Aa
Circumcision ban to appear on San Francisco ballot
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43082562/
updated 5/18/2011 7:07:58 PM ET
Supporters say the practice is genital mutilation, opponents call claims misleading
What say YOU?
SAN FRANCISCO — A group seeking to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco has succeeded in getting their controversial measure on the November ballot, meaning voters will be asked to weigh in on what until now has been a private family matter.
City elections officials confirmed Wednesday that the initiative had received enough signatures to appear on the ballot, getting more than 7,700 valid signatures from city residents. Initiatives must receive at least 7,168 signatures to qualify.
If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions.
The initiative appears to be the first of its kind in the country to actually make it to this stage, though a larger national debate over the health benefits of circumcision has been going on for many years. Banning circumcision would almost certainly prompt a flurry of legal challenges alleging violations of the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs.
Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that is unnecessary, extremely painful and even dangerous. They say parents should not be able to force the decision on their young child.
"Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what's in the best interest of the child. It's his body. It's his choice," said Lloyd Schofield, the measure's lead proponent and a longtime San Francisco resident, who said the cutting away of the foreskin from the penis is a more invasive medical procedure than many new parents or childless individuals realize.
But opponents say such claims are alarmingly misleading, and call the proposal a clear violation of constitutionally protected religious freedoms.
Advertise | AdChoices
.
"For a city that's renowned for being progressive and open-minded, to even have to consider such an intolerant proposition ... it sets a dangerous precedent for all cities and states," said Rabbi Gil Yosef Leeds of Berkeley. Leeds is a certified "mohel," the person who traditionally performs ritual circumcisions in the Jewish faith.
He said he receives phone calls every day from members of the local Jewish community who are concerned about the proposed ban. But he said he is relatively confident that even if the measure is approved, it will be abruptly — and indefinitely — tied up in litigation.
The initiative's backers say its progress is the biggest success story to date in a decades-old, nationwide movement by so-called "intactivists" to end circumcision of male infants in the United States. A similar effort to introduce a circumcision ban in the Massachusetts Legislature last year failed to gain traction.
"It's been kind of under the radar until now, but it was a conversation that needed to happen," Schofield said of the debate over male circumcision. "We've tapped into a spark with our measure — something that's been going on for a long time."
International health organizations have promoted circumcision as an important strategy for reducing the spread of the AIDS virus. That's based on studies that showed it can prevent AIDS among heterosexual men in Africa.
But there hasn't been the same kind of push for circumcision in the U.S., in part because nearly 80 percent of American men are already circumcised, a much higher proportion than the worldwide average of 30 percent. Also, HIV spreads mainly among gay men in the U.S., and research indicates circumcision doesn't protect gay men from HIV.
For years, federal health officials have been working on recommendations regarding circumcision. The effort was sparked by studies that found circumcision is partially effective in preventing the virus' spread between women and men. The recommendations are still being developed, and there is no date set for their release, said a spokeswoman for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC doesn't have a position on the San Francisco proposal, said the spokeswoman, Elizabeth-Ann Chandler.
updated 5/18/2011 7:07:58 PM ET
Supporters say the practice is genital mutilation, opponents call claims misleading
What say YOU?
SAN FRANCISCO — A group seeking to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco has succeeded in getting their controversial measure on the November ballot, meaning voters will be asked to weigh in on what until now has been a private family matter.
City elections officials confirmed Wednesday that the initiative had received enough signatures to appear on the ballot, getting more than 7,700 valid signatures from city residents. Initiatives must receive at least 7,168 signatures to qualify.
If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions.
The initiative appears to be the first of its kind in the country to actually make it to this stage, though a larger national debate over the health benefits of circumcision has been going on for many years. Banning circumcision would almost certainly prompt a flurry of legal challenges alleging violations of the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs.
Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that is unnecessary, extremely painful and even dangerous. They say parents should not be able to force the decision on their young child.
"Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what's in the best interest of the child. It's his body. It's his choice," said Lloyd Schofield, the measure's lead proponent and a longtime San Francisco resident, who said the cutting away of the foreskin from the penis is a more invasive medical procedure than many new parents or childless individuals realize.
But opponents say such claims are alarmingly misleading, and call the proposal a clear violation of constitutionally protected religious freedoms.
Advertise | AdChoices
.
"For a city that's renowned for being progressive and open-minded, to even have to consider such an intolerant proposition ... it sets a dangerous precedent for all cities and states," said Rabbi Gil Yosef Leeds of Berkeley. Leeds is a certified "mohel," the person who traditionally performs ritual circumcisions in the Jewish faith.
He said he receives phone calls every day from members of the local Jewish community who are concerned about the proposed ban. But he said he is relatively confident that even if the measure is approved, it will be abruptly — and indefinitely — tied up in litigation.
The initiative's backers say its progress is the biggest success story to date in a decades-old, nationwide movement by so-called "intactivists" to end circumcision of male infants in the United States. A similar effort to introduce a circumcision ban in the Massachusetts Legislature last year failed to gain traction.
"It's been kind of under the radar until now, but it was a conversation that needed to happen," Schofield said of the debate over male circumcision. "We've tapped into a spark with our measure — something that's been going on for a long time."
International health organizations have promoted circumcision as an important strategy for reducing the spread of the AIDS virus. That's based on studies that showed it can prevent AIDS among heterosexual men in Africa.
But there hasn't been the same kind of push for circumcision in the U.S., in part because nearly 80 percent of American men are already circumcised, a much higher proportion than the worldwide average of 30 percent. Also, HIV spreads mainly among gay men in the U.S., and research indicates circumcision doesn't protect gay men from HIV.
For years, federal health officials have been working on recommendations regarding circumcision. The effort was sparked by studies that found circumcision is partially effective in preventing the virus' spread between women and men. The recommendations are still being developed, and there is no date set for their release, said a spokeswoman for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC doesn't have a position on the San Francisco proposal, said the spokeswoman, Elizabeth-Ann Chandler.
I chose not to circumcise, but I am glad it was my choice to make. THere are pro's and con's to both, and I agree, it's not mutilation. My sister in law also chose not to circumcise and unfortunately it became medically necessary for my nephew to have the procedure when he was 6. It is not the same thing as female circumcision which is practiced in some countries in order to prevent the women from enjoying sex. Besides, with all the other craziness happening in the world, it doesn't seem to me that this should be an issue to be focusing on.
All it is one more item of encroachment into the American way of life ..they are going for the jugular.. wonder what tomorrow will bring ...
This is outrageously ridiculous. Circumcision is a personal decision within a family--it is not a decision for the government to make.
It is not genital mutilation. It is a practice that has been around for thousands of years. If it was so horrendous and "dangerous," it would have been stopped a long time ago, just as so many other medical practices have been that were proven dangerous and/or ineffective.
Circumcision, if done correctly (which it is, in most cases), does not make the man "ineffective" or unable to experience any sexual pleasure later in life. Sure, you'll here a horror story here and there of a circumcision gone wrong, but given the statistics of how often circumcision goes wrong, it's minimal. With ANY surgical procedure, from the most minimal to the most invasive, there is going to be risks of things that can go wrong.
Also, without getting circumcison, there are just as many potential health risks as there are with getting it done. While having the procedure done may somehow, someway physically damage the penis, NOT having it done carries the risk of increased and potentially chronic UTIs, particularly in old age from what I've heard. I am not going to say intact men are at greater risk of contracting STDs in the United States because that is basically disproven, but in less developed countries that is the case.
Bottom line is this should be a decision for parents to make for their child, and no one else should hinder that. A parent is NOT going to make a decision to willfully harm their infant son. Both of my sons are circumcised and I made that decision for them because I did my own research and determined that it was best for their health. I did not do it in a some kind of sedistic mindset of wanting to put my children through pain and genital mutilation.
What are these "intactivasts" going to do when there is a spike in necessary pediatric urology treatments because X% more boys are going to need some kind of specialist care because circumcision is banned? If circumcision is to be made illegal until age 18, what if the surgery is medically necessary for a 12 year old boy, for example? Are the parents and doctors going to be put on trial for genital mutilation?
Get real. This is not something that is genital mutilation nor should it be banned by law. There is just as much harm to not doing it as there is to doing it. Leave the decision to the parents.
It is not genital mutilation. It is a practice that has been around for thousands of years. If it was so horrendous and "dangerous," it would have been stopped a long time ago, just as so many other medical practices have been that were proven dangerous and/or ineffective.
Circumcision, if done correctly (which it is, in most cases), does not make the man "ineffective" or unable to experience any sexual pleasure later in life. Sure, you'll here a horror story here and there of a circumcision gone wrong, but given the statistics of how often circumcision goes wrong, it's minimal. With ANY surgical procedure, from the most minimal to the most invasive, there is going to be risks of things that can go wrong.
Also, without getting circumcison, there are just as many potential health risks as there are with getting it done. While having the procedure done may somehow, someway physically damage the penis, NOT having it done carries the risk of increased and potentially chronic UTIs, particularly in old age from what I've heard. I am not going to say intact men are at greater risk of contracting STDs in the United States because that is basically disproven, but in less developed countries that is the case.
Bottom line is this should be a decision for parents to make for their child, and no one else should hinder that. A parent is NOT going to make a decision to willfully harm their infant son. Both of my sons are circumcised and I made that decision for them because I did my own research and determined that it was best for their health. I did not do it in a some kind of sedistic mindset of wanting to put my children through pain and genital mutilation.
What are these "intactivasts" going to do when there is a spike in necessary pediatric urology treatments because X% more boys are going to need some kind of specialist care because circumcision is banned? If circumcision is to be made illegal until age 18, what if the surgery is medically necessary for a 12 year old boy, for example? Are the parents and doctors going to be put on trial for genital mutilation?
Get real. This is not something that is genital mutilation nor should it be banned by law. There is just as much harm to not doing it as there is to doing it. Leave the decision to the parents.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
