The Board of Supervisors just banned toys in Happy Meals, which drew worldwide attention.
Now the latest ban being proposed in San Francisco is on male circumcision.
A proposed ballot measure for the November 2011 ballot – when voters will be electing the San Francisco’s next mayor – would amend The City’s police code “to make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin (edited by YWN) of another person who has not attained the age of 18.”
Doing so would result in a fine of up to $1,000 and up to one year in jail, according to the proposed measure submitted to the Department of Elections.
The measure was submitted by San Francisco resident Lloyd Schofield, who has spoken up on this issue in the past.
He was not immediately available for comment.
For the ordinance to make it on to the November ballot, it would require the collection of 7,168 valid signatures by April 26, 2011.
It’s unknown if Schofield approached members of the Board of Supervisors asking them to vote on such a measure before deciding to take it to the voters.
(Source: San Fransisco Examiner)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
7 Responses
Seforim ha’Kedoshim teachus that the last stage of galus Edom (the one we are currently in) will reflect the characteristics of galus Yavan. As Chanukah approaches, we learn of the fact that during the “first” galus Yavan gezeiros were made against bris milah. While the news of this repeat performance – not the first even on these shores – is certainly disheartening, we should also take the news as indication that just as the galus was foretold by the nevi’i’m, so was the final ge’ulah, she’yavo bimheirah bi’yameinu.
shuali: Why should one city’s considering this issue as a general ban on the procedure for anyone to young to consent to it and not specifically aimed at Jews be anymore indicative of the immanence of the geulah than the wholesale banning of mila that took place regularly in many European countries in the 18th and q9th century?
Its an interesting legal question, in any case. The law, if passed, is clearly religion neutral – its designed to protect those too young to consent from being subjected to what the city council likely sees as a cosmetic procedure – circumcision. On the other hand, the city probably doesn’t have any such similar ban on other elective cosmetic procedures being performed on minors (rhinoplasty and other cosmetic surgery, for example). As a Jew, I am quite certain where I fall on this, but as an American and lawyer concerned with the Constitution and individual rights, its not as simple.
Should this surprise anyone that this is coming out of San Francisco aka Sodom??
1. SF’s mayor vetoed the ban on toys in Happy Meals, so there is some sanity in SF. OTOH, his veto is likely to be overridden.
2. In the unlikely event that the ban became law and was upheld by the courts, getting around it is a simple matter of doing brissim outside the city limits.
Interestingly, these same people have no objections to abortions being performed on under 18 year old girls.
A very good example of why it is in our interests to keep public policy out of the religious sphere…so many of you champion legislation banning toiva marriages, but seem unable to see that governmental intervention in religious issues can be a slippery slope that threatens Yiddishkeit more than it helps.
YonasonW
except the places where the rishus for toavah marriage is the strongest are the same places where this rishus comes from (Mass.). And many of the same people who try assur Bris milah are mishkavia zachur who are also pushing for marriage.