Posted on 06/02/2011 7:26:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
In 2010, San Francisco supervisors banned Happy Meals. They showed no regard for parental choice. So it should not come as a shock that activists have managed to put a measure on the November ballot that essentially would outlaw the circumcision of baby boys.
If it passes, parents won't be able to choose to circumcise their infant sons. The penalty for the "genital cutting of male minors" will be a $1,000 fine and/or up to a year in jail.
The ballot measure bills itself as a ban on "forced genital cutting" and "mutilation." Clearly, the authors want to confuse voters by equating male circumcision to female genital mutilation, the barbaric, unsanitary butchering of a young girl's private parts in a procedure that has been known to leave girls severely infected and in pain.
The purpose of female genital mutilation is to reduce a woman's sexual pleasure. The World Health Organization says it has "no health benefits for girls or women." On the other hand, a WHO report recommended that male circumcision be recognized as "an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention."
The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that parents be informed that "newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks."
Palo Alto pediatrician Erica Goldman follows the guideline. She informs parents of the plusses -- reduced chances of urinary tract infection and sexually -transmitted diseases -- as well as the risks -- it's a permanent cosmetic change.
"It really is a decision to be made on a personal and cultural basis," Goldman told me.
"I personally believe the medical benefits outweigh the medial risks," Goldman added.
I do not believe San Francisco voters will pass this measure. Yes, City Hall nags freely butt into people's private business. Witness Special City bans on Happy Meals, plastic supermarket bags and a law barring the sale of cigarettes at pharmacies. But city voters tend to demonstrate more common sense than the swells they elect to office. In 2008, for example, San Franciscans rejected ballot measures to name a sewage plant after George W. Bush and to decriminalize prostitution.
Sadly, because a fringe group garnered the necessary 7,168 signatures, San Francisco once again will be the butt of derision until common sense prevails on Election Day.
I saw the next few months of San Francisco looking silly rolled into one interview Friday. CNN pitted "intactivist" Lloyd Schofield against a rabbi. Schofield argued that if the measure passes, then males can get circumcised when they're 18. (He left out the part about the procedure being riskier and more painful for adults.) Rather than discuss Jewish and Muslim tradition concerning circumcision, the rabbi tried to stick to medical issues. Before asking the rabbi not to be "too graphic," anchor Drew Griffin observed, "I'm just floored that San Francisco's going to vote on this."
How wonderful it must feel to be floored at Ess Eff's latest exercise in self-parody. The bill fits. A busybody law? Check. Does it address a problem most folks did not know existed? Check. Pun opportunities? Oh, yeah. First they came for the Chicken McNuggets, then they came for my son's...
Unfortunately for San Francisco State, UC Irvine already calls its athletic teams the Anteaters.
Pretty soon, no families will live in San Fran Sicko. The idiots that supported these measures are stupid and short sighted.
In other words, there are absolutely no medical risks.
However, if your clinician chooses to dismember a fetus- no problem
Most people, including Debra J. Saunders, don’t mind putting a boundary around parental choice, so it’s really just an argument about where to draw the line.
It’s amazing that SF bans Happy Meals, and bans plastic bags, but allows public sex at events such as Folsom Street Fair. And these are the people who want to ban circumcision.
Well, anything involving the penis is of utmost importance in San Francisco. The dudes in The Castro will research this subject a lot between now and election day.
Yep, it’s amazing that we’re supposed to be “pro-choice” on an issue such as abortion. On that issue, it’s supposed to be up to a woman and her doctor and her conscience and all that. Government is not to intrude on such a personal deeply private issue.
But when it comes to circumcision, a major city wants to take a personal deeply private issue and bring the force of law into that issue.
I don’t understand the criteria for how liberals decide when an issue is one of personal freedom/personal choice, and which issues require the government to ban something.
“an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.” .................................... I doubt it, HIV is protected against by staying clear of HIV infected individuals. I don’t think circumcisions will end the HIV problem since it is a behavioral thing. Before 1945 circumcisions weren’t even a considered thing unless you lived in an urban area like NYC. The medical profession and hospitals will lose millions if the bill passes. Follow the $$$$.
“The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that parents be informed that “newborn male circumcision has POTENTIAL medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.”
Nuff said.
I remember a couple years ago, reading that San Francisco is seeing a major population decline among families with school age children. And the city was putting together a task force to study the issue. City officials were concerned that they were seeing an exodus of a major population group.
Some reports indicated that expensive housing and problems in the schools were two major issues causing middle class families to move out of the city. But the whole liberal political/social climate was not mentioned as something which families with children wanted to avoid. But I’m sure that unspoken factor plays a role in causing some people with kids NOT wanting to live in a place like S.F.
One would think that homosexual friendly San Francisco would welcome such a procedure. But when has science intruded on pc garbage thought?
Where is the Constitutional counterbalance here...regarding freedom of religion?
There are many doctors who explain the medical benefits of circumcision...so this can’t legitimately be claimed to be an absolute health safeguard. What about parents who want this procedure because they believe it IS healthier?
Everyone in the pub congratulated him and many told him that they
found it hard to believe that his baby weighed in so heavy.
But Tex assured them, “It’s true, it’s really true.”
When Tex came back to the same pub three weeks later, the barman said
to him, “Say, you're the father of the typical Texas baby that
weighed 20 pounds at birth aren’t you? So tell us, how much does your
baby weigh now?”
Tex proudly replied, “Twelve pounds.”
The barman could not understand this, so he asked Tex, “Why? Is he
ill? What happened? He weighed 20 pounds at birth, why has he lost so
much weight?”
Tex took a big swig from his beer, wiped his lips with the back of his
hand, leaned into the barman and proudly replied, “Had him
circumcised.”
Anyone else know what “Docking” is?
ah hate to differ on this silly issue but there are doctors on both sides of this issue. (surgery infections etc.)
it boils down to a personal decision based on faith.
(King Kong level of sarcasm - OFF)
Government loves to perform this maneuver. In football they call it the misdirection play. Voters are supposed to become distracted by this unimportant issue so as to keep them from noticing that government is flat on its a$$ on every important issue!
I absolutely DO NOT WANT to know how you think you know this.
Meanwhile, parents continue to make choices for their children, as they always have done.
And the nanny state tries to substitute itself as the only true parent, as nanny states always have done.
Why would any family WANT to live in San Fransico?
My husband was offered a job there once and I assured him he’d be moving alone.
No way would I move children into that perverted cesspool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.