After months of debate and campaigning to collect signatures, Lloyd Schofield and other “intactivists” have finally succeeded in their goal to get a ban on male circumcision onto the ballot in San Francisco. On Wednesday, city officials confirmed that 7,700 signatures were collected in support of a male circumcision ban. The initiative would restrict males under the age of 18 from being circumcised, and violators would be fined $1,000 and receive up to a year in prison.
Schofield, the leading sponsor of the initiative, sees this as a children’s rights issue, viewing the removal of foreskin from the penis as a procedure that’s more dangerous or painful than it’s worth. The Washington Post reported that he said:
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.
Although male circumcision was the norm in the 1960s, in the past few years the prevalence of the practice has declined, and, according to The New York Times, an estimated 32.5 percent of boys in 2008 underwent the procedure. That’s a steep decline from 56 percent in 2006, and an even steeper decline from the over 80 percent a few decades before.
The facts about circumcision with regard to health benefits are all very murky—some people argue that there are very few differences in the health of circumcised and uncircumcised boys, while others cite studies that indicate greater risk of HIV/AIDS and other diseases in uncircumcised men.
But for members of some Jewish and Muslim communities, circumcision is an essential part of their religion—for Jewish males, in fact, it’s the defining symbol of man’s covenant with God. The initiative in San Francisco, in theory, would violate First Amendment freedom of religion rights in the city.
A piece in The Economist makes a good point about balancing and prioritizing the rights of children over religious freedoms. The article says:
Supreme Court precedent is mixed. Many religious practices (such as polygamy, once practised by Mormons) are clearly illegal. In a 1944 case concerning a Jehovah’s Witness who had custody over a 9-year-old girl, the court stipulated that “parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free … to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion.” Yet in a case in 1972 the court upheld the rights of Amish parents to refuse, on religious grounds, to send their children to school beyond 8th grade.
Some Jewish people in some sects of the religion have also taken issue with male circumcision in recent years. Jewish critics of the practice have argued that the removal of the foreskin is not a necessary symbol and that something simpler, such as a naming ceremony where the child is bestowed a traditional Jewish name, suffices as an introduction to the Jewish community.
Many news organizations have predicted that regardless of whether the ballot initiative passes in November, it will almost immediately come under fire from legal challenges supporting freedom of religion. Despite this near-certitude, the fact that the initiative has gained this much traction, enough to get it on the ballot, is an important sign that public views on circumcision are shifting, and that perhaps the “intactivists” may come out on top after all.
While I don’t agree with Daddy Files’ comment, there’s no reason it should be hidden. It’s a tough discussion with a lot of opinions, and I think it’s important that a progressive, forward-thinking site like GMP doesn’t censor any of them unless they really are hateful or bigoted or spam.
This has no place being legislated. If you don’t want your son circumcised, that’s fine. But to take away another parent’s right to choose what they think is best for their child, is ridiculous. Parents make all kinds of medical choices based on what they think is best for their child. If you are going to legislate that circumcising your child is “illegal” then why don’t they just make it illegal to make any kind of medical choice for your child down to the type of shots they get. By the way, circumcising a boy and cutting off a girl’s… Read more »
Not to sound jerkish but while I agree its messed up to legislate what choices a parent can make about their children on the other based on that line of logic I have a question.
If you never the human rights violation aspect of it and make the process more sanitary does FGM suddenly become okay?
“To be even-handed, I suggest San Francisco also ban the practice of taking baby girls to get their ears pierced.”
If she leaves the ring out, the hole will close – unlike circumcision.
I think for those who want to defend infant circumcision, the medical argument, however dubious, is still better than the “freedom of religion” argument. There is no absolute freedom at all costs, certainly not in terms of religious freedom. Freedom of religion is bounded by other freedoms, and by the rights of others. Many of my native Mexican ancestors believed that the war god Huitzilopochtli demanded fresh human hearts, or else the rains would not come and disaster would strike. The gods seemed quite emphatic on this point. Perhaps I should be able to cut out my child’s beating heart… Read more »
People tout circumcision as a way to help against STDs. Is there any evidence that cicumcision is more effective at this than genital hygiene and safe (and smart) sex education, which one should have regardless if one is circumcised or not? Now the one thing that has me on the fence in this situation is religion/culture. I have a question about that (and yes I’m gonna go there). If religion/culture is not sufficient justification for FGM then how can it be sufficient justification for infant/youth circumcision? (People can keep the two separate all they want so they can keep arguing… Read more »
If you read the reports and studies about the HIV prevention benefits of circumcision, they all state that circumcision does not protect anyone 100% from any HIV or any other STD. A man still needs to wear a condom in order to protect himself. If that is the case, then why circumcise boys?
As for the religious/cultural aspect, it is an odd exemption. I cannot think of any similar ritual that is allowed to continue, despite its popularity or religious importance.
People like to compare the worst kind of FGC, done in unhygienic conditions in the wilds of Africa, with surgical circumcision so that they can keep on doing the one they are familiar with. Scores, probably hundreds of boys and young men die each year in Africa from tribal cirucmcision. Surgical female “circumcision” used to be common in the US and in 1959 a doctor called Rathman invented a device for doing it (based on Vice-Grip pliers) with a shield to spare the clitoris (http://www.circumstitions.com/methods.html#rathman (NSFW) Then they say they are different because FGC is done “to destroy female sexuality”… Read more »
This is ridiculous and is something that can’t be legislated. If you’re against circumcision fine, don’t have one for you or your son. But leave me the hell alone. Studies have shown decreased instances of HIV and penile cancer in circumcised boys. But no matter what the reason, it’s a parent’s choice to make. My 3-year-old son is circumcised and he’s happy and healthy. As am I. There was/is no suffering and those claiming it’s a human rights violation are so far out of their minds it’s not even funny. As parents we decide things for our kids all the… Read more »
The studies do not actually show decreased instances of HIV and penile cancer in circumcised boys. Missing from all those studies are the behavioral differences that might lead to greater instances of medical issues in uncircumcised men. The infamous study about HIV was ended before the study was completed. There is an excellent analysis of the flaws of that study here: ht tp://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2011/04/13/canadian-doctor-calls-for-circumcision-delay-noh/. This is not a parent’s choice anymore than it is a parent’s choice whether to cut off their daughter’s clitoral hood. It is hardly a harmless, painless, nor is it at all necessary in the vast majority… Read more »
I would find it strange that you have more say over your son’s penis than he does. Why can’t he decide for himself whether he wants it done when he’s older? Why do you get to make that decision for him?
I’ve never understood the American fascination with circumcision. It’s much much more rare over here in the UK. But do we have spiralling rates of HIV and penile cancer? No sir. No we do not.
People will believe anything that has been repeated enough times by those around them and the sources of information that they believe to be “official”. Circumcision in my view serves a few different purposes: 1.) It’s a hazing ritual. Yes, just like what happens to members of a cult or some college fraternities. I see it as a very brutal way of severing the bond of “trust” between mother and child at a very young age. 2.) It’s done for profit. The foreskins are sold to cosmetic companies and biology labs because of the high amount of Meissner’s corpuscles present… Read more »
Hold up.
There was/is no suffering and those claiming it’s a human rights violation are so far out of their minds it’s not even funny.
I don’t think its that cut and dry.
Circumcision is usually done at a time when the boy literally has no say in whether it happens or not. That’s a human rights violation if I ever heard one. As for trying to tell others that they have not suffered over it, well that’s just a generalization that you’re hoping no one will challenge.
It’s illegal to cut off a girl’s prepuce, or to make any incision on a girl’s genitals, even if no tissue is removed. Why don’t boys get the same protection? Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether they want parts of their genitals cut off. It’s *their* body.