Proposed Law Would Ban Infant Circumcisions in San Francisco

Original Post: Yahoo

A self-described "human rights activist" is gathering signatures in San Francisco for a measure on the November ballot to ban circumcisions of infants. The measure very likely would run into
freedom of religion objections if enacted.

"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.'"

Circumcisions have been routinely done for most newborn infants in the United States for health reasons, though it is no longer recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics or American Medical Association. Debate over the health benefits (mitigation of STDs, etc) vs. the risks (pain and sexual dysfunction) are ongoing.

More importantly, two major world religions require that babies born in their faiths be circumcised. Jewish infants are circumcised in the eighth day of life by a "mohel" in a solemn ceremony called the "bris" in accordance with Jewish law as set down in the Book of Genesis. In Islam, while not mentioned in the Koran, circumcision is widely practiced and is considered mandatory by many Muslims.

Oddly enough, the new law would not ban the practice of female circumcision, a pernicious practice that involves the genital mutilation of some female Muslim babies that destroys their ability to feel sexual pleasure in adult life.

There does not seem to be any provision for a religious exemption in the proposed anti-circumcision law. The fine for circumcising an infant would be $1,000.

The principle behind the anti-circumcision law, that circumcising an infant is a violation of the baby's human autonomy, is something of a mischievous doctrine that could be applied to all sorts of things. Would not
vaccinations for infants, widely practiced and recommended, be banned because a baby cannot consent to being given uncomfortable shots? True, the notion that some vaccinations can cause autism has been proved to be a hoax, but that may not stop busy bodies from searching for all sorts of things parents cause to happen to their kids in order to ban them.

The fact that children are too immature to consent to most things is the reason why they have at least one parent to make that decision for them. This principle is enshrined in the common law of virtually every culture on Earth in recognition of basic facts of human biology.

One ought to invoke the idea of choice, usually raised when the question of abortion is raised, and suggest that the question to circumcise or not is best decided between a parent and his or her pediatrician. The government has no business in the matter.

Source: San Francisco circumcision ban headed for November ballot, Joshua Sabatini, San Francisco Examiner, February 18th, 2011