San Francisco to vote on circumcision ban: Should circumcision be a private family matter or city vote?
This November residents of San Francisco will vote on whether or not baby boys can be circumcised.
A group seeking to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco succeeded in getting the measure on the ballot with 7,700 valid signatures of city residents. They only needed 7,168 to qualify.
From The Associated Press (I bolded for a quick read):
“If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions.”
“The initiative appears to be the first of its kind in the country to actually make it to this stage, though a larger national debate over the health benefits of circumcision has been going on for many years. Banning circumcision would almost certainly prompt a flurry of legal challenges alleging violations of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom to exercise one’s religious beliefs.”
“Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that is unnecessary, extremely painful and even dangerous. They say parents should not be able to force the decision on their young child.”
” ‘Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what’s in the best interest of the child. It’s his body. It’s his choice,’ said Lloyd Schofield, the measure’s lead proponent and a longtime San Francisco resident, who said the cutting away of the foreskin from the penis is a more invasive medical procedure than many new parents or childless individuals realize.”
But opponents say such claims are alarmingly misleading, and call the proposal a clear violation of constitutionally protected religious freedoms.
” ‘For a city that’s renowned for being progressive and open-minded, to even have to consider such an intolerant proposition … it sets a dangerous precedent for all cities and states,” said Rabbi Gil Yosef Leeds of Berkeley. Leeds is a certified ‘mohel,’ the person who traditionally performs ritual circumcisions in the Jewish faith.”
“He said he receives phone calls every day from members of the local Jewish community who are concerned about the proposed ban. But he said he is relatively confident that even if the measure is approved, it will be abruptly — and indefinitely — tied up in litigation.”
“The initiative’s backers say its progress is the biggest success story to date in a decades-old, nationwide movement by so-called “intactivists” to end circumcision of male infants in the United States. A similar effort to introduce a circumcision ban in the Massachusetts Legislature last year failed to gain traction.”
” ‘It’s been kind of under the radar until now, but it was a conversation that needed to happen,” Schofield said of the debate over male circumcision. “We’ve tapped into a spark with our measure — something that’s been going on for a long time.’ ”
“International health organizations have promoted circumcision as an important strategy for reducing the spread of the AIDS virus. That’s based on studies that showed it can prevent AIDS among heterosexual men in Africa.”
“But there hasn’t been the same kind of push for circumcision in the U.S., in part because nearly 80 percent of American men are already circumcised, a much higher proportion than the worldwide average of 30 percent. Also, HIV spreads mainly among gay men in the U.S., and research indicates circumcision doesn’t protect gay men from HIV.”
“For years, federal health officials have been working on recommendations regarding circumcision. The effort was sparked by studies that found circumcision is partially effective in preventing the virus’ spread between women and men. The recommendations are still being developed, and there is no date set for their release, said a spokeswoman for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
“The CDC doesn’t have a position on the San Francisco proposal, said the spokeswoman, Elizabeth-Ann Chandler.”
So what do you think?
I think we have three issues we can discuss here: No. 1: Should circumcision be decided by a vote or should that be the personal choice of families? Should it be banned by the government or should it be the choice of parents?
No. 2: Are you for or against circumcision? Would you compare it the female genital mutilation that goes on in other countries (and maybe in America)?
(I think people can be against circumcision and not think it should be banned and punishable by the government.)
No. 3: What about the people who want to circumcise for religious reasons? Could you see banning it but giving a religious exemption?
– Theresa Walsh Giarrusso, ajc.com Momania. I have increased my Twitter activity. I am sending out great stories for moms each day focusing on health, fitness, sex, entertainment, food, travel and obviously parenting! So follow me on Twitter at @AJCMOMania!)
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
213 comments Add your comment
Old Sandra
May 19th, 2011
2:41 am
Wow, finally something I have quite a bit of knowlege about even though I am a woman, my husband had to be circumcised at 6 years for medical reasons, my eldest was routinely circumcised as a very little baby and my youngest son was partially circumcised at around 2 years for medical reasons. I, in my personal opinion, think the younger you are when circumcised the better. My husband still remembers the pain from the bandages being peeled off all these years later (the bandages stuck fast to the wound even when they tried to soak it off) and the eldest healed faster from the surgery as a very young baby than his brother did as a two year old. I also think that it should be a personal and informed decision. I don’t think governments should regulate things like this but I also don’t remember much information being given to me about the pros and cons of the procedure when my eldest had it done. I didn’t know about the AIDS thing so that is something that if I had another son I would consider.
djm_NC
May 19th, 2011
5:53 am
i think circumcision is a personal choice the parents should make. and it is nothing like female genital mutilation-that is done to keep women from enjoying sex, circumcision does not do that. two totally different things.
MomsRule
May 19th, 2011
7:40 am
Circumcision is a personal choice.
Male circumcision can not be compared to female genital mutilation.
I’m trying to figure out how circumcision can help prevent the spread of aids…anyone? It helps in male to female contact but not male to male?
Jeff
May 19th, 2011
7:47 am
I think it’s a personal choice. But we’re talking about kooks in San Fran so what do you expect.
mom2alex&max
May 19th, 2011
7:49 am
Oh wow. This is a VERY personal choice!!! Holy moley, I am usually very much in favor of legislation that protects those that cannot protect themselves (i.e. children and animals), but this is just wrong. What about the Jewish people?
MomOf2Girls
May 19th, 2011
8:03 am
I’m sure my views won’t surprise anyone here who knows my religious practice :-)
I am vehemently against this! First of all (and most important to me), this is in direct conflict of the freedom of religion clause of the Bill of Rights, which is to prevent the government endorsement of a religion. In this case, it is the endorsement of every religion other than Judaism, in which the circumcision of all male children is a requirement. It is one of the very few positive mitzvot (laws) that has long-reaching ramifications for not following it, none of which are good.
Second, this is completely unlike female “circumcision”, in that the male circumcision promotes better health and sensitivity, whereas the female butchering is completely the opposite – it causes many health issues, and it is done to reduce or remove the sensitivity and therefore the girl’s inclination to have intercourse for pleasure.
This is a personal choice, and one where the government has no business sticking its nose in.
FCM
May 19th, 2011
8:18 am
Of course it is personal! Why in the world does the government insist that they have to decide on all aspects of our lives? What about the Jewish families in San Francisco? Will they have to go across the Bay for to have part of their regligious beliefs carried out…..Second thought, yeah let them ban it and then the Anti-Semetic League can file suit under the 1st Ammendment of the Constitution.
Me
May 19th, 2011
8:27 am
Personal decision – To think and/or believe otherwise is, in my opinion, wrong.
shaggy
May 19th, 2011
8:36 am
Hey, I wonder if that 4th grade teacher in the wonderful Riverdale school system, who was caught by his students urinating into a trashcan, during class, was circumcised. Maybe the police checked as they were hauling the dirtbag out in cuffs.
Is it me, or does south Atlanta, and adjacent metro counties/cities seem to be, well….a crime riddled and ignorance infested wasteland? I remember is as being pretty nice back in the day, comparable to the north burbs of today. What happened?
MomOf2Girls
May 19th, 2011
8:36 am
@FCM, it’s not so easy as going across the Bay. A bris (circumcision) is so important that it supercedes Shabbos. This means that any Jewish boy born anytime between Friday night and Saturday night will have his bris scheduled for the following Sabbath. In the case of the Orthodox community, this obviously means that the bris must be held within walking distance. If this ban is passed, the entire family, and anyone who wants to attend the bris, will have to find a place to stay for that Sabbath of the bris in an Orthodox community that is outside the idiot zone. It’s hard enough on a new mother to have a newborn and deal with all the family coming in, can you imagine having to uproot everyone for a couple of days and go someplace else for the bris? I know it can be done, but it’s not easy!
shaggy
May 19th, 2011
8:44 am
I think San Francisco should be banned, not the city buildings, surrounding landscape, which are both beautiful, just the knucklehead people that want to ban stuff…keep the hippie wannabes and the Chinese, because they are mostly low key. The hippies are stoned, with the munchies, and the Chinese make delicious food. They go together like peas and carrots.
Lori
May 19th, 2011
8:46 am
Wow, the government needs to stay out of people’s personal lives!!!
justdontunderstand
May 19th, 2011
8:48 am
I cannot believe that this is a topic of discussion in America. This is a free country. Who will check to see if a male baby has been circumcised, anyway? I don’t know of any man who has complained about being circumcised. Circumcision helps to keep the genitals clean and it is a better look. I prefer to marry a circumcised male. If this is banned, people will still have their sons circumcised even if they have to go outside of San Franciso. I know I would.
Oscar Greasemanelli
May 19th, 2011
8:51 am
Don’t do the ban.
What woman wants to see an uncircumcised “unit”? Not cool.
That’s why they call California the granola state. Too many nuts & flakes.
Just Call Me Bee
May 19th, 2011
8:52 am
Keep your government hands off my body!
Techmom
May 19th, 2011
8:52 am
I can’t believe this made it to the ballot. They only needed 7,168 signatures to get something on the ballot? What is that 1% of their population? Makes me wonder how many crazy laws there are in SF.
Of course this is a personal matter not to be decided by the courts but rather by the parents.
@Old Sandra – what happened to your husband at 6 that required the circumcision then?
TallMom
May 19th, 2011
8:54 am
I don’t think the government should be making decisions like this. Period. It is a very slippery slope to allow the government to make laws on what should be personal decisions. Where does it stop? No piercing ears until age 18? Boys hair must be a certain length? Everyone MUST vaccinate?
And FTR, I do not believe in circumcision, my girls ears are pierced and I delay vax my kids (but they are fully vaxed by age 5). I prefer to be the one that makes decisions for my children. I grew them, I cared for them…I will decide what’s best for them. I don’t want to decide what’s best for my neighbor’s family, just as I don’t want them deciding what’s best for mine.
Blue
May 19th, 2011
8:55 am
What I hear from that nut-job city, any time they open their collective mouths, “blah blah blah, blah blah, blah blah”.
jarvis
May 19th, 2011
8:55 am
Seven thousand freedom-hating douche bags signed that petition.
I hope the spend their eternity being pissed on by Thomas Jefferson.
Olderandwiser49
May 19th, 2011
9:01 am
Once again, the government wants to intrude on people’s rights. This is outrageous, and is not mutilation, as it is with the female genetalia. I was circumcised as a baby, not for religious reasons, but for health reasons. It is far cleaner, and less susceptible to disease, than the uncircumcised penis. If San Francisco wants to ban circumcision because it is “dangerous and unnatural,” then they also need to ban plastic surgery for any purpose other than repair of injury caused by accidents. Can you imagine the outcry of SF retailers over the loss of all those DD cup bra sales?
shaggy
May 19th, 2011
9:04 am
Jarvis,
While I do agree with your post referring to one of my heroes, Thomas Jefferson, why the “douche bag” name? Isn’t a douche kept pretty clean, with the stuff in the “bag” going out of it? At least that’s how my wife uses it, and trust me, I have seen it in action.
Texas Pete
May 19th, 2011
9:05 am
Old Sandra just killed me this morning detailing her husband’s memories. My gosh, I don’t think I can function the rest of the day. I have no memory of my circumcision because it was done just after birth and I’m thankful for that lack of memory. Yeah, it’s a brutal procedure but anything involving cutting human flesh is such IMO. I don’t know the right answer but if it’s ever going to be done in life I’d have to think the earlier the better otherwise males would have horrible experiences and memories like your husband.
Turd Sandwich
May 19th, 2011
9:05 am
Is San Francisco even a credible authority on any subject matter? More jackassery from a state that can’t be taken seriously.
joe
May 19th, 2011
9:08 am
Ah, good ole SF…land on loons & fairies…first you can’t get a happy meal, now this? Isn’t “the big one” supposed to hit there soon?
JF McNamara
May 19th, 2011
9:08 am
Its a shame that the government has to tell you not to be a barbarian and harm your own child because you’ve been brainwashed to think its the right thing. I’m against circumcision and the law, but I’d rather have the law if it helps stop hurting these baby boys.
Classic San Francisco....
May 19th, 2011
9:09 am
This effort sums up much of what is wrong with this nation beautifully: Leftist gay activists pushing for an even more powerful Nanny state to impose its will on an intensely private issue. Is there not anything that folks can decide for themselves these days?
jarvis
May 19th, 2011
9:09 am
Woah Shaggy….too much. :-)
It was the figurative not the literal meaning. Much like calling someone an a-hole whether they are stinky or not.
Big Jefferson fan myself. A true Renaissance man; brilliant, atritstic, freedom-loving and open-minded.
MomofTwo
May 19th, 2011
9:10 am
I did not circumcise my boys but was glad that it was my decision. Our thoughts were that it will be a choice the boys can make when they are 18. Not in favor of the ban…
MomOf2Girls
May 19th, 2011
9:10 am
@Older – just for the record (and believe me, I’m not a fan of government), this is not being initiated by the government. It’s a group of nut jobs who accumulated enough signatures on a petition to force this onto the ballot.
Andy
May 19th, 2011
9:11 am
This is kind of scary. There seems to be a rising tide of people who think that government should be in charge of child rearing instead of parents. One school nearby decided to completely ban sugar for its students, mostly because one parent didn’t want her ADD child to have any. I understand that many people who advocate this sort of government intrusion into families’ lives mean well, but this is really well outside what government should be concerned about. I’m sure we all know some parents who do not take their responsibilities as seriously as they should, but allowing government to invade the realm of parental decision making in these matters is a disturbing infringement on our freedoms.
Aquagirl
May 19th, 2011
9:11 am
Good grief. People have been calling attention to the very serious issue of female genital mutilation. So what happens next? A bunch of men got the “what about MEEEEEEE, I’m a victim too” syndrome. I personally think it’s not cool to cut off a part of your kid’s penis, but anyone harboring deep rage over this needs therapy for mommy issues.
I never really understood why people would worship a god obsessed with foreskins, but hey, it’s a free country. The Jews have survived multiple genocide attempts. I don’t think a small band of pen!s obsessed dudes are going to tell them what to do.
Willie
May 19th, 2011
9:14 am
It’s an outrageous intrusion for a city to ban a practice that is a family and religious choice. This proposed ban tells me a lot about the mindset of some people in SF. This is not a matter for the government and will expose SF to ridicule in the process and to court battles if it passes.
Clinton "Skink" Tyree
May 19th, 2011
9:15 am
There is an epidemic of ignorance sweeping the land and no antidote in sight.
Bob from Accounttemps
May 19th, 2011
9:17 am
It’s a somewhat barbaric procedure, but those comparing it to female circumcision just show their complete ignorance (wllful or otherwise) on the subject. And to suggest that the male should have the right to choose is ridiculous — nobody would choose the procedure at a later age simply because of the discomfort involved. The same could be said about any procedure. This would be an outright ban. The truth is that while difficult, it’s simple on a newborn and unlikely to cause much pain or discomfort at that age (hence the reason it’s done then). Nobody is forced to do it, so why force those against doing it? It’s a personal choice.
kevin
May 19th, 2011
9:18 am
All of you saying it’s a personal choice are right–that’s the point of the law! Currently, parents make the choice and not the person. Under the proposed legislation, the person having his penis cut about gets to decide whether that’s something he wants. Good law.
Troglodyke
May 19th, 2011
9:19 am
Wow. I’m gay, and San Fran has just made me say, “WTF?”
I’m also an atheist, and on the one hand, I object to parents mutilating their children for religious reasons. I also object to them indoctrinating them (including scaring the crap out of them with the fire-and-brimstone B.S.) before they can consent, but there will never be a law against that.
I don’t have children, so I can’t weigh in from that angle. Is circumcision necessary to prevent disease? Those who oppose it say it is not. Is their claim based in solid scientific evidence? If so, that should be taken into account.
The truth is that circumcision is a practice that adults choose for their children, and it is least-painfully done well before the child is old enough to have a say in it. So opponents of the practice can say, “Leave the organ intact, and let the boy decide when he’s old enough,” which DOES allow the child to choose, but we all know it’s way more painful at that point. So that’s a gray area. What is TRULY best for the child? There is no way to know.
The biggest issue here is the government meddling in one’s private affairs. And I am staunchly against that. I agree that this is a private matter, and while I’d like for the kid to be able to decide for himself, that’s just not prudent. Regardless, the government needs to stay out of it.
shaggy
May 19th, 2011
9:20 am
jarvis,
Got it. It’s just that once I learned the function of that particular “appliance”, I never could associate it as dirty, and always wondered where that “dirty” association came from. I guess it probably has roots in Victorian England, when all things sexual were considered dirty and conquering natives was cool.
Raiderbeater
May 19th, 2011
9:20 am
Female Genital Mutilation = To prevent them from enjoying sex.
Male Genital Mutilation = Prevention of disease and ancient religious practice. All positive, no negative.
kevin
May 19th, 2011
9:22 am
All of you saying it’s a personal choice are right–that’s the point of the law! Currently, parents make the choice and not the person. Under the proposed legislation, a grown person gets to decide whether he wants his genitalia messed with. Great law!
Maybe I Don't Understand
May 19th, 2011
9:23 am
“Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what’s in the best interest of the child. It’s his body. It’s his choice,”
____
So it’s the “child’s choice” whether or not he’s circumcised? So a child has a right to make a choice about a medical procedure, but only once they are outside the womb? I guess an “invasive procedure” like abortion cannot be left to the child to decide, eh?
shaggy
May 19th, 2011
9:24 am
Raiderbeater
So, since you don’t have the ability to give a woman enjoyment during sex, you want them circumcised so they can’t enjoy it with anyone?
If that is your mindset, you fit the definition of “little man”.
Oscar Greasemanelli
May 19th, 2011
9:24 am
“At least that’s how my wife uses it, and trust me, I have seen it in action.”
Man, you’re a lucky guy.
Invite me over some time. :P
A Conservative Voice
May 19th, 2011
9:26 am
Well, it’s finally been confirmed……California is truly the land of “fruits and nuts”
MsE
May 19th, 2011
9:27 am
I live in the Bay Area now and it’s very easy to go outside on SF to get a circumcision. The cities south of SF are only 5-10 minutes away, in a different county, traffic is nothing (unlike ATL) and the airport is there. So if you’re Jewish, for example, there are plenty of places where your family can stay. You could also travel across the Bay to the East Bay, where again it’s 10 minutes, different county, plenty of synagogues if necessary, and major hospitals and hotels.
Trust me the rest of the Bay Area is nothing like SF. BTW, I miss ATL :)
DB
May 19th, 2011
9:28 am
How can a city so lovely be so looney?!?
Bob from Accounttemps
May 19th, 2011
9:28 am
@Kevin – then why not let the kid choose where they go to school, what diapers to wear, which formula they prefer, and so on? Your comment is silly and you know it. Some choices MUST be made by the parents – that’s part of child rearing. Curious where you stand on abortion – also a matter of personal choice?
shaggy
May 19th, 2011
9:28 am
Oscar Greasemanelli
Yes, I know, and she is VERY hot.
Now, go to the bathroom stall at your workplace.
jarvis
May 19th, 2011
9:32 am
Yes Kevin, it’s a law promoting freedom. Now if we can just laws to prevent us from making any decisions for our legal dependents, that would be total freedom.
TinaTeach
May 19th, 2011
9:33 am
We circumcised our son as a religous rite! If the baby I am carrying right now is a boy we will do it again! This is going to drive all the mohels out of San Fran (or risk turning them into outlaws) and violate the first admendment rights of a whole group of people in that city.
Even if it passes soomeone will order a stay to keep it from going into affect until it is overturned.
motherjanegoose
May 19th, 2011
9:37 am
Unbelievable….
@ Clinton….yes and ignorant folks are multiplying and then their offspring can vote. …scary stuff.
Educated and informed adults are typically not the ones with large families, yet they will all be eligible to vote.
There are certainly exceptions and if those people can and do afford to have 6-10 children….good for them.
When my dime is paying for these children, I am frustrated. When these families are voting for more things to be sent their way, I am frustrated….anyone else?
I just met two professors who are piloting a program for healthier foods for children, by introducing them in schools. We spoke of the families who use their government issued cards to feed their children: fruit roll ups, ramen noodles, and Cheetos when they could be eating bananas, watermelon, and broccoli. Old habits die hard and are being passed on each day.
Yes, I do realize that most kids prefer Cheetos to broccoli….mine also preferred ice cream to cereal.
Any idea which was served for breakfast?