California Circumcision Ban Bill Signed By Gov. Jerry Brown: Circumcision Bans Will Not Make The Ballot

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California's governor has signed a bill that that will prevent local governments from banning male circumcision.

Gov. Jerry Brown's office announced Sunday that the Democrat signed AB768, a bill written in response to a ballot measure proposed in San Francisco.

Backers of a ban collected more than 7,700 signatures to put a measure on the November ballot in San Francisco to outlaw the circumcision of most male children. It was later blocked by a judge.

They had argued that circumcision is an unnecessary surgery that can lead to sexual and health problems later in life.

Those against the ban say it is an important religious practice for many Jews and Muslims, and that it can reduce the risk of cancer and sexually transmitted diseases.

Photos of this summer's protests in favor of the circumcision ban. All photos and captions by Associated Press.

Comments

[ramp613]

09:38 AM on 10/07/2011

"The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such [penile and cervical] cancers. ... Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer. ... Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate."

Circumcision of minors is cosmetic, non-therapeutic, not medically indicated. Leave the foreskin alone and give your son his choice.

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/letters/1996-02_ACS/

[jakeww]

05:23 AM on 10/08/2011

A more up-to-date statement, and one officially issued by the ACS, may be found here:

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-risk-factors

[SipCoffee]

06:51 PM on 10/17/2011

"Fatalities caused by circumcisi­on accidents may approximat­e the mortality rate from penile cancer"

I wonder why they removed this. Did the underlying facts change? It reminds me of the following paragraph from an AAP pamphlet:

The Function of the Foreskin: The glans at birth is delicate and easily irritated by urine and feces. The foreskin shields the glans; with circumcision this protection is lost. In such cases, the glans and especially the urinary opening (meatus) may become irritated or infected, causing ulcers, meatitis (inflammation of the meatus), and meatal stenosis (a narrowing of the urinary opening). Such problems virtually never occur in uncircumcised penises. The foreskin protects the glans throughout life.
[Printed in the 1984 edition of this pamphlet; but removed in the 1990 version]

Did the foreskin cease to provide protection in 1990? Did the underlying facts change? Why are these sentences and paragraphs being removed?

[Debate Facts]

11:37 AM on 10/09/2011

In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is very uncommon in the United States, even among uncircumcised men. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns. In the end, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence. Thanks for the link Jakeww

[Michael Intactivist]

09:57 AM on 10/06/2011

The people deceiving Circumcisers and their victims who in this case are also the deceived parents and people in general, even our judges and politicians, are obviously not aware that circumcision is outlawed. Everybody needs to know that they are breaking the most basic laws of every Democracy, the US Constitution and the International Laws of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Rights of the Child which clearly state that inflicting preventable injuries on others is a Human Rights violation and a severely punishable crime.

[Michael Intactivist]

09:54 AM on 10/06/2011

THE GREATEST CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY IS THE
TORTURE & MUTILATION OF CHILDREN

The First International Symposium on Circumcision in Anaheim, CA on March 1-3, 1989 and again at the Fourth International Symposium on Sexual Mutilations held at the University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland on August 9-11,1996, affirms that the genital mutilation of children is torture and is in violation of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and Article 37 of the U.N. CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: (a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

U.S. Federal Law makes female genital mutilation a crime and baby boys/children are protected by "the equal protection of the laws" of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Awakened people from all over the world are uniting to bring all perpetrators to justice if they don't stop preaching and committing this crime immediately. All their further actions are being recorded and their data is being kept as evidence for the day when they are getting sued, arrested and trialed by the people. Nobody will be exempt from punishment if they further preach, promote, enable and commit this crime on defenseless and non-consenting children.

We demand from our governments to obey and enforce our Superior Laws!

[Rene Kazmar]

10:03 AM on 10/05/2011

This is a dark time for human rights. You would think that not cutting off part of a person's body without their consent and without immediate, emergency medical need would just be standard practice. I believe that in a generation or two, our children and grandchildren will look back and wonder what the people of today were thinking that they didn't even ensure every person's right to sovereignty over their own normal and healthy body. California has disappointed many people.

[angrygeezer]

06:01 PM on 10/05/2011

i like the current situation as it is. i want to see all boys circumcised.i want all boys to look like jews. that way every child will witness the discrimination that jews had to go through.

[ramp613]

01:57 AM on 10/07/2011

How about we end discrimination, instead of cutting off a really fun part of the next generation's sexual equipment.

[Danielle Mrsnetherton]

11:54 PM on 10/04/2011

From a sexologist.

http://www.dodsonandross.com/sexfeature/male-circumcision-mothers-don’t-mutilate-your-boys

[ramp613]

01:04 PM on 10/04/2011

Don't like erectile dysfunction? Don't get your son's genital nerves cut.

Study links circumcision and erectile dysfunction drug use:
http://www.mensstudies.com/content/2772r13175400432/?p=a7068101fbdd48819f10dd04dc1e19fb&pi=4

[jakeww]

01:28 PM on 10/04/2011

Not very impressive, when you consider that at least six studies have found that circumcision and erectile dysfunction are unrelated, and three have found that circumcision is protective against it. Cherry-picking is not persuasive.

[Danielle Mrsnetherton]

03:05 PM on 10/04/2011

Actually, the circumcision/ED topic is still up for debate. There has yet to be an extensive study done on the topic. The ones that have been done have not been convincing enough either way. But, it is interesting that in the U.S. we have the highest rate of circ'd men and also the highest consumption rate of Viagra. Interesting. It's also interested that all those penile sensitivity studies i posted (you did see those right? cause you tried to say it was the least sensitive part and you're totally wrong) show that it's the most sensitive part of the penis. So, if you're to think logically, using common sense, it would be totally practical to say that removing the most sensitive part of the penis (circumcision does this) can indeed be a leading factor in ED.

[Threadsline]

11:26 PM on 10/03/2011

Both of my brothers were circumcised at birth and neither could walk for a year.

[Rodrigo Girao]

12:27 AM on 10/04/2011

That joke is so lame that it got disability benefits.

[Hugh7]

05:16 AM on 10/04/2011

In the 1999 film "Resurrection" that is called "the worst ... joke I ever heard". It's certainly becoming one of the tiredest.

[Shondolyn Gibson]

09:28 PM on 10/03/2011

So basically, this judge and Governor Jerry Brown could care less about protecting babies from surgery they don't need? Surgery that is usually done without anesthesia? Surgery that takes away the child's choice?

[mspat44417]

07:58 PM on 10/03/2011

How stupid is this what's next ban getting your kids ears pierced .... I mean really...Or maybe not making them eat their vegetables because they gave the right not to...

[DjangoDurango]

08:03 PM on 10/03/2011

"To 'attack a straw man' is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

You haven't even mentioned the issue that this article discusses. "What's next" is a common straw man, and hardly an admirable debate tactic.

The fact of the matter is we don't know "what's next". What we can do, however, is avoid making baseless comparisons.

[Hugh7]

03:13 AM on 10/04/2011

If you leave the earrings out, the holes close over, leaving no trace. When your kids grow up they can eat whatever they like. Circumcision is an irreversible body modification - more than slitting a baby's tongue would be. I bet anyone who tried THAT would be in the slammer before they took many more breaths.

[mspat44417]

11:14 AM on 10/05/2011

the tongue thing I agree...My point was is that people always want to get in other peoples business..Its one thing to disagree with someone but to make it out like this person is doing it wrong...Just like it said it will never make the ballot so what's the point..waste of taxpayers money dealing with it...And just to let you know if my daughter was a boy he wouldn't of been circumcised that was my husbands choice bu that was because he was British and thats their way..

[angrygeezer]

06:06 PM on 10/05/2011

i want ALL boys to be circumcized, i want all boys to look like jews. that way they would face the discrimination that jews had to feel. i hope that nazism IS dead. but anti semitism is alive, and i really believe that this movement, the anti-circumcision movement is an anti semitic attempt to make a seperation between jews and non jews.

[elmmaestro]

06:42 PM on 10/03/2011

I'm a male citizen of California, and they'll have to pry my foreskin from my cold dead blistered hairy fingers.

[ramp613]

11:11 AM on 10/04/2011

You must be one of the lucky ones. Your parents left your foreskin alone and let you decide.

[Rodrigo Girao]

06:15 PM on 10/03/2011

If I decided to give my son a tattoo, I'd be put in jail. Why then am I allowed to choose to have a part of his genitals removed?!

[Joe1]

07:45 PM on 10/04/2011

Because people don't believe that a boy's body should be respected and protected in the way we respect and protect the bodies of girls.

[ramp613]

02:02 AM on 10/07/2011

It's sexism. Plain and simple.

Eventually, the Constitution's requirement for equal protection will win.

[DjangoDurango]

05:52 PM on 10/03/2011

Perhaps it is a significant ritual for Jewish and Muslim adults attending the ceremony, but this is a ritual performed on children who were never asked whether they wanted to be circumcised. If you cannot consent to the procedure, how is it spiritually significant?

[Silken17]

06:05 PM on 10/03/2011

There are very good medical reasons for circumcision that have nothing to do with religion. According to your logic, children should not have to undergo tooth extractions or any kind of surgery until they are old enough to consent to said procedures. The vast majority of boys in this country undergo circumcision for good medical reasons, religion has nothing to do with it.

[DjangoDurango]

06:21 PM on 10/03/2011

Tooth extraction is often necessary. Circumcision almost never is.

Go ahead and try to find a medical organization, anywhere at all, that endorses infant circumcision. You won't find one. The fact of the matter is that any medical benefit you may cite is either unproven or altogether fabricated.

You would probably benefit from the knowledge that "medical reasons" is not the most common justification given for infant circumcision. When polled for their reasons, most parents who circumcise cite cosmetics as the primary reason.

[Joe1]

06:55 PM on 10/03/2011

Tooth extraction and all other forms of surgery that I can think of are only done for therapeutic need or perhaps to correct a deformity. There are no rational medical reasons for routine circumcision of minors.

[Tammy Bindschusz]

06:49 PM on 10/03/2011

so, parents should not get their kids ears pierced, cut their hair, feed them certain foods or make any minor or major decisions for them until they can decide for themselves???? Maybe we should not dress them, because we would not want to make a decision on what color to put on them. Parents are suppose to make ALL decisions for their children, until they are old enough to make their own.
So, we should also wait to get their shots until they are old enough to decide that for themselves also, this makes a lot sense...doesn't it???? We are the PARENTS...religious beliefs or not...we have to make the best decisions that we can...yes, we will make mistakes...but, we are not perfect.

[DjangoDurango]

06:54 PM on 10/03/2011

Those aren't exactly proper analogies. Parents can and must make certain decisions for their children. I never said they shouldn't.

Circumcision, however, is not a decision you should be making for another person. It is his body, and he will have to live with that decision for the rest of his life. What if he is unhappy with the decision? If you didn't circumcise him, he can rectify it easily. If you did, he has very little recourse.

Those who lack knowledge on the subject love to compare circumcision to vaccination, as you just did. But vaccination has been shown time and again by population studies over the past three centuries to have prevented the most common causes of infant mortality. Circumcision has no such health benefits to its name; if anything, it increases the infant mortality rate.

There is no imprimatur to circumcise a child. Unlike many of the examples you have given, there is also no drawback to letting him make the decision for himself when he reaches a proper age.

[Joe1]

06:57 PM on 10/03/2011

Parents make decisions for their children that are necessary for their well being. Routine circumcision doesn't even come close to meeting such a standard.

[geekie0ne]

05:25 PM on 10/03/2011

Why does this have to be a law to ban? Shouldn't it be a choice? Abortions are that terminate the life of a child, at least the male child is alive. And for all you providing examples of things that can go wrong, things can go wrong getting your teeth cleaned at the dentist.. small odds, but it happens..

[geekie0ne]

05:29 PM on 10/03/2011

I meant to say abortions that terminate the life of a child are legal choices, so why is this an issue to ban circumcisions?

[Debate Facts]

05:18 PM on 10/05/2011

comparing apples and oranges here, yes while both are still fruit there are differences... abortion is about two bodies, one dependent on the other, and both bodies under go physical changes.... circumcision is about one body, already born, perfectly healhty, and now has rights to be free from abuse & neglect. Cutting away at their healthy genitals is abuse.

[Rodrigo Girao]

05:45 PM on 10/03/2011

If that is so... why is female genital cutting banned? Shouldn't it be the family's choice as well?

[geekie0ne]

08:45 PM on 10/03/2011

female cutting is not removal of a piece of skin, its equilvalent to cutting off your "richard" stop being ridiculous.

[MrCool]

05:19 PM on 10/03/2011

Holy mohel. In the Jewish religion "brit milah" is a covenant with God. Genesis 17: 10-14

The government wants to dictate salt, sugar, dress, smoking, and on and on. Isn't this more than a little far reaching?

[Rodrigo Girao]

06:58 PM on 10/03/2011

What if the boy decides NOT TO BE jewish? He can choose any other religion, or to follow no religion... yet he will still be marked as a member of your little club. Yeah, religious freedom to take away others' religious freedom!

[Danielle Mrsnetherton]

09:59 PM on 10/03/2011

Thank goodness more and more Jewish families are choosing bris shalom

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/08/our-sons-bris-shalom-welcoming-covenant.html

[mrjohnallen]

05:17 PM on 10/03/2011

Medical procedures should not be part of government policymaking. The procedures are discussed, improved or discontinued by medical professionals. Curcumcision has been around for quite some time. Good for Gov. Brown for stopping this before we waste more legislative time on it.

[Rodrigo Girao]

05:47 PM on 10/03/2011

Genital mutilation is NOT a medical procedure, but a destructive blood ritual.

[Silken17]

06:10 PM on 10/03/2011

You have no idea what you are talking about but you do seem to have a radical agenda if you equate male circumcision with female circumcision as you do above in your (5:45 PM) post.

[Seanmichael Rau]

07:13 PM on 10/03/2011

forced genital cutting isn't a medical procedure, it's cosmetic surgery.

notice there is no diagnosis to accompany the "cure"

diagnosis: healthy happy baby boy!
...now lets cut up his body and remove his fully functioning healthy tissue because we want him to look like all the other boys in the locker room...

p.s. "it may at some point in his life lead to some sort of disease or infection" is not a diagnosis...you could say the same thing about breasts. they kill ten of thousands of women every year if they become cancerous but we wouldn't dream of amputating them as a preemptive measure.