No one has ever accused San Francisco of not taking strong action that might spark controversy. First, in November, the Board of Supervisors voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald’s Happy Meals as traditionally served. And now it looks like another controversial measure will go on the ballot showing that San Fransciso is a ballsy city. Well, perhaps not totally in this case:
Most bans in San Francisco are enacted by the Board of Supervisors, but come November, it sounds like voters will have the opportunity to jump on the ban wagon by deciding whether to ban male circumcision.
San Francisco resident Lloyd Schofield said Thursday he is “on track” to have enough signatures to place his proposed measure on the November ballot that would make it illegal to “circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18.”
Schofield has until April 26 to submit 7,168 valid signatures to make it onto the ballot. He would not disclose how many signatures were collected at this point.
Schofield said he became the proponent of the local ballot measure after being asked to champion a local bill during a July symposium on circumcision held at the UC Berkeley. Schofield said he was approached by those affiliated with a group pushing for a federal bill to “end male genital mutilation in the U.S.,” according to its website, mgmbill.org.
He said he thought about it for two weeks and then decided to do it. “I always knew this was something wrong to do to a child,” he said.
Schofield says it’s a “human rights issue.”
Oh.
It’s funny, I never felt beset and oppressed. With a name like G-a-n-d-e-l-m-a-n it’s clear that, yes, I underwent this procedure as an infant.
There are lots of things that left long-lasting trauma marks on me: having to give back a too expensive birthday gift bought with a gift certificate, being lousy in baseball in elementary school, and driving 5 hours and only being able to get Rush Limbaugh on all radio stations. But circumcision wasn’t one of them. Thank yew Mr. Schofield for enlightening me and my forefathers.
The signature-gathering is being run by a committee of about 10, he said. Schofield would not divulge the identities of the committee members, but said several are spending their own money to pay for signature-gatherers to help out. Schofield said he is out there himself — not being paid — collecting the signatures outside grocery stores and in neighborhoods like SoMa, the Castro, the Haight and Noe Valley.
San Francisco Weekly notes that such a ban might require legal Viagra: it would not stand up in court.
He has until April 26 to submit 7,168 valid signatures in order for the proposed ban to qualify. And as SF Weekly has already reported, he is serious about this campaign, which he says is less about penises and more about protecting baby boys from foreskin mutilation….
….Constitutional law experts have said a circumcision ban would not hold up in court. It would violate freedom of religion, since religions like Judaism require it as part of their belief system.
But the Jewish community has already geared up its own campaign to fight the measure, that is assuming it’s going to, ahem, cut it with voters.
Those who violate the ban could be jailed (not more than one year) or fined (not more than $1,000), under his proposal. Circumcisions even for religious reasons would not be allowed. At this point, Schofield’s proposal is an idea that would have to clear several hurdles to be considered.
…In some families, it’s a cultural or religious tradition, or parents want sons to look like their fathers. Other parents decry it as mutilation. Medical evidence has shown mixed risks and benefits. Apart from the San Francisco proposal, circumcisions are under scientific scrutiny.
While widespread in the United States, circumcision rates could be falling, according to recent surveys. About 65 percent of American male infants born in hospitals were circumcised in 1999, according to latest data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
While nationally the circumcision rate has remained steady, the most dramatic decline occurred in the West, where it fell from 64 percent in 1974 to 37 percent in 1999. Earlier this year, there were unconfirmed estimates that the circumcision rate had fallen to fewer than half for boys born in U.S. hospitals, The New York Times reported last summer, citing a federal report at the International AIDS Conference.
The American Academy of Pediatrics task force on circumcision has been reviewing recent research before it issues an official new position on the issue, probably next year, one panel member said.
AND:
“In the past, we’ve said newborn circumcision has benefits and risks,” said Dr. Douglas Diekema, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington. “Given the fact that neither the risks nor benefits are particularly compelling, this is a decision to be made by parents.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics currently holds that there is evidence of circumcision’s potential benefits, but not enough to recommend routine newborn circumcisions.
Both anti- and pro-circumcision forces have pushed their positions based on medical and quasi-health claims.
In the Jewish religion, circumcision is performed on the eighth day of a boy’s life. The procedure is done at a “bris” by a mohel, “mohel, an observant Jew who has been trained in the relevant Jewish law and surgical techniques.”
The procedure itself, which is very brief, then takes place with the sandek holding the infant in his lap. Afterwards, the child is bandaged, dressed, and given a name. The mother and father will often say a few words about the significance of the name. The event will usually be celebrated by a festive meal hosted by the family.
If a child was previously circumcised in a religiously invalid way, or born with no foreskin, the same ceremony is held but with only a symbolic pinprick of the tip of the penis. This ceremony is called the hatafat dam brit.
In recent years, circumcision has become something of a controversy, with some people denouncing the practice as unnecessary or harmful. {1} However, this is a medical issue, not a religious one. Very few Jews are convinced by those who believe circumcision to be mentally or physically damaging, and as far as it being medically unnecessary, it was never practiced for that reason. Like many mitzvot, circumcision is performed simply because God has commanded it and any practical benefits are secondary.
(I know a mohel who works for tips.)
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.