News :: Politics

Lawsuit Seeks to Block SF Vote on Circumcision Ban

by Terence Chea
Associated Press
Thursday Jun 23, 2011
  • PRINT
  • COMMENTS (4)
  • LARGE
  • MEDIUM
  • SMALL

An unlikely coalition of Jews and Muslims on Wednesday filed a lawsuit to block a San Francisco ballot measure that would ban the circumcision of male children, a procedure widely practiced by members of both faiths.

The case filed in San Francisco Superior Court asks the court to remove the voter initiative from the city’s Nov. 8 ballot, arguing that California law bars local governments from restricting medical procedures.

The plaintiffs include five Jews, three Muslims, two physicians who regularly perform circumcisions, the Anti-Defamation League and the local chapter of the Jewish Community Relations Council.

"It’s a measure that would basically infringe upon my rights as a Muslim to practice here," said plaintiff Leticia Preza, 31, who has a 4-year-old son and baby daughter. "It would also take away my rights as a parent to choose what’s a good procedure for my child."

San Francisco is set to be the first U.S. city to hold a public vote on banning male circumcision after city elections officials confirmed last month that the initiative had enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

The measure would prohibit circumcision on males under the age of 18, making it 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.

Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that parents should not be able to force on their young child. They say the procedure is unnecessary, extremely painful and even dangerous.

Backers of the so-called San Francisco Male Genital Mutilation bill did not immediately respond to an email request for comment.

The ballot measure is running into fierce opposition, especially among Jews and Muslims who consider circumcision a sacred religious rite. They say the ban would violate their constitutional rights and run counter to San Francisco’s tradition of cultural and religious tolerance.

"As Jews, we take the threat of banning circumcision personally," said plaintiff Jeremy Benjamin. "This measure singles us out, along with the Muslim community, as illegitimate and unwanted in our own city."

International health organizations have promoted male circumcision to help reduce the spread of the AIDS virus, but there hasn’t been the same kind of push in the U.S., in part because nearly 80 percent of American men are already circumcised, compared with the worldwide average of 30 percent.

Copyright Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Comments

  • puck, 2011-06-23 10:54:12

    I guess people forget that the infant has rights. The infant’s rights get stomped on because the wants of the parents. So at age 39 my parents can have me circumcised if they want? This is silly, parents should not be allowed to mame their son because they just want to. You choose your religion and their dogma. If you claim religious rights allow you to do this then you are silly and should have your kids taken from you.


  • Anonymous, 2011-06-23 11:45:56

    In the US an uncircumcised penis is considered esthetically unpleasing and gross to the majority of people. Also, a circumcised penis is a thousand times cleaner and easier to keep clean, which I happen to know not only as a gay, sexually active man but also as a man who had a circumcision as an adult. Lastly, having a circumcision can help you avoid contracting AIDS. I think if parents who plan to raise their son in the US want to circumcise him they should have the right to, it would be a favor to the boy.


  • JPtheROBOT, 2011-06-23 12:00:56

    @Puck once you turn 18 your parents lose guardianship, fool! "At 39 they can blahblahblah" seriously? When a child is born a parent makes the decision to have this operation done. At the time the child is clearly incapable of making that choice himself. Yes the procedure is medically unnecessary but so are braces (most of the time), and I don’t see anyone petitioning to make it illegal to put braces on a patient until they’re 18! Though we could... All we’d have to do is call it the "Ban Tooth and Gum Abuse and Mutilation" bill and a bunch of angry idiots will freak out.


  • Anonymous, 2011-06-24 07:27:37

    Anonymous, your statement that most people find uncircumcised penises "gross" is subjective. That’s perhaps cultural, and not the newborn’s problem. Newborns are also individual. We should not take away the point that unless medically necessary, this is an unnecessary surgical intervention. As for Aids protection, the research has proven some protection on heterosexual couples not homosexual. We have different bodies and sexual practices and cannot be fairly extrapolated to gay men. As the last commenter said, this country has a high rate of circumcision and yet the rate of transmission and infection from HIV has been catastrophic from the beginning in this country. So what does that tell us? Circumcision is not the answer but Prevention and Education which is so lacking. Last commenter, you may have had a good experience with your circumcision and it was your choice but i know someone who had the opposite of that. He did it for "esthetic" reasons and ended up with loss of sensation and a not so visually pleasant scar. In any case, he made the choice as you did which I am in favor of. And there is no rational comparison to be made from dental work to circumcision?!? Finally, as for religious exemption, my issue is as with tons of other things in religious practices, not everything is practiced from the scripture so this could also easily be selected out, and not of our times. Female circumcision is a religious practice too, and aren’t most of us outraged by this practice? SB


Add New Comment

Comments on Facebook