Calif. Gov. signs bill Prohibiting Bans on Circumcision

[bobbyw24]

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill prohibiting cities and counties from banning male circumcision, his office announced today.

Assembly Bill 768 by Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles, was inspired by a San Francisco ballot measure designed to prohibit child circumcision there. A judge in July ordered the circumcision ban off the November ballot, but Gatto's bill proceeded through the Legislature, where it passed with unanimous votes.

Gatto argued that such bans were an affront to the exercise of "personal, medical and religious freedom."

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/10/03/125919/calif-gov-brown-signs-bill-prohibiting.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_term=news#ixzz1ZiVaAD2J

[Golding]

I agree with the decision.

[eduardo89]

Does it also prohibit the state from banning it?

[specsaregood]

Gatto argued that such bans were an affront to the exercise of "personal, medical and religious freedom."


And yet they have no problem banning female circumcision.

[FrankRep]

...

[Brian4Liberty]

And yet they have no problem banning female circumcision.

Amazing, isn't it?

When will California pass a law prohibiting local governments from banning guns? Oh yeah, probably never. They would rather ban guns in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

How about those bans on eating dogs? I have my eye on a fat labradoodle down at the pound... ;)

[Brett85]

I agree with this bill. This is a decision that should be left up to parents, not the government.

[BuddyRey]

There are very few things I think should be illegal. The elective/cosmetic slicing of an unconsenting infant's genitals for fun and profit is one of them.

[FrankRep]

I agree with this bill. This is a decision that should be left up to parents, not the government.
agreed.

[jmdrake]

A broken clock is right twice a day.

[specsaregood]

I agree with this bill. This is a decision that should be left up to parents, not the government.

So you also think that they should repeal the ban on female circumcision for the same reason, right?

[jmdrake]

So you also think that they should repeal the ban on female circumcision for the same reason, right?

And here we go with all of the false analogies and pseudo science. Have fun this round!

[Brett85]

So you also think that they should repeal the ban on female circumcision for the same reason, right?

I don't know enough about female circumcision to know whether there's any danger involved in it or not. There doesn't seem to be any danger to male babies from circumcision.

[specsaregood]

And here we go with all of the false analogies and pseudo science. Have fun this round!

I prefer to call it consistency.

[specsaregood]

There doesn't seem to be any danger to male babies from circumcision.

I could provide you with plenty of photos disproving that; but I'd probably get banned.

[Invi]

I don't know enough about female circumcision to know whether there's any danger involved in it or not. There doesn't seem to be any danger to male babies from circumcision.

Except of course for the infants who die due to complications during (or after) the surgery to remove the prepuce organ.
If a guy wants to cut a part of his penis off, good for him. I just thinking forcing it on children is ridiculous and brutal.
A law banning it, though.. I don't think that's the way to go. I think there'd be an increase in infant deaths due to having the procedure in less-than-ideal environments.

[jmdrake]

I prefer to call it consistency.

And I'm sure you would. And I'm sure the other side would say they're being consistent to. I will say this and be done with it. When a female friend of mine was going all ape over female circumcision years ago I was like "What's the big deal? It's no different from male circumcision". She proceeded to explain why it was different. Now people trying to ban male circumcision are trying to say it's the same? Sorry, ain't buying it. I've seen the "studies" read all the arguments, looked at it from both sides, and I ain't buying it. Do I sometimes lose sleep over having drunk fluoride water for years and having been vaccinated with potential toxins etc? Yep. Do I lose sleep over having been circumcised? Nope. Is urination and/or sex painful for me as it reportedly is for females who have been circumcised? Nope. So I don't give a flying fig about this issue. You do? More power to you.

[specsaregood]

Yep. Do I lose sleep over having been circumcised? Nope. Is urination and/or sex painful for me as it reportedly is for females who have been circumcised? Nope. So I don't give a flying fig about this issue. You do? More power to you.

I'm sure the boys who had the procedure go wrong have lost a lot of sleep over it. It isn't a big issue to me, I just like consistency, either religious freedom is protected and parental rights are protected or they aren't. I'm not fond of the state deciding that some are protected and some aren't based on what the majority accepts as normal or that they should be protected.

the problem as I see it is there reasoning behind the ban, "Gatto argued that such bans were an affront to the exercise of "personal, medical and religious freedom.""

They explicitly pointed out that they were passing the ban to allow exercise of personal and religious freedom. Well that should apply to all.

[oyarde]

How did this come up in the first place ? California cities considering banning this ?

[jmdrake]

I'm sure the boys who had the procedure go wrong have lost a lot of sleep over it.

Do you have any examples of girls having the procedure go right? I mean really, if you want to be "consistent" and all, you should be able to show examples of female circumcision where there aren't any problems. The impression that I've gotten from feminists who care about this issue is that painful sex and urination is the norm for FGM, not the exception. Are these feminists lying and blowing FGM out of proportion? If they are then they need to be called out on it.

[jmdrake]

How did this come up in the first place ? California cities considering banning this ?

San Fransisco actually passed a ban.

[Invi]

I think it was San Francisco? It was on the ballot somewhere, yes.
edit: ninja'd.

[BamaAla]

There are very few things I think should be illegal. The elective/cosmetic slicing of an unconsenting infant's genitals for fun and profit is one of them.

Absolutely. As far as I'm concerned, parents choosing to have cosmetic surgery performed on a helpless child is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle that everyone is always touting.

[oyarde]

San Fransisco actually passed a ban. Yeah , but what brought it up in the first place ??

[dannno]

And yet they have no problem banning female circumcision.

Although there is a massive technical and physiological difference between the two, I supposed they are similar in principle.

[Brian4Liberty]

San Fransisco actually passed a ban.

No, there was never a vote. It was on and off again on the potential ballot.


It looks as if the City by the Bay won't vote on a circumcision ban after all.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi ruled Thursday that the measure to criminalize circumcision must be withdrawn from the November ballot because it would violate a California law that makes regulating medical procedures a state -- not a city -- matter.

Giorgi then ordered San Francisco's election director to remove the measure from city ballots.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/san-francisco-circumcision-ban-striken/story?id=14179024

[Keith and stuff]

Yet another reason to leave CA. Heck, this is even a reason for leftist to leave CA. Maybe they would do better in HI or NM. They could always go to VT or RI.

[Brian4Liberty]

I agree with this bill. This is a decision that should be left up to parents, not the government.

So if the parents, and an 11 year old boy all decide they want a procedure to be done, it's all good?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?319516-11-Year-old-boys-gets-sex-change-to-become-girl./

[jmdrake]

No, there was never a vote. It was on and off again on the potential ballot.

My bad. Thanks for the correction.

[specsaregood]

//

[jmdrake]

Well there are varying versions of it, from minor to major. But the actual medical procedure is NOT my point. My problem is the hypocrisy of the state preventing bans on behavior based on protecting religious expression, but not protecting other such bannings. in fact, I would suppose that many of the people that pushed for this ban on prohibition are the same people that would support prohibition against those that want to use marijuana in their own religious expression.


Any time religious liberty is put up against protection from harm, the weight of the religious act has to be balanced against the harm being prevented. For example, an exception to murder on behalf of people who still believed in human sacrifice would not prevail based on religious freedom. But an exception to animal sacrifice laws did prevail. So you can't just say "Well if practice X gets a religious freedom exemption than practice Y should get one as well even if practice Y is MUCH worse than practice X."

Bringing this home, if FGM is really no worse than male circumcision, and if FGM is as central to Islam as male circumcision is to Judaism, then they should be treated the same. However FGM isn't in the Koran or the Haddiths to my knowledge. And from all the evidence presented here at RPF, I've not seen a compelling case made that it's as bad as FGM. If it is as bad as FGM, then my feminist friends were either lying to me or mistaken themselves about FGM.

Edit: And for the record, many religious freedom advocates believe the peyote case was wrongly decided. (Peyote being a hallucinogen used in some Native American religious. I know you probably know that. I'm just clarifying for other potential readers.)

[specsaregood]

Any time religious liberty is put up against protection from harm, the weight of the religious act has to be balanced against the harm being prevented. For example, an exception to murder on behalf of people who still believed in human sacrifice would not prevail based on religious freedom. But an exception to animal sacrifice laws did prevail. So you can't just say "Well if practice X gets a religious freedom exemption than practice Y should get one as well even if practice Y is MUCH worse than practice X."

And murder isn't allowed because it is harming another person. hrm...just like circumcision? And there are plenty of other religious practices that are banned such as I mentioned that hurt nobody.



Bringing this home, if FGM is really no worse than male circumcision, and if FGM is as central to Islam as male circumcision is to Judaism, then they should be treated the same. However FGM isn't in the Koran or the Haddiths to my knowledge.
Wait, so you are deciding what is a real religious belief or not? What is acceptable? Tribal customs and religious expressions aren't good enough?

[jmdrake]

And murder isn't allowed because it is harming another person. hrm...just like circumcision? And there are plenty of other religious practices that are banned such as I mentioned that hurt nobody.

And I pointed out that most people who believe in religious freedom were appalled at the peyote ruling. In fact that's where the whole "religious freedom restoration act" came from. Many religious conservatives supported RFRA even though they didn't support illicit drug use.

Also I see you're just flat out ignoring the point I was making about degree of harm. As you have conceded male circumcision is really an issue when it goes wrong. But for the vast majority of men it's nothing to lose sleep over. It doesn't cause painful sex or urination or any of the other issues routinely associated with FGM. If you're going to use FGM as your benchmark then you have to show that the two are equivalent on the level of harm as opposed to just saying they both cause harm.



Wait, so you are deciding what is a real religious belief or not? What is acceptable? Tribal customs and religious expressions aren't good enough?

I'm not sure what you mean by "religious expression" and I don't know of anyone who would argue in court with a straight face that a "tribal custom" somehow equals a religious belief. I'm not sure if you're even being serious in your argument.

[specsaregood]

//

[Tina]

There are very few things I think should be illegal. The elective/cosmetic slicing of an unconsenting infant's genitals for fun and profit is one of them.

Indeed. And there are studies out now acknowledging the harm it causes. Rabbi's originally used their teeth to bite the end off of baby boys. Sounds like a form of torture and mind control to me.

http://intactnews.org/node/131/1316710012/study-links-circumcision-personality-trait-disorder

[Rael]

There are very few things I think should be illegal. The elective/cosmetic slicing of an unconsenting infant's genitals for fun and profit is one of them.

+1

[jmdrake]

I'm not ignoring it and FGM is not my benchmark I'm sorry if my simple example threw you off. My complaint is with religious protections being protected only to certain groups. Also, how this ruling actually overrides the personal freedoms of the infant.

Cool. Well using your marijuana example as a benchmark, liberal and conservatives joined together with the ACLU to pass RFRA to overcome the federal government overriding faith in the case of religious use of drugs. (RFRA wasn't just about that, but it was a peyote case that spawned RFRA). Unfortunately RFRA got struck down by the supreme court. It was a well written and very much needed law. :(



Really, there are many tribes with their own religious beliefs and their customs are intertwined. eg: There are many jewish tribal customs that are part of their religious expression that have no root in the torah.

Sure. I'm aware of that. And even individuals can have personal religious beliefs separate from the religious group they belong to. In a court case all of that should be allowed in and weighed. I would just put more weight on something actually verified as fundamental to the particular faith than just "Well my village back in the old country did it this way".

[specsaregood]

Sure. I'm aware of that. And even individuals can have personal religious beliefs separate from the religious group they belong to. In a court case all of that should be allowed in and weighed. I would just put more weight on something actually verified as fundamental to the particular faith than just "Well my village back in the old country did it this way".

I think they would have been more consistent if they passed this ban on prohibition unless there was a specific religious exemption in the local prohibition. sort of how they do mandatory vaccination laws. I'm not saying it would be ideal; but it might go a long ways towards, ending circumcision as a "default" procedure and make it more of a conscious decision where you have to take advantage of the exemption. I'm not saying it is perfect solution; but it would be something I would be happier with.

[jmdrake]

I think they would have been more consistent if they passed this ban on prohibition unless there was a specific religious exemption in the local prohibition. sort of how they do mandatory vaccination laws. I'm not saying it would be ideal; but it might go a long ways towards, ending circumcision as a "default" procedure and make it more of a conscious decision where you have to take advantage of the exemption. I'm not saying it is perfect solution; but it would be something I would be happier with.

That's really a pretty good idea. I think most people who circumcise today are motivated mostly by not wanting their sons to be the "odd ones out" in the locker room.

[Restore America Now]

As someone who'd give anything to know what it's like to have a foreskin, I too agree with this.

[Southron]

What kind of punishment would you apply to circumcision anyway? You are only potentially violating the wishes of the child. Has a crime been committed if the person is glad it was done as a baby?

[Invi]

That's really a pretty good idea. I think most people who circumcise today are motivated mostly by not wanting their sons to be the "odd ones out" in the locker room.

Circumcision rates have been going down, supposedly. Snipped boys are becoming more likely to be the "odd" ones.

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/08/us-circumcision-rate-falls-to-33.html

[heavenlyboy34]

I think they would have been more consistent if they passed this ban on prohibition unless there was a specific religious exemption in the local prohibition. sort of how they do mandatory vaccination laws. I'm not saying it would be ideal; but it might go a long ways towards, ending circumcision as a "default" procedure and make it more of a conscious decision where you have to take advantage of the exemption. I'm not saying it is perfect solution; but it would be something I would be happier with.This is a pretty reasonable middle ground. I'm still of the mind that the anti-circumcision law is just as correct in principle as clitoridectomy bans. (as another poster noted, there are differences in the net effects of these procedures, but the principle is sound)

[heavenlyboy34]

What kind of punishment would you apply to circumcision anyway? You are only potentially violating the wishes of the child. Has a crime been committed if the person is glad it was done as a baby?
The punishment would be modeled after the punishment for FGM though somewhat less severe. A child cannot "consent"(we went through this argument in the various threads about sex with minors and such), thus this prohibition cannot be a violation of the child's rights. If a person has reached the age of reason, he can have the procedure done on himself. Yes, if the person is glad it was done, it would still be a crime-just as a 13 year old might be "glad" to have sex with a 30 year old. The subjective valuation of the victim does not make it less a crime.

[nobody's_hero]

I support the intent but I worry about the process. It appears it has now gone from a local issue to a state issue. Should have been allowed to be handled as locally as possible (for better or worse). If you wanted a circumcision move your ass out of that liberal hellhole San Francisco and go get one at the neighboring city. Move permanently. Vote with your feet and let the city than bans everything crumble.

(standard 'no offense to Ron Paul supporters living in said liberal hellhole' disclaimer)

[kah13176]

The government should ban raw milk. After all, it would only affect a small percentage of the population who actually likes raw milk.

Similarly, we should NOT ban circumcision. After all, only a few fuck-ups a year, right?

NO. Circumcision is an infringement upon property rights. It's funny how so many libertarians defend property rights until it comes to their own bullshit, property-infringing fairy tales. Fucking hypocrisy if you ask me.