Circumcision Initiative Moves Closer to Ballot
San Francisco measure would ban the practice, though it may be unconstitutional
Activists announced that they have received the requisite 7,168 signatures—in fact, they said they gathered over 12,000—to qualify a ballot initiative that would ban circumcision for the November elections. The next step is for the city’s Department of Elections to verify the signatures over the following month. The measure would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise a boy younger than 18, with the maximum penalty being a $1,000 fine and a year in jail.
Last month, Michelle Goldberg covered San Francisco’s movement. “Circumcision contravenes some essential liberal values,” she noted. “It is evidence of a sexual double standard. It’s a painful and bloody rite whose purpose doesn’t lie in any immediate medical need. It marks a boy as a member of a group in a way that precedes his own decision-making, challenging the individualistic belief in a self-created identity.” She also observed, “there is something strange about the custom’s persistence, particularly among pork-eating, Sabbath-ignoring secular Jews.”
On the other hand, there are individual preferences and then there are legal obligations: “A complex debate about individual versus community rights hinges on that single primal cut,” Goldberg wrote. And indeed, Yediot Ahronot reports that even should voters approve the measure, its proponents would need to demonstrate that male circumcision causes medical harm—a high hurdle to leap—in order for it to pass constitutional muster.
Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180
WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.
I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at email@example.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.
We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.