Lawmakers Oppose Circumcision Ban

(Editor’s note: This blog has been corrected.)

Katy Grimes: Today [July 21, 2011] at 3:30 in San Francisco, three state legislators are trying to stop the city of San Francisco from infringing on people’s religious rights.

First introduced as a global warming bill in February, AB 768  has been gutted and amended to take on new life as a bill stopping cities from banning the age-old practice of circumcision.

Authored by Democratic Assemblyman Mike Gatto of Los Angeles, the bill reads, “This bill would preclude a local statute, ordinance, or
regulation, or administrative action implementing a local statute,
ordinance, or regulation from prohibiting or restricting the practice
of male circumcision, or the exercise of parental authority with
respect to male circumcision.”

The bill is designed to counteract a ballot initiative relating to the same topic that qualified in May. The measure would make circumcision illegal for boys younger than 18. Violators could face a year in jail or a fine of $1,000, or both. [Update August 3, 2011: The initiative was rejected by a San Francisco Superior Court judge on July 28, 2011.]

Circumcision is a surgical process  removing the male foreskin and has biblical roots. Many believe that it is commanded by God explicitly in a covenant with Abraham. Jewish families traditionally circumcise their infant children, so the many different attempts to ban circumcision are really an attack on a religious practice.

In this case, Gatto’s bill is a smart attempt to stop a really bizarre measure that would restrict San Franciscans’ religious freedoms. Unfortunately, he is the author of a bad bill which would remove voting freedoms. ACA 6 is a constitutional amendment which would end the ballot initiative process as we know it.

The bill’s language states that it “prohibit an initiative measure that would result in a net increase in state or local government costs exceeding $5,000,000, other than costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of bonds, from being submitted to the electors or having any effect unless and until the legislative analyst and the director of finance jointly determine that the initiative measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs.”

CalWatchdog editor Steven Greenhut wrote, “Despite Gatto’s assurances to the contrary, it’s clear the bill could be applied to initiatives that would reduce taxes, given that such measures, such as Prop. 13, would result in a “net increase” in costs to state and local governments.”

ACA 6 recently failed to pass with the two-thirds vote necessary in the Assembly, and was re-referred back to a Senate committee. But it is not going away.

I wish all legislators would take the approach they are taking on the circumcision issue and just let people live their own lives without state meddling. I wish they would pay attention to more serious matters.

With the newly signed state budget already out of balance, the highest unemployment in the country, falling home values, deplorable roads, businesses leaving the state in droves, and a growing welfare population, California lawmakers should be focused like a laser beam on nothing but improving the state’s economy and getting a balanced budget.

JULY 21, 2011

3 comments

Write a comment
  1. CynDaVaz
    CynDaVaz 10 October, 2011, 08:48

    “In this case, Gatto’s bill is a smart attempt to stop a really bizarre measure that would restrict San Franciscans’ religious freedoms.”

    How is it ‘bizarre’ to be against the forced genital cutting of minors?

    If genital cutting of babies is supposed to be a guaranteed ‘religious freedom’ then how come Muslims are unable to have the ‘ritual nick’ performed on the genitals of their baby girls? The ‘ritual nick’, by the way, is far less invasive and damaging than what male babies are forced to endure when their genitals are being flayed in the ‘tradition’ of Jewish circumcision.

    The only religious freedoms being violated here are those of the baby, when a religious custom is permanently marked on his body without his consent.

    Please educate yourself further on this issue, because there’s a lot you clearly don’t know about why it’s wrong to inflict this unnecessary procedure on a child.

    Reply this comment
  2. CynDaVaz
    CynDaVaz 10 October, 2011, 08:52

    “I wish all legislators would take the approach they are taking on the circumcision issue and just let people live their own lives without state meddling. I wish they would pay attention to more serious matters.”

    I wish people would learn more about what’s involved in the forced genital cutting of baby boys and realize that the bodily integrity (and the religious freedom) of the male child isn’t being respected when this unnecessary cutting is performed against his will and without medical need.

    No medical organization in the world recommends non-therapeutic infant circumcision as a routine practice. There’s a good reason for that.

    If we were talking about little girls being systematically cut by their parents you wouldn’t feel so defensive of a parent’s so-called ‘right’ to mutilate their child.

    “International Human Rights Law and the Circumcision of Children”
    http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement09.html

    Reply this comment
  3. Frank McGinness
    Frank McGinness 18 June, 2017, 21:08

    Really what about the specter of San Francisco’s voters being denied their Right To Vote?

    And can a man sue for botched circumcision now that it’s legal as there is no limits ascribed to its performance?

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*



Related Articles

Who’s a senator?

You’ve probably heard about some of the weird goings on in the California Senate. Here’s the latest:

Sacramento voters – all dressed up with nowhere to go

Katy Grimes: Sacramento has a reputation for not exactly having much night life. In the past decade however, something resembling night

As CA eyes big-box ban, Wal-Mart fan ascends at White House

May 29, 2013 By Chris Reed As hard left as it can seem, even the Obama administration isn’t as doctrinaire