[UPDATED with Ruling:] A Ban on a Circumcision Ban in California?

Categories: Politics
circumcisionban.jpg
UPDATE, JULY 28, 4:04 P.M.: ​Snip away. A Superior Court judge has ruled that the measure to criminalize circumcision in San Francisco violates both the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom, and a California law that makes regulating medical procedures solely a state matter, not a function of cities. 
 
ORIGINAL POST, JULY 22, 12:25 P.M.: It's a penis predicament. 

There have been recent efforts in California cities to ban circumcision, but two lawmakers want to snippety-snip away the chances of that happening. 

Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, are sponsoring a state bill primarily in response to a measure on San Francisco's November ballot that would ban circumcisions for those under the age of 18, and penalize violators with up to a $1,000 fine and a year behind bars. 

They believe the measure is, well, nuts. "To enact an outright ban on an expression of personal, medical and religious freedom is an affront to all who value liberty," Gatto told the Sacramento Bee

Male circumcision is a religious rite for Jews and Muslims, and a new study has found that a circumcision campaign in Africa has reduced HIV infections by 76 percent. Though 
anticircumcision activists, or, as many call themselves, "intactivists," say it's barbaric, equating the practice with the widely condemned female circumcision. 
 
Ma and Gatto's bill, AB 768, would restrict local bans on male circumcision. It's being rushed through the legislature before the November ballots are printed, and could become law immediately if it's passed by the legislature and signed by the governor.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
30 comments
Vernster52
Vernster52

Thanks mom and dad for having me undergo this procedure.

group sms
group sms

Female Circumcision is a civil crime and any have no right to do that, and it same applies for the boy child birth.  

Guest
Guest

Looks like parents can continue to do their job without more government interference. With all of the things happening in the world these days, can't you people find something a little more pressing to rail against?

Dweezle.Di
Dweezle.Di

Circumcision should be a personal choice. perhaps one not left to parents.

No Nonsense
No Nonsense

"To enact an outright ban on an expression of personal, medical and religious freedom is an affront to all who value liberty," Gatto told the Sacramento Bee.

Idiots.

Typical Anti-logical, knee-Jerk Liberal Nonsense. 

The Freedom to Choose belongs with the adult individual affected by the barbaric procedure, & no one else.

Control-freak jacka$$es.

Guest
Guest

Got some bad news for all of you that are for the ban on circumcisions, that ban will never stand up in court. Never. Do you really think a court will ban circumcisions but allow abortions? It's a choice. And parents make choices for their kids everyday. Stay out of other people's business.

Hugh x
Hugh x

The "new study" is just a poster presentation at a confernce so far, not a peer reviewed paper, so we don't know what the exact figures are or how they were derived, but the same researchers found in the same place in 2001 that circumcision in its usual cultural context showed no protective effect, sugggesting that it is something else about the intervention that makes the difference.

The circumcised men were younger, more educated, and more aware of their HIV status than those who were not circumcised. That in itself may hold the explanation for the lower HIV rate, and nothing to do with circumcision. Being younger, the have had less opportunity to be infected. Being more educated, they may be more careful (as also shown by their greater awareness of their status). They all volunteered for circumcision, so they might be more careful anyway.

Large percentages (like "76%") may look impressive, but they can hide a slight reduction, from very rare, to very very rare. What are the actual figures, and how were they determined?

We should be very wary of the beguiling claim that circumcision itself is protective, after its sorry history as a "cure" in search of a disease, an intervention in search of an excuse.

Hugh x
Hugh x

"To enact an outright ban on an expression of personal, medical and religious freedom is an affront to all who value liberty,"

So if I want to practise my religion of NoEarlobesism on you, it would an affront all who value liberty to try to stop me?

What became of the personal (and medical and religious) freedom of the person most directly concerned to choose which of HIS OWN normal, healthy, non-regrowing, functional body parts he keeps, when he is old enough to do so? (And no, parents DON'T get to make any other "decisions for their children" quite like this one.)

JC
JC

The thing about this is that it is totally an American issue. Virtually no one outside of the US (or israel of course) is circumcised, and it's really strange to see Americans arguing about. Having a foreskin is perfectly safe and natural and it's not your place to insist someone else has theirs cut off because you think it's 'more sanitary'.

The HIV link is incredibly dangerous. Circumcision reduces HIV infection rates - but it does not eradicate them. It is dangerous to teach people that because they are circumcised they are safe from HIV, and therefore can go around having as much unprotected sex as they want.

Whether you think it looks better or whatever... That's fine, have your own foreskin cut off. But don't make the decision for other people, even your own children. You may think tattoos look good - but don't tattoo your children, it's not your place to decide that.

Gregmorlan
Gregmorlan

This procedure to cut or snip a baby boy should be up to the parents. The insurance company charges so much and the poor people can't afford to start their child on the right path. Ask any doctor not on the record about this procedure. It is so much more sanitary and it looks better and larger. Many men who had  not had this procedure get  it done when they are older because it really is unattractive to women.  Doctors will tell you how horrible it is when a father brings his teenage son in to get it done,. so much more painful. The bottom line is  that just like not getting your baby its booster shots,   we are bringing back diseases that have not been around for awhile. The most people who don't get their boys done are the poor and it's the insurance cost of it. I didn't want my son to have the procedure and his father did and my son is 18 now and He thanks his father because he is sooo glad he got it done and says in school the boys who were not circ. were teased all the time. 

SteveB954
SteveB954

Using the reduced risk of HIV infection of men in Africa as a justification for cutting the genitals of American boys is crazy! Whether a man is circumcised or not he must use a condom for protection from HIV infection. Condoms are inexpensive and available in California. If an adult man wants to cut off a normal part of his penis to reduce his risk of HIV infection, that is his right.

The suggestion that it is ethical to cut off a normal part of my penis because someone else thinks I am too lazy or too irresponsible or too stupid to use a condom is extremely offensive.

Faux
Faux

No one has the liberty to circumcise baby girls, so why should we do it to our baby boys? The "liberty" being spoken of is not the liberty of the child being mutilated; he has no choice in the matter. The ban would prevent the procedure from being performed on those who are not mature enough to decide for themselves. I for one resent that my parents chose to circumcise me. As a newborn I was subjected to this unnecessary surgery that removed the most sensitive part of my male anatomy. A foreskin is not a birth defect.If God had intended that men have a foreskin, we would have been born with one.

Guest
Guest

Hey dumbshit, better read the update because that is what the courts said. I called it 4 days ago that it would never stand up in court. Looks like you are the jackass control freak trying to tell others what they can and cannot do. Loser.

SteveB954
SteveB954

If you choose to pierce your son's genitals, you would go to jail. Male circumcision is a more severe form of permanent body modification than genital piercing.

Like genital piecing, male circumcision should be a choice that an adult man makes for his own body.

Turtleneck Lover ;)
Turtleneck Lover ;)

The supposition that only the affluent circumcise their kids and those who aren't do not is ridiculous. Whether affordability is an issue or not, people find a way to do what they want to do... One could even say that those same people who can't afford circumcision manage to maintain a household with many many children. People make decisions based on their value system.

SteveB954
SteveB954

Many men in Africa think uncircumcised women are unattractive. In my opinion there is no ethical difference between an African man who thinks uncircumcised women are unattractive and an American woman who thinks uncircumcised men are unattractive.

Today's parents in California are saying NO to circumcision because it is medically unnecessary. Once a parent learns that male circumcision is unnecessary, why on earth would they allow a doctor to cut off a normal part of their son's genitals?

Hugh x
Hugh x

1. Not "snip". With a Gomco clamp it is sliced. With a Mogen clamp it is also sliced, and maybe part of the head cut off as well. With an Accu-circ it is chopped. With a Plastibell it is crushed and allowed to die. But not "snipped". 2) It should be up to HIM, when he is old enough - and he'll almost certainly choose to keep it all. 3) The men of Europe and Scandinavia and in fact most of the developed world are not cut and not "unsanitary". 4) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The great Renaiisance artists portrayed even their Jewish men as intact. 6) Larger? BS. 7) The rest of the English-speaking world, tried it, found it did no good and gave it up, with no return of any diseases. 8) With the rates now about 50:50 there's no telling who will be teased, but there's a simple answer "Stop looking at my d*ck."

Mshfeu
Mshfeu

If you choose to pierce your son's genitals, you would go to jail. Male circumcision is a more severe form of permanent body modification than genital piercing.good web === w w w - bestniceshoes - c o m===exquisite watches shirts,bags,hat and the decorations.We have goodreputation, fashion products, favourable price.---★FREESHIPPING

▍ ★∴

   ....▍▍....█▍ ☆ ★∵ …./

   ◥█▅▅██▅▅██▅▅▅▅▅███◤

   .◥███████████████◤

 ~~~~◥█████████████◤~~~~

MayhemInTheHood
MayhemInTheHood

Any time there's one of these sorts of articles on a website, I like to wait for the inevitable "Female circumcision is illegal! Why are we still allowing it to happen to boys!!??" comment. It basically lets us all know that you don't know much about lady parts.

Guest
Guest

So, where do you draw the line? What about parents that have their daughters' ear pierced when they are infants? And as much as it may bother you, it isn't your decision. Period. Stay out of other people's business. You don't belong there.

SteveB954
SteveB954

Are you aware that last year the American Academy of Pediatrics proposed allowing doctors to make a small incision in the genitals of a girl if her parents requested it for cultural or religious reasons? That is the type of female genital cutting Muslim parents do to their daughters in Indonesia and Malaysia. Making a small incision in the genitals of a girl is less harmful than cutting off a normal part of a boy's genitals.

However making a small incision in the genitals of a girl is illegal in the United State even if her parents believe it is a religious requirement.

FishWithoutBicycle
FishWithoutBicycle

And the term "Female Circumcision" is a dangerous misnomer. It should be called what it really is: Female Genital Mutilation, or FGM. Having the foreskin of a boy's penis removed isn't quite the same as having a girl's entire clitoris sliced off. I strongly oppose BOTH practices, though.

Nn
Nn

Thanks for bring it up.

Tonsil removal is another barbaric & unnecessary procedure, foisted by clueless doctors on kids with well-meaning parents with nice medical plans.

Do the research & you'll ses it's another unnecessary but profitable medical procedure.

How can you trust the advice of the one who profits from giving it?

Randy
Randy

The foreskin may not be homologous to the clitoris, which is actually the glans clitoris or head of the clitoris, which is homologous to the head of the penis. The foreskin is however equal to the clitoral hood and the frenulum of the clitoris which includes the upper labia minora. The foreskin has 20,000 specialized nerve endings and the clitoris 8,000 and the head of the penis 4,000. Therefore the male foreskin is more important from a sensory point of view than either the head of the penis or head of the clitoris. Granted men prefer to keep the lesser innervated part and discard the far greater innervated part. FishWithoutBicycle your lack of knowledge on this subject is similar to that of the American public in general. How can a piece of skin be so valuable? Roll up a 3 x 5 index card and you'll have a significant structure. The same goes for the foreskin. I think what's happened is that most elder feminists leaders cut their sons, so in order to get by their hypocrisy, they minimize male circumcision or male genital mutilation.

Hugh x
Hugh x

The "circumcise vs don't circumcise debate" is virtually over in most of the developed world - outside the USA. It isn't offereed, isn't asked for and isn't done. Australia and New Zealand did it just as avidly as the USA in the 1950s, now it's hard to find a doctor in New Zealand willing to do it. There have been no outbreaks of any of the diseases it was supposed to be good for, and New Zealand's HIV rate is one of the lowest in the world (nothing to do with circumcision, the Government Health Department bought into a gay-led initiative to promote condoms as a community norm and needle exchange for IV users.)

FishWithoutBicycle
FishWithoutBicycle

I think most parents try to do what is best for their child. I'm sure the circumcise vs. don't circumcise debate will continue until the end of humankind. What bothers me is this attitude some folks have that the male foreskin is some kind of nasty "extra" part, as if it were a cancerous tumor and not a natural part of the male anatomy. That whole hygiene argument seems silly...as if men were too dumb to keep themselves clean down there.

MayhemInTheHood
MayhemInTheHood

Very true. To quote Pulp Fiction, "It aint even in the same ballpark...It aint even in the same fuckin' league!". 

As for the argument of cutting off a boy's foreskin...well, i've joined that debate before and by all accounts, there is nothing wrong with cut or uncut. Parents have been choosing for their kids for ages and somehow the world hasn't blown up or anything. I'm cut...also had tubes put in my ears, tonsils removed, etc. None I consented to, all could've waited. I don't know how I manage not to be curled up on the floor right now, sobbing and cursing my evil, evil, evil parents. 

Now Trending

Anaheim Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...