baby_crying.jpgAs we’ve previously reported, in July SF’s circumcision ban proposal was snipped from November’s local ballot. Though 12,250 intactivists signed on to at least vote on the subject, the measure was removed due to First Amendment concerns.

The circumcision opponents in San Francisco, led by organizer Lloyd Schofield, have argued that male circumcision is similar to female circumcision practices already banned in the U.S.

Now, as widely reported, another blow has been dealt to those against circumcision. This Sunday, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB768 into effect, preventing local governments from banning male circumcision.

The bill was introduced by Assemblymembers Fiona Ma of SF and Mike Gatto of Burbank, whose circumcision concerns we’ve previously discussed. Ma and Gatto’s proposal came in response to SF’s proposed measure and its SoCal counterpart.

The legislation, signed into law over the weekend, precludes cities and counties from prohibiting or restricting the practice of circumcision, which the law states “has a wide array of health and affiliative benefits.”

Abby Michelson Porth of the Jewish Community Relations Council issued a statement today saying that Brown’s signing of the law “reaffirms that municipalities cannot take away parents’ rights to make medical and religious decisions for their own children.”

Matthew Hess, the head of MGM (Male Genital Mutilation) Bill and supporter of SF’s struck-down proposal, is understandably disappointed, feeling that California has “taken a big step backwards.”

Want more news, sent to your inbox every day? Then how about subscribing to our email newsletter? Here’s why we think you should. Come on, give it a try.

the author

Always in motion. April Siese writes about music, takes photos at shows, and even helps put them on behind the scenes as a stagehand. She's written everything from hard news to beauty features, as well as fiction and poetry. She most definitely likes pie.

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • Hugh7

    AB768 doesn’t just close the door on a circumcision age-restriction (not a ban). It actually says

    “No city, county, or city and county ordinance, regulation, or administrative action shall prohibit or restrict the practice of male circumcision, or the exercise of a parent’s authority to have a child circumcised.”

    So it opens the door for anyone of any age, trained or not, to circumcise anyone under 18 by any means, such as a boxcutter, so long as
    1) it’s a clean box cutter
    2) one parent has consented (never mind the other, or the 17-year old) and
    3) the victim – sorry, subject – is male.
    – and if the US Senate passes HR2400 that will extend right across the USA.

  • Hugh7

    AB768 doesn’t just close the door on a circumcision age-restriction (not a ban). It actually says

    “No city, county, or city and county ordinance, regulation, or administrative action shall prohibit or restrict the practice of male circumcision, or the exercise of a parent’s authority to have a child circumcised.”

    So it opens the door for anyone of any age, trained or not, to circumcise anyone under 18 by any means, such as a boxcutter, so long as
    1) it’s a clean box cutter
    2) one parent has consented (never mind the other, or the 17-year old) and
    3) the victim – sorry, subject – is male.
    – and if the US Senate passes HR2400 that will extend right across the USA.