The controversial San Francisco proposal to ban male circumcision is, at least for now, off the November ballot.
As the Los Angeles Times reports, it was shelved by a state judge who found that the measure would violate the California Business and Professions Code, which says only the state is allowed to regulate medical procedures. The law “leaves no room for localities to legislate in this area,” Superior Court Judge Loretta M. Giorgi wrote in her formal opinion.
Giorgi also said the proposed ban would violate the free exercise of religion because it targets Muslims and Jews who, for religious reasons, circumcise their male children.
Proponents of the ban — who have argued that the procedure constitutes male genital mutilation and is a painful, dangerous and unnecessary choice that parents do not have the right to make — say they will consider whether to appeal the ruling. As Reuters reports, they collected more than 12,000 signatures to put the measure up for a vote.
The ban would have made conducting a circumcision on a boy under the age of 18 a misdemeanor, carrying a maximum penalty of a year in jail or a $1,000 fine.
In June, however, a group of doctors, community groups and Muslim and Jewish families sued to get the measure off the ballot, arguing that it was anti-Semitic and violated state law.
A national debate over the health benefits of circumcision has raged for years.
Circumcision has been found in some studies to have health benefits for men and their sexual partners. For example, researchers have found that men who have been circumcised have a reduced risk of contracting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, during heterosexual intercourse.
Other research, led by scientists at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, found that male circumcision reduced the prevalence of human papillomavirus in their female partners. HPV infection causes cervical cancer in women and also is linked to anal cancer.
LILLY FOWLER
Related Post:
San Francisco Voters to Decide on Circumcision Ban
