The San Francisco Examiner reported in April that backers of a law to prohibit the circumcision of male children in San Francisco say they have enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot in November.
The article reports:
"The measure would amend the City's police code "to make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicles or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18"
"Violators would face a fine of up to $1,000 and up to one year in jail.
""We don't come at this from a religious angle. We feel this is a very hamful thing." (Lloyd) Schofield said. "Parents are guardians. They are not owners of children. It's a felony to tattoo a child."
I guess they have a right to put this on the ballot, but it seems to me that there are some freedom of religion issues involved. I am also a little confused that a state which seems so lax on marijuana and illegal immigration would be concerned about circumcision.
Just to muddy up the waters, Fox News reported in May of this year:
"Circumcision is widely believed to prevent diseases, such as HIV, and there is some evidence that it reduces the risk of male-to-female HIV transfer. The proposed mechanism is that circumcision removes what are called Langerhans cells in the foreskin, which are more susceptible to HIV infection. Langerhans cells are equipped with special receptors that may allow HIV access into the body."
Circumcision is part of the Jewish tradition. It began with Abraham. I hope that if this is law does pass it is quickly challenged in court--this is a definite restriction on the religious freedom of the Jewish population.
Leave a comment