/2011
How is feeding babies the food they were meant to have comparable to forcably removing part of their genitals? I've seen a lot logically bankrupt arguments from the pro-mutilators, but this is about the most daft I've ever seen.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Landin
03:44 PM on 07/29/2011
I knew you were a Limey! No one uses the word DAFT in the USA!

BTW- We are Vegans and raising our boys as Vegans is that another no no to your UK BS?
photo
Semprini
The Dept. of Redundancy Dept.
08:55 PM on 07/29/2011
An even 80 fans for you. There have indeed been some perplexing arguments from the mutilation fans, but this one may be the winner.
01:04 AM on 07/29/2011
AHAHAHA. Friends of foreskin get circumcised by the court.