Judge slices circumcision ban from San Francisco ballot
David Lane of Fairfax, Calif., holds up a sign against circumcision as state Assemblyman Mike Gatto of Los Angeles speaks outside a medical clinic during a news conference in San Francisco, Thursday, July 21, 2011.
/ APA judge on Thursday struck a controversial ban proposal from November's ballot, saying the proposed law would violate both constitutional freedoms and California law that makes regulating medical procedures a function of the state, not cities.
Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi's ruling confirmed a tentative decision she issued a day earlier and came following arguments from Michael Kinane, an attorney for the proponents of the measure that would have made San Francisco the first U.S. city to hold a public vote on the matter.
Kinane told Giorgi that circumcision was not a routine medical procedure and the measure included an exception in cases where circumcision was needed for health reasons.
Giorgi, while acknowledging "there is legitimate debate on the benefits and harms of circumcision," was not swayed.
"I don't think there is any debate - this mater relates to issues of statewide concern," the judge said.
Anti-circumcision activist Lloyd Schofield, who sponsored the ban, said he was considering an appeal.
"We will not stop until all men are protected from this damaging and harmful surgery," he said.
The initiative would have made circumcision a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail, and didn't offer exemptions for religious rituals such as the Jewish bris or Muslim khitan.
Supporters of the ban said male circumcision is an unnecessary, painful, form of genital mutilation that parents should not be allowed to force on their child. Kinane said Thursday that the federal government already bans female circumcision.
"The U.S. government has said when you are looking at little girls we don't care if it's a matter of custom or ritual, you can't circumcise them unless there's a matter of medical necessity," he said.
Critics of the ban said circumcision helps prevent the spread of disease and serves an important religious purpose.
What do medical experts have to say? The American Academy of Pediatrics says procedure has the potential to reduce the risk for bladder infections and help prevent transmission of sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDS. But the academy also cites anecdotal evidence that circumcision can reduce sexual sensation and lead to painful complications like bleeding and infections.
Anti-circumcision activists protested outside the courthouse, brandishing signs that read "I did not consent to male genital mutilation" and a leaflet that claimed circumcision diminishes men's sexual pleasure.
Jenny Benjamin, a parent and plaintiff in the lawsuit to overturn the ban, said seeing people compare circumcision to child abuse made "my stomach churn."
"Some of the decisions my parents made for me I wasn't thrilled about, but I didn't take it to voters," Benjamin said. "It seems a little extreme. It seems a lot extreme."
What do you think?
Click here to read HealthPOP's coverage of the circumcision debate.
Popular in Health
- Consumer Reports 2013 sunscreen ratings: Which is tops?
- Surgeons remove 4-pound hairball from tiger 10 Photos
- Teens guiltiest of underestimating calories in fast food
- Skin cancer self-exam: What to look for (PHOTOS)
- How to get in shape for your wedding
- Drinking sugary drinks daily linked to kidney stones
- Scientists scratch the surface of itching's origins
- Cause of Alabama mystery illness cluster determined
Removal of nerves from a sensory organ alters it's sensory function. It's agreed that it's not a necessary medical surgery, it cures no disease. Cosmetic surgery alters "look" not function. So it's not cosmetic surgery.
Given these "givens" what purpose could this have other than to permanently alter the sexual experience of a person for the rest of their life. To what degree is not the question, it does. If it doesn't do anything, why do it? If it only affected the child during their childhood, then it would be fine. They could undo it. But they can't. I believe that's a good description of mutilation.
That said...I sort of agree, leave my pee pee alone. Let me decide.
According to standards set and agreed to by the city and county of San Francisco SFMGMbill.org met all the conditions for a ballot vote INCLUDING ENOUGH PUBLIC INTEREST BY SIGNATURES! WAS THERE A POLL in SF to see if San Franciscans wanted to fight their right to vote?
The city suing the city are you serious? (the public defender and dept. elections) How much did this cost us and with use of our county judge? Hell of a lot more than to vote. Concerning the state bill AB768 to legally codify circumcision of MALES ONLY (Talk about sexist) pictured here of the dog and pony show (Fiona Ma and Mike Gatto), with so many serious budgetary problems facing the state of California, why are a few California state legislators worried about what initiatives local people get to vote on at the local level? Don't they have greater problems to deal with at the state level?
Ma representing the largest community of Russian Jews and Gatto representing Burbank 40% Jewish, is it right that religious people should be writing into law?! BTW the first step is yesterday's pro- circumcision court case. Ma and Gatto took no questions even though this was touted as a discussion. Ma and Gatto were joined by Senator Mark Leno who is Jewish and promoting federal protection of circumcision and sexism too, HR2400. They would have us say "Yes to Sexism!" Note the final goal HR2400 is to lawfully codify making circumcision legal thus preventing ANY lawsuits even glans amputation or death, and especially those circumcised 18 year olds born in 1997 who want to sue for inequality of protection. How does this work because pro-circumcision people make medical studies designed or not publish results supporting male circumcision. (Studies equally for female circumcision*) Poll vote and or comment at POPVOX https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr2400
With so many serious monetary problems now and the government close to defaulting on its debts in a matter of days Mark Leno really is messing up.
did you have your hood removed??? It's "Cleaner" ;)
______________________________________________________
Wow, you really don't know much about female anatomy. It's not an issue for women as there are other areas around it for protection. It would make no hygenic difference if a woman were to have their "hood removed" as you say. For men, it does, again, from what I've seen and heard through male friends and personal experience. And if that's one thing I can do for my child to protect him from disease, that in the majority of cases has no negative side effects on the rest of his life, I'm gonna do it. AND My husband is completely for it.
what right do you have to say what stays on a man or not???
You would agree with me if the shoe were on the other foot.
Hey Jenny, come over here so I can cut your hood off.... See how you like it.
Women have NO RIGHT to even debate this issue as they've already been protected by the law from having this done to them .
It should be ILLEGAL.
So if the "Custom" was to clip the N!pples off people, then heck why not right??? It's a stupid thing to do.