San Francisco ban on circumcision a cut too deep for the faithful

Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results

A ballot measure to ban circumcision in San Francisco has become a national punch line, but it’s being taken seriously by religious groups who see the proposal as an attack on their faith.

The measure, which won a place on the Nov. 8 city ballot after advocates gathered the necessary 7,143 signatures, would outlaw circumcisions on males younger than 18, except in cases of medical necessity, within city limits. Anyone convicted of performing circumcisions could be sentenced to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

What alarms faith groups is that no religious exemptions would be permitted, even though circumcision is a traditional rite of the Jewish and Muslim faiths. Foes of circumcision, who call themselves “intactivists,” say the answer is for boys to wait until they’re 18.

“I can guarantee you a person who receives cutting on his genitals as an infant is not getting any religious uplifting from the event,” said Lloyd Schofield, the measure’s proponent in San Francisco. “When you do it when you’re older, you’re making a choice and it’s meaningful to you. We want to stop this and put choice back in the hands of men.”

The Jewish circumcision ritual is traditionally performed on the eighth day of a boy’s life. Rather than upend thousands of years of tradition, Jewish groups have joined with legal professionals, doctors and elected officials in opposing the measure through the recently formed Committee for Parental Choice and Religious Freedom.

“We’re opposing the ban on the grounds of religious freedom,” said Nancy Appel, Anti-Defamation League associate regional director. “San Francisco has a reputation for crazy things happening here, but we are concerned that this may embolden others.”

If it does pass, the proposal could face a legal challenge on First Amendment grounds, given that it denies Jews and Muslims their right to free exercise of their religious beliefs, said Joel Paul, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law.

Even placing the issue on the ballot violates the Constitution’s establishment clause, regardless of the election’s outcome, he said.

“No religious group should have to defend its convictions in a general election,” Mr. Paul wrote in an email. “Religious minorities should not be forced to persuade the majority that their religious practices should be allowed.”

Local press coverage and editorials have been largely negative about the measure.

While decrying the tactics and tone of the anti-circumcision campaign, San Francisco Examiner columnist Ken Garcia wrote recently, “The biggest reason that this push against a commonly accepted practice should be rejected is that its a personal decision, not a political one. Parents can choose to have the procedure done or not, its that simple.”

None of this has discouraged Matthew Hess, author of the proposal’s language, who thinks the circumcision ban has a decent shot at passage.

“I think the chances are pretty good,” Mr. Hess said. “I feel like if a bill like this is going to pass, it’s going to be in San Francisco. The heartbeat of the movement is in San Francisco. San Francisco has always been a beacon of progressive thought.”

Intactivists equate infant male circumcision to female genital mutilation, which, despite its prevalence in some cultures, has been illegal in the United States since 1996.

What’s more, San Francisco is known for its large gay population, and more than a few gay men are opposed to the practice, he said. Mr. Hess recently told the San Francisco Chronicle that he was inspired to take up the issue after seeing a local intactivist group marching in a gay pride parade a few years ago.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story

© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks