Home » Political Beat, San Francisco

SF voters to decide on circumcision ban in November

A controversial proposal that, if approved, would ban male circumcision will appear on San Francisco’s November ballot, elections officials said Wednesday.

The Department of Elections certified just over 7,700 signatures gathered by proponents of the ban who aim to outlaw the practice of circumcising males 18 years or younger — even despite religious or cultural traditions. 

Anyone, including medical practitioners, could face a $1,000 fine and one year in jail if they violate the ban in accordance with the proposal.

Supporters of the ban argued that the practice of circumcision would “protect ALL infants and children in San Francisco from the pain and harm caused by forced genital cutting,” according to campaign literature posted on their web site.

Contact the Beat at news@californiabeat.org.

6 Comments »

  • David said:

    I fully support this law as it protects a males right to make their own choice on whether to be circumcised. Circumcision removes over half of the males pleasure sensitive zones. The law is not a ban on circumcision. In fact, it guarantees every male the right to make up their own mind on whether or not they want to be circumcised, to have that right the decision needs to be made when they are able to make their own choice. The bill only protects children from forced circumcisions which are done by force on a child who cannot give consent. This bill protects a persons rights to genital integrity and to religious freedom. Every person has a right to decide what religion they want to be. Religious freedom is not our right to force our religion on others, but a right for us to execute for ourselves. Forced circumcision of children, since it is permanent, takes away that persons right to religious freedom and to make his own choice as to whether or not he wants to commit to a life long religiously motivated incursion on their body. Forced circumcision violates the males rights to make these choices for himself when he is able to do so, and forces a religion on him for the rest of his life. It is clear that religious freedom does not justify all manner of acts. One cannot use religious freedom to justify a destruction of a body part of a child since the right of the person to physical integrity and to not be subject to an assault takes precedence. If we had a religious cult that demanded cutting off of a boys nipples, we would not say that it is their right to do that to children, it is illegal. If we allow this argument to be used for cutting off of body parts for religious rituals it basically means there is no law or protection of the individual universally from assault. The length at which a crime has been commited for, or the number of people who commit such a crime has no bearing on whether or not it is right or wrong. If we cut off the healthy arms of millions of boys, for thousands of years, this would not make removal of healthy arms of children acceptable. This law protects and upholds males constitutional rights to religious freedom. This law is not only constitutional, it upholds the constitution. Forced circumcision of boys is an unconstitutional violation and seizure of a males religious freedom. Clearly, female circumcision has been prohibited even though many girls were circumcised for religious reasons. If equal protection of the law is a concept we value, if girls are protected from forced religious circumcision, then so must boys. If it is argued that boys cannot be protected from forced religious circumcision, then neither can girls be protected from it. It is time we give boys equal protection as girls now enjoy from genital cutting. It is wrong to cut a childs genitals, and for this reason both female and male circumcision are wrong, and violent sexual mutilation. It is currently illegal to so much as pierce a girls genitals, if boys have equal rights, then it is certainly illegal to remove 50% of a boys pleasure sensitive male organ skin.

  • David said:

    David, you are an idiot. The benefits of circumcision by far and away out weigh refraining form doing so. Besides which as a Jew, without this, I can’t be considered Jewish. Girls have protections because in some very non-mainstream, barbaric traditions they do this to girls who are over the age of 12 and with no anesthetic of any kind or sanitizers. It is barbaric, cruel, and harmful. In the case of boys, at least for Jewish practice, is is done with both of the above (wine to calm the baby, and to clean it). I could get behind the protections but there needs to be exceptions. Have you ever been to a bris? It is a beautiful ceremony in which a young child is inducted into the Jewish faith by doing what his forefathers have done for thousands of years. You take that away from us, and we might not as well exist. It helps keep the area clean from infection, as well as many other benefits. This debate is some new hippy way of bringing about one world on people and of all places San Francisco has to be the epi-center of all this garbage.

    By the way, on a personal note, since I am Jewish, I have had one, and to be honest, my sexual pleasure is just where it needs to be. I am not for wanting in that area. That and my area downstairs looks more normalized by western standards so women are not turned off by the strange extra hanging skin. Do me a huge favor numb nuts… go wait for the Rapture.

  • John Lentz said:

    What’s next David? Is San Francisco going to decide what religion we can belong to. What a piece of crap! But considering some of the other legislation that the Bay area has pushed down people’s throats, it’s not a big shock. Oh, before you say “if you don’t like it, move away.” ALREADY DID and am thrilled about it.

  • PIPIL NAHUAT said:

    NAZIS WANT TO TAKE RELIGIOUS RIGHT AWAY FROM CHRISTIANS JEWS AND NATIVE AMERICANS WHO PRACTICE THESE SACRED CEREMONIES ARE TO PURIFY AND CLEANSE EXTRA SKIN ONLY. IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN THAT UNCIRCUMCISED PENIS HAVE MORE BACTERIA AND DISGUSTING AS WELL AS UNCIRCUMCISED PENIS HAVE MORE CHANCES OF HETTING HIV MEDICALLY PROVEN! NAZIS THAT WANT TO BAN CIRCUMCISION GO BURY YOURSLEF ALIVE NEXT TO HITLER!!!

  • OPEN YOUR MIND said:

    This is NOT a religious issue, it is an issue of human rights. I AM A JEW and defy anyone to say I am not for speaking out against this. If Jewish women are so obsessed with the ritual, perhaps it’s time for them to start practicing female circumcisions on THEMSELVES. They ahve NO RIGHT TO CUT AN UNCONSENTING INFANT. NONE. NO RELIGION CAN JUSTIFY BODY MODIFICATION AND OR MUTILATION, NONE> As for the males, It’s time to grow up, and be HONEST with yourselves. There are many unbrainwashed thinking Jews who are “WAKING UP” to a new reality. The religion is going through all kinds of transformations. The abolishment of forced circumcision upon male children is no more “anti Jewish” than the inclusion of females within the minyan or even more extreme, the allowing of female rabbis. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for it, but you get the point.

    IT IS TIME FOR JEWISH MEN AND BOYS TO SPEAK OUT ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE.

  • Freiheit said:

    I’m from Germany. It’s only legal here if your parents are Jewish or Muslim(because we try to get along with everyone, even if they are stupid). Otherwise, the doctor looses his medical license and gets 3-5 years jail time(can be out in 1 if good behavior), the parents pay a fine and get probation and the child is taken away by social services and put in a family that will do him no harm.