Copywrite : Creative Commons/Caitlin Childs

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Yes. I used the “P” word.

When I began blogging, I tended to avoid words that euphemisms could cover. I did consider utilizing “the ol’ stick and berries” merely for the visual context, but I decided when a populace of a city gets to decide what one chooses to do with their offsprings genitals – only the real thing would suffice.

Off in the “la-la land” of budget deficits galore, the city that determined toys in a childs meal might possibly be a “bad thing” and therefore should be banned, attention has focused a little further south in anatomy land.

San Francisco circumcision ban headed for November ballot

Most bans in San Francisco are enacted by the Board of Supervisors, but come November, it sounds like voters will have the opportunity to jump on the ban wagon by deciding whether to ban male circumcision.

San Francisco resident Lloyd Schofield said Thursday he is “on track” to have enough  signatures to place his proposed measure on the November ballot that would make it illegal to “circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18.”

Mr. Schofield obviously addresses those he is attempting to collect signatures from in an unbiased fashion. Per his own words:

“We say: ‘Would you like to help protect the children from forced circumcision? This is a human-rights issue,’” Schofield said.

Interesting way to phrase a question. The issue here is not whether one accepts the concept of circumcision. The issue can be narrowed down to freedom – related to religion or otherwise.

Several Jewish organizations have weighed in against the ban as well, pointing out that circumcision rituals play an important historical role for many Jews. Schofeld counters that under his proposed law, adults would be free to opt-in to circumcision, but infants would not be allowed to have the procedure until they reach 18.

If it passes, those caught cutting foreskins would face a fine of $1,000 and a year in prison. Only people over the age of 18 would be allowed to have their foreskins removed.

This bill is modeled after the MGMbill.org which has been resubmitted to Congress and 14 States which in part reads:

“(c) In applying subsection (b), no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that or any other person that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.


Apparently Text has been drafted for introduction in 46 States – wonder if your state is included? Or how your Legislator responded? This is actually one of the few times that I have read other Legislators responses in part because of the “squirmy-how do I answer this without alienating a voter” type letters. Quite amusing.

If you are a resident of San Fransisco and consider this a NIB, why not contact the Board of Supervisors and request what action is being planned?