Thursday, May 19, 2011

Barbaric Circumcision to Finally End in the U.S.

Circumcision Ban to Appear on San Francisco Ballot

Lloyd Schofield has come one step closer to achieving his mission to ban circumcision -- the surgical removal of the penile foreskin -- in the City by the Bay.

Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO—A group seeking to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco has succeeded in getting their controversial measure on the November ballot, meaning voters will be asked to weigh in on what until now has been a private family matter.

Lloyd Schofield
City elections officials confirmed Wednesday that the initiative had received enough signatures to appear on the ballot, getting more than 7,700 valid signatures from city residents. Initiatives must receive at least 7,168 signatures to qualify.

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. Rabbi 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 U.S. 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," Mr. 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% of American men are already circumcised, a much higher proportion than the worldwide average of 30%. Also, HIV spreads mainly among gay men in the U.S., and research indicates circumcision doesn't protect gay men from HIV.

The CDC doesn't have a position on the San Francisco proposal, said the spokeswoman, Elizabeth-Ann Chandler.

Please visit my legal website: Nevada DUI Attorneys
See me on YouTube: Seattle Cop Punches Black Teenage Girl

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I'd like to add my perspective as someone of Jewish descent. I'm fully in favor of freedom of religion, but your religious freedom does not give you the right to amputate or otherwise modify any perfectly normal and healthy part of SOMEONE ELSE'S BODY.

The child's body is not property of his/her parents or their culture or religion.

If a religion called for the tattooing or branding of an infant or child, that wouldn't make ok. If a religion called for any other part of the human body, for example an earlobe (you don't really need that, right?...), to be cut off of a baby or child, that wouldn't make it ok. And of course when religion calls for any cutting of the female genitals - no matter how minor - that doesn't make it ok.

So why then is the penis different than every other body part in this regard? What gives parents the right to cut part of it off and deprive the child of the right to choose for the rest of his life?

I know infant male genital cutting ("circumcision") is widely accepted in our culture, but that in and of itself doesn't make it ok, so I urge folks to really think critically about this!

Post a Comment