San Francisco is one step closer to banning male circumcision
By Jessica GentileApril 27th, 2011, 10:45 amComments (24)
Those dirty hippies are sure hung up on your baby's penis. A group of San Francisco activists, or as they like to call themselves, "intactivists" (see what they did there?), have proposed a ban on male circumcision and just submitted over 12,000 signatures to the city's election board yesterday. It takes 7,168 legit signatures in order for the bill to go to a vote. It'll take about a month to verify the signatures.
In the meantime, the group is selling T-shirts and onesies to promote their cause. They also wear buttons that say "May the foreskin be with you" (yes, really). Plus, they've drafted a sample law that they'd like to see passed. It is sadly devoid of puns:
SEC. 5003. PENALTY.
Any person who violates any provisions of this Article shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction such person shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not to exceed one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Despite circumcision being a highly personal and controversial issue, this is the same city that banned Happy Meals and sitting on sidewalks, so I guess this proposal really shouldn't surprise us. If this thing does go through, it'd be interesting to see how they go about enforcing it.
Commentarium (24 Comments)
People waste so much time on this non-issue. If you're going to put this much time towards lobbying legislatures and social activism, why don't you focus on real issues like food insecurity or gay rights? There are are a lot of people out there who need help, so why not help them instead of this crap?
Right, because the right to not have your genitalia cut against your will as an infant, possibly resulting in lifelong disfigurement and/or emasculation should be a "non-issue." Male infants every year are irreparably disfigured because of a botched operation that serves no significant medical purpose. I'm not necessarily arguing that legislation should be the answer, but calling this a non-issue seems silly.
If my parents had severed part of my genitalia, I'd be so pissed. Let the few people that want to cut, decided when they are 18.
What is the double standard anyway of finding female circumcision in Africa abhorrent, yet happily chopping away at male babies. Both should be stopped. Once you are 18, you can use cosmetic surgery, piercing, branding etc to modify your body however you want. That's when you are old enough to decide for yourself.
It takes 7168 signatures for the issue to go to a vote and one judge's signature to sign the order invalidating it. The path is straightforward and based on a freedom of religion claim: Abraham's covenant that Jews observe is more important than the spurious meddling of San Franciscans.
The First Amendment issue is a bit knotty -- I know it came up regarding rules affecting the Santeria animal sacrifice issues, and I don't recall how that came out. I think another good argument is that it impinges on a right to privacy, reproductive rights and doctor-patient relationships. There are studies showing circumcision reduces the risk of acquiring HIV.
I'd just like to note that the studies showing that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection, even if they are reliable, shouldn't form the basis for an argument for circumcision. Safe and responsible sex practices, not circumcision should be your protection against HIV transmission. There are a host of operations that we could conduct on children that would minimize their risk of certain infections or diseases, but we don't do them because it would be unethical.
Besides, research has suggested that circumcision of females is associated with reduced risk of HIV, but that's no argument for that is it?
I just want to say how tickled I am about profrobert using the term "knotty."
Circumcision attacks his freedom of religion because it inflicts a lifelong, permanent mark, that he may not want when he is old enough to think about his religion for himself. A Fresno man is doing time for tattooing a gang emblem on his 9-year-old's side. That did less damage, and can be removed.
Hopefully the vote never goes through. Glad to see 12,000+ are spending time worrying about baby dicks. That being said, I would like to call out the author for being yet another "journalist" that misrepresents the recently passed ordinance as "the happy meal ban." They didn't ban the happy meal. They made it so that a children's meal that doesnt meet nutritional standards (<600 calories, <640 mg sodium, <35% saturated fat, and at least 1/2 c fruit or veggies) in order to offer a FREE toy. They can still sell a toy for a dollar or whatever, but it can't be free. CRY ABOUT IT.
Why do they care about the toy? Why??????? There are more important things to care about. For example, taking the time to not be an intrusive busybody.
Because when kids choose what they want to order, they don't care about what the actual meal is, they care about the toy. Asking restaurants to serve milk instead of soda and fruit instead of fries in order to be able to offer a free toy isn't that much to ask, especially considering that according to the CDC, the obesity rate in the United States is double what it should be (and rising).
The parents cannot, of course, be expected to make this decision for the child. It's much better to have the SF City Council make it.
The government that governs best, governs least.
It'd be one thing if the parents were able to make the proper decision. Given the fact that we spend something like 3/4 of the overall money that we spend on healthcare in order to handle preventable diseases (such as obesity, diabetes, etc), its been made quite clear that they either cannot or will not make the right choice both for themselves and their children.
Golden mowing them down.
rat-at-tat-at-tat
I'm moving to San Fran as soon as possible. Evidently if you live there, then you have all the time in the world to devote to pointless, useless causes. I would love to have that kind of time on my hands. I thought I wasted a lot of time on Hooksexup but I've got nothing on those whackos by the bay.
Exactly. The last time I was in SF, there were homeless people everywhere, some of whom were aggressively panhandling, primarily, women. The streets were litter strewn.
Yeah, best to be worrying about things that are absolutely none of government's business.
It will be too bad if this forces Mutti the Mohel out of business. He makes amazing luxury wallets out of all the cut foreskin.........when you rub one of his wallets it turns into luggage! [rimshot]
Mutti had German relatives at work in WW2 me thinks.
Yes, the foreskin is erogenous tissue.
I think if they pass this law, a doctor will still perform this procedure if requested, then refuse to pay the fine. Then he goes to jail, his patients will get all backed up, and if enough doctors do this the same week/month, things will grind to a halt. Or, people who want this procedure will leave the city. San Fran is a complete dump.
The argument "there are better/bigger/more important (to me) things to worry about" is NEVER a valid argument.
The draft law is "sadly devoid of puns" because it is cut and pasted from the existing law outlawing ALL cutting of female genitals (no matter how minor, so it's no use to invoke the horrors of Africa) except for pressing medical need. It would thereby bring San Francisco alone into line with the 14th amendment.
Last year the AAP flirted with allowing a token, ritual nick of girls, "much less extensive than male genital cutting", but it was howled down. Why the double standard?
The people who are "hung up on your baby's penis" are the people who are so determined to cut parts OFF of your baby's penis. And he's not going to be a baby forever, but a man with his own opinion about what healthy, non-renewable, functional parts of his own body he wants to keep. Almost certainly all of it.
Extremely helpful article, plesae write more.
Now you say something