Burbank, CA – On Tuesday, Congressman Brad Sherman announced he is preparing to introduce a bill in congress to prevent municipalities nationwide from enacting laws banning male circumcision.
Today, The Journal has learned, California State Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D – Burbank/Glendale/Silver Lake) will begin the process of introducing similar legislation in Sacramento.
These legislative moves to stop cities from banning the circumcision of male babies come just one month after a proposition banning all circumcision in the City of San Francisco was approved for inclusion on a November ballot there.
Gatto has represented the Los Angeles-area 43rd district for just over a year; previously he worked for Sherman, a Democratic congressman from Sherman Oaks, for five years, starting as a field representative and rising to the position of district director. It was a conversation with his former boss that convinced the 36-year-old Assemblyman to join the fray over circumcision at the state level and attempt to prevent cities in California from banning a practice that is a sacred rite to Jews and Muslims.
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
5 Responses
Excellent news. I hope Brad Sherman makes it through California’s most recent redistricting maps. It does not look good for him.
Excellent and excellent!
The federal law would be an appropriate action for Congress since the Courts have ruled that the 14th Amendment means that most of the Bill of Rights applies to the states. Only extreme right wingers object to that. And the state law is appropriate because state law pre-empts local law, and the California State Constitution also has a provision protecting religious freedom.
charliehall:
Wow – I agree with every word you said! Though I might change it a little to say that the 14th Amendment prohibits it in conjunction with the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause.
Although for the leftist in you, I might add that the Supreme Court included the 2nd Amendment as well, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
“Give Me a Break” is right. The biggest reason the San Fransisco proprosal is unconstitutional is the Free Exercise clause. Judges have ruled that laws can restrict one’s religious practices only when those religious practices are “offensive to public policy.”
Since there is no compelling public policy reason that infant boys should retain their foreskins (the American Medical Association says the practice is medically neutral, while other medical authorities say NOT circumcising a boy may be medically harmful) then the attempt to ban bris milah is clearly unconstitutional.
“I might add that the Supreme Court included the 2nd Amendment as well, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).”
Wrong, because the District of Columbia isn’t a state. It was actually McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that applied the Second Amendment to the States. IIRC the only part of the bill of rights that the courts have not applied to the states is the right to a jury trial in a civil case. Right wingers used to object to this judicial activism, but pleasing the gun lobby trumps ideology.
“other medical authorities say NOT circumcising a boy may be medically harmful”
Please cite. I’m unaware of those opinions.