Bay Area medical professionals and clerics have mobilized against attempts by a local anti-circumcision group to enact a citywide ban against the practice.
If activists have their way in municipal elections this November, when voters will be asked to vote on the measure, circumcision of a boy under the age of 18 years of age for religious reasons would be classified as a misdemeanor and punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
On Wednesday, S. Francisco’s Board of Elections approved a petition to place the issue on the ballot.
Rabbi Yosef Langer, director of Chabad-Lubavitch of S. Francisco, expressed dismay that there’s even a question as to the propriety of what for many is a central religious requirement.
“This is a tradition not only practiced by Jews, but by Muslims and members of secular society,” stated Langer. “The Jewish people and spiritually conscious people all over the world will certainly – and have always – risen to the occasion so that justice, and the will of the Almighty, will prevail.”
Legal experts have weighed in on the case, with many asserting the ban, if passed, would infringe upon parents’ First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of religion. Ritual circumcision of an eight-day-old boy, known in Hebrew as brit milah, is an essential tenet of Jewish law.
But by criminalizing the procedure, the ban could also have far-reaching medical consequences: Urologists point to decreased rates of urinary tract infections among circumcised infant and toddler boys, penile cancer, and some sexually transmitted infections, such as gonorrhea, herpes, HPV and HIV.
Consequently, the local Jewish Community Relations Council and Anti-Defamation League have joined with other religious groups and doctors in combating the proposed ban.
“One of the big issues is that S. Francisco is supposed to be a bastion of tolerance,” said Dr. Brian McBeth, Assistant Clinical Professor of Emergency Medicine at the University of California, S. Francisco. “[A ban on circumcision] will likely send a negative message to advocates of religious freedom.”
“The JCRC and the entire Jewish community is united in this fight,” said Rabbi Shlomo Zarchi, rabbi at Congregation Chevra Thilim, the oldest Orthodox synagogue in S. Francisco, and a member of the committee spearheading the grassroots campaign against the ban. “We’re looking at this in a multi-pronged and mobilizing the entire faith-based community.”
One overarching concern of area doctors is that the initiative would undermine a parent’s right to consult a physician prior to making a decision on behalf of his or her child’s health.
“Newborn circumcision is something that should be decided between the parent and physician after a clear discussion of medical benefits,” asserted Dr. Stephen Harris, chairman of the department of pediatrics at the S. Clara Valley Medical Center and president of the local chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
“Writing legislation to interfere with the doctor patient relationship runs counter to the American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement which states that ‘existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision.’ ”
According to Harris, the reduced risk of urinary tract infections makes the strongest case for newborn circumcision, where the risk dwindles from about 1 in 100 boys to 1 in 1000 boys during the first year of life.
And a report by the federal Centers for Disease Control determined that “male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition,” while the World Health Organization backed the procedure as an important tool in the fight against HIV.
“Given the overwhelming medical and public health evidence in favor of male circumcision,” said Dr. Mark Glasser, retired chief of obstetrics and gynecology at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in S. Rafel, Calif., “I find it hard to believe that the medically-sophisticated S. Francisco community would believe the nonsense that [anti-circumcision groups] have been spouting for the past 25 years.”
The goal is not to advocate circumcision for everyone, Harris pointed out, but to uphold the rights of those who do make a conscientious choice to circumcise their newborn sons.
“People who are doing it for ritual reasons are doing it with a clear mind about why they are doing it,” said Harris. “The point is not to recommend universal circumcision, but the bottom line is there are medical benefits to the practice.”
VIDEO: AP report
you can brake bones in sports, no sports till 18
thats against religous rights!!!!!!!! americas abot freedom!
you are doing a great job! keep up your hard work! baby is beautiful!
Wait till the kid is 18, they have to pull out teeth sometimes…and it hurts.
then any child under eighteen cant have a surgery! he didnt choose it!… c’mon wheres their brains!
He says we should get a bris when were 18. Dude, it’s more painful when your older.
that little boy has a yiddishe mother, he will get a bris someday and be a full fledged chossid,
Good Shabbos
NO HASHEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AD MOSEI!!! Juyst travel somewhere else to do it! :))
I hope SF realizes the effect the successful enactment of this measure will cause. Jews will leave/not move there and their economy will go down the drain.
But if it does happen maybe this will get the Jews out before another Earthquake! R”L
How could anyone do this? Next they’re gonna say that it’s illegal to go to shul on shabbos.
We can, should, and will do whatever we can. However, by blaming it all on Anti-Semitism as some people are doing unfortunately, the non-Jews will only think us as snobs. We need to make a Kiddush Hashem. As for those who adamantly refuse to believe anything besides for that anti-semitism must be the cause, read the article over carefully- you will see that they did it for medical reasons. So come, let us stand together, united, by doing what we can and leaving the rest up to Hashem. If Hashem commanded us to give a Bris Milah, why should we… Read more »
where is freedom of religion
so go to see you in the video
We are experiencing the birth pangs of Moshiach, that is what is happening. Ad mosai!!
Democracy is only good if the basic constitution is according to the will of the people. Then the issues voted upon will be basically acceptable to all, just the implementation is decided by a majority.
But here the issue coming up for a vote is unconstitutional. It is self admittedly anti-religion.
The Board of Elections should be made to reconsider their decision.
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself”
So it was funny, and we didn’t protest when SF went against treif mc donnalds happy meals.
But that is a first step to taking our own liberty.
DN
I think circumcisions WITHOUT local anesthesia should be banned.
This wasnt passed. What was passed is putting the question of this on the ballot. It is never going to be passed- separation of Church and State…
Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for lunch.
It’s not good when the ‘public’ votes on issues of religion. It’s not the publics choice to allow or prohibit medically accepted procedures.
This has been coming on for a long time now. You can see intolerance of Jews almost everywhere now – especially in places like San Francisco and New York where people call themselves liberal.
and YK, Go NB!
The constitution forbids anyone from depriving a citizen of his religious rights. That includes A bris as well.
This decree will be challenged in court and abolished
what happened to the first ammendment- frredom of religion???? what is going on here?!
There is no problem if the measure goes on the ballot, on the contrary, it’s a good thing when people get to vote and decide issues for themselves. The problem is if they come to the wrong conclusion. Those who are opposed to the measure should not be opposed to it being on the ballot but to it passing in November.
In each election people don’t like one side, but no one says “let’s not have the election all together” Let’s have the election and get our side to prevail. Shutting down debate rarely helps anyone.
just shocking. That is not democratic.
only in s franSICO
I wouldn’t be surprised if piercing a girl’s ears gets banned — not for health reasons, but because of “gender apartheid and discrimination.” This is San Francisco, you know — home of the lefty loonies.
no piercing a baby’s ears????
If Hashem does not want a happening in san fracisco it happened for a reason but i belive they have all rights to do a bris
the word themeselves say “for religeous reasons” could someone explain how something with such discrimanatory language like that (clearly discriminating agiainst religion) could make it into us law?
it’s not like they even tried to avoid it.
why dont they try to band parents from piercing a girls (or boys) ears before the age of 18
if a person doesnt want something for themself dont do it but dont push it on others
Next time you will vote for a lefty remember this and how much respect they have for your religious freedom.