Activists who want to ban circumcision of boys in San Francisco have taken a step toward putting the issue to a popular vote. The campaigners submitted 12,000 signatures to SF city authorities this week in support of a ballot measure which would criminalize circumcision of males under 18 years old. The city's Elections Division now has a month to verify that at least 7,000 of the signatures came from registered city voters. If so, the issue will appear on a November ballot.
The activists argue that circumcision can cause health risks and diminished sexual function, and should be a matter of individual, not parental, choice. Lloyd Schofield, 59, who been at the helm of the San Francisco effort said that infants should not be forced to participate in genital mutilation. "Parents are guardians. They are not supposed to harm their children," he claimed. "Circumcision is harmful and very, very painful."
Jewish organizations have pledged to campaign against the measure, should it be placed on the ballot. Abby Michaelson-Porth, associate director of the San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council, told reporters that if the proposal made it to the ballot, "there will be an organized campaign against it." Jewish boys traditionally are circumcized at eight days of age and Muslims at some time during boyhood.
Anti-Defamation League director Daniel Sandman called Schofield’s effort discriminatory and misguided, and noted that circumcision is a central religious obligation for Jews. "Circumcision has been practiced safely for thousands of years," Sandman said. "We're currently reaching out to form a broad coalition of people who feel this is an attack directed at religion, parental rights and privacy rights," he told the French news agency AFP.
Circumcision is also a common rite among Muslims. Council on American-Islamic Relations spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said his group would join with Jews to protect their religious freedoms. "I think this ban is a solution in search of a problem," he said. "I don’t see it even as an issue to be addressed." Opponents also argue that a ban would not stand in court as it violates the freedom of religion clause of the US constitution.
