Has this new San Francisco bill been discussed here?

[Aggie]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13632047

 

 

What are your thoughts?

Edited June 4, 2011 by Aggie

[Spy Car]

It is not a "bill" (I should know :D) it is a ballot initiative.

 

It is a monstrously bad idea. Unconstitutional, and I hope will never pass.

 

Bill

[SonshineLearner]

Well, unless you're under law that requires it, it's an elective surgery. I believe that it's more serious than most realize, and would only have it if I were of Jewish descent.

 

Can't believe people routinely cut off a portion of their child without weighing the choice.... There are many different things to think about...

 

;)

[Spy Car]

Well, unless you're under law that requires it, it's an elective surgery. I believe that it's more serious than most realize, and would only have it if I were of Jewish descent.

 

Can't believe people routinely cut off a portion of their child without weighing the choice.... There are many different things to think about...

 

;)

 

Why would you assume people don't weigh the choice?

 

Bill

[Aggie]

Mea culpa. Ballot initiative.:001_smile:

 

There is no religious exemption.

[Spy Car]

Mea culpa. Ballot initiative.:001_smile:

 

There is no religious exemption.

 

In California statewide, and in many localities it is possible to get laws passed as ballot measures using the initiative process. It means some pretty wacky items sometimes get enough signatures to get on ballots.

 

I can't imagine it will pass.

 

Bill

[jewellsmommy]

I think this initiative screams unconstitutional. Whether I (collectively) like the practice or not, it is fundamentally tied to the practice of the Jewish faith. Now, if CA wants to start public service announcements to "warn" the general populace of the dangers/drawbacks of circumcision in order to educate the (what I believe to be) minority of parents who seek circumcision as a (blind/uneducated) default practice , then that would be just fine.

 

ETA: But, I believe that most parents do way the pros and cons of this procedure.

[Spy Car]

I think this initiative screams unconstitutional. Whether I (collectively) like the practice or not, it is fundamentally tied to the practice of the Jewish faith. Now, if CA wants to start public service announcements to "warn" the general populace of the dangers/drawbacks of circumcision in order to educate the (what I believe to be) minority of parents who seek circumcision as a default practice, then that would be just fine.

 

I'd go for PSAs warning the general populace of the dangers/drawbacks of not circumcising, which exceed those of doing so.

 

We probably won't agree :D

 

Bill

[justasque]

I'd go for PSAs warning the general populace of the dangers/drawbacks of not circumcising, which exceed those of doing so.

 

 

I wondered what the AAP recommended, and found this from 2005, but I'm not sure how current it is. In it, the AAP says "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

[Slartibartfast]

I wondered what the AAP recommended, and found this from 2005, but I'm not sure how current it is. In it, the AAP says "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

 

It is the same as of may 12, 2011

 

Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised.

 

 

 

 

http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/prenatal/decisions-to-make/pages/Circumcision.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token

 

 

I wouldnt support such a bill without provisions for religion.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2011 by Sis

[Spy Car]

I wondered what the AAP recommended, and found this from 2005, but I'm not sure how current it is. In it, the AAP says "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

 

The World Health Organization says: "There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%."

 

No small thing.

 

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html

 

Bill

[Slartibartfast]

The World Health Organization says: "There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%."

 

No small thing.

 

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html

 

Bill

 

Why does the US have such high rates when American boys are circed more than anywhere in the world?

[Spy Car]

Why does the US have such high rates when American boys are circed more than anywhere in the world?

 

We have high rates of heterosexually spread HIV?

 

Bill

[jewellsmommy]

I'd go for PSAs warning the general populace of the dangers/drawbacks of not circumcising, which exceed those of doing so.

 

We probably won't agree :D

 

Bill

 

 

On the contrary. If dd had been a boy, she would have been circumcised. Now that's a weird sentence.

 

I'm just saying if San Francisco is sooo worried about it, then they can present their case in PSA's. Parents can still be the parents and decide for themselves.

 

Dh and I would have chosen it for several reasons, but I have heard the cons and I respect that some people feel strongly about their reasons for not circumcising.

[Slartibartfast]

We have high rates of heterosexually spread HIV?

 

Bill

 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/surveillance/resources/reports/2005report/

 

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm

 

Individuals infected through heterosexual contact account for 31% of annual new HIV infections and 28% of people living with HIV.

As a group, women account for 27% of annual new HIV infections and 25% of those living with HIV.

[snickelfritz]

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

 

I'll try to copy and paste the most relevant statement, but am very slow in my I-pad. :)

Edited June 4, 2011 by snickelfritz

[jewellsmommy]

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.ht

 

I'll try to copy and paste the most relevant statement, but am very slow in my I-pad. :)

 

 

When I tried it, it said page not found.

[Spy Car]

On the contrary. If dd had been a boy, she would have been circumcised. Now that's a weird sentence.

 

So we are like-minded. on circumcision, and on that being a weird sentence :D

 

I'm just saying if San Francisco is sooo worried about it, then they can present their case in PSA's. Parents can still be the parents and decide for themselves.

 

It is important to note that this measure has not passed a vote of the people in San Francisco and it is not expected to pass. Anyone who gathers enough signatures can bet an initiative on the ballot. Even measures that are clearly unconstitutional.

 

Dh and I would have chosen it for several reasons, but I have heard the cons and I respect that some people feel strongly about their reasons for not circumcising.

 

I have heard the cons too, and find them uncompelling. Unfortunately people seeking real pros and cons are likely to run into websites that misrepresent the truth and replace reasoned discussion with "screaming baby videos" that inflame passion but are not slightly representative of humanely performed circumcision.

 

Bill

[justasque]

The World Health Organization says: "There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%."

 

No small thing.

 

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html

 

Bill

 

And those two things (AAP & WHO recommendations) can be compatible, in that the US doesn't have as many hetero-acquired cases as other parts of the world, in part because our overall infection rate is lower. Thus the AAP says that, here, the benefits don't outweigh the risks, although they may elsewhere. (Similarly, for HIV+ mothers here, artificial feeding methods may be the best choice for their baby, whereas in other places, the risks of artificial baby milk feeding can be higher than the risk of HIV. You have to look at the big picture.)

 

Also, the CDC data seems to show that much of the hetero-transmission is due to "high-risk heterosexual contact", meaning basically sex with someone known to already have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.

[snickelfritz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by snickelfritz

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...ircumcision.ht

 

I'll try to copy and paste the most relevant statement, but am very slow in my I-pad.

 

When I tried it, it said page not found.

 

I fixed the link. However, I'm having a horrible time cutting and pasting. Sometimes, I really miss a mouse. People will just have to read it, if they are interested. It's a CDC fact sheet about the effect of circ. on HIV infection rate.

Edited June 4, 2011 by snickelfritz

[Carol in Cal.]

:lurk5:

[Spy Car]

CDC data seems to show that much of the hetero-transmission is due to "high-risk heterosexual contact", meaning basically sex with someone known to already have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.

 

It is also informative that the rates of HIV infection among African Americans (47% of heterosexual cases of HIV while 12% of the population) and Latinos (21% of reported cases with 15% of the population) are much higher than the rates among Whites (27% of cases with 65% of the population).

 

Why informative? Because the rates of circumcision are much higher among Whites than Blacks and Latinos. Where there is a higher rate of circumcision there is a low rate of HIV and vice versa.

 

Bill

[justasque]

It is also informative that the rates of HIV infection among African Americans (47% of heterosexual cases of HIV while 12% of the population) and Latinos (21% of reported cases with 15% of the population) are much higher than the rates among Whites (27% of cases with 65% of the population).

 

Why informative? Because the rates of circumcision are much higher among Whites than Blacks and Latinos. Where there is a higher rate of circumcision there is a low rate of HIV and vice versa.

 

Bill

 

Correlation is not causation. There are *many* differences between Blacks/Latinos and Whites in this country. Teasing out which ones may play a role, and how much of a role, is pretty complex. In addition, if your subculture of potential/likely partners has a higher rate of infection, then you are at higher risk in general.

[Slartibartfast]

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/children/circumcision.html

 

Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Human Immunodeficiency Virus

 

Overall, the studies investigating the association between having a sexually transmitted disease (STD)-excluding human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)- and being circumcised are inconclusive. (4) Although a number of studies did find that uncircumcised men had higher rates of STDs, the majority of these studies had methodological limitations. (5) The foreskin is thought to provide a moist environment to harbor bacteria and viruses, and some studies suggest an association with being uncircumcised and developing ulcerative STDs (i.e., syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes) (15); however, the evidence does not show an association of being uncircumcised with developing nongonococcal urethrits or genital warts. (16) From one study of 2,776 documented cases of a STD, uncircumcised compared to circumcised men had an odds ratio of 4.0 (1.9 to 8.4) of having syphilis, an odds ratio of 1.6 (1.2 to 2.2) of having gonorrhea, and an odds ratio of 0.7 (0.5 to 0.9) of having genital warts; the association for nongonococcal urethritis, chlamydia, and genital herpes was not significant. (17) Some believe that the risk of having a STD is more strongly related to sexual practices than to the presence of a foreskin. (2)

 

Most of the studies on the relationship between acquiring HIV and being circumcised have been conducted in developing countries, particularly those in Africa. Because of the challenges with maintaining good hygiene and access to condoms, these results are probably not generalizable to the U.S. population. These studies did, however, find an association between contracting HIV and being uncircumcised. Based on two of the African prospective studies, an estimated 10 to 20 circumcisions are needed to prevent one infection of HIV. (4) A literature review estimated that the risk ratios of HIV sero-conversion for uncircumcised men compared to circumcised men ranged from 2.3 to 8.1. (18) Limitations to the studies from which these risk ratios are derived include poor sampling, a low rate of acquiring the disease, and not controlling for confounders such as the number of sexual partners or other sexual practices. Because ulcerative STDs are more common in uncircumcised men than circumcised men, one hypothesis is that these lesions increase the probability of one becoming infected if exposed to HIV. (19)

[Punchie]

Why does the US have such high rates when American boys are circed more than anywhere in the world?

 

I was always under the impression that the reason circing is so prevalent in the US is due a campaign (early 1900'?, but a long time ago regardless) to help combat the evils of masturbation.

 

As for the bill, it's unconstitutional and oversteps the rights of the parents. That there's no exemption clause for religious reasons is horrible. I am in the camp that circing is (generally) cosmetic and unnecessary, but I would never tell someone else that they shouldn't do it.

[AvasMom]

I'm completely against routine circumcision and this horrifies me. From my experience most non-Jewish people do *not* weigh the costs of this. They do it because Daddy wants it done or because they "think" it's cleaner, etc. I have yet to see a good reason (but I'm sure after posting that, I'll hear all kinds of them...lol!). There are enough painful things that kids have to go through, putting them through more for a cosmetic surgery makes no sense to me. At all. However, for Jewish people this is covenental and an integral part of their religion. Banning it in spite of that fact should make us all a little nervous about our religious rights. If that weren't the case I would be behind a ban on it for sure.

[AvasMom]

We have high rates of heterosexually spread HIV?

 

Bill

 

How many people have you talked to that circ specifically for this reason? I have heard of exactly zero.

[AvasMom]

It is also informative that the rates of HIV infection among African Americans (47% of heterosexual cases of HIV while 12% of the population) and Latinos (21% of reported cases with 15% of the population) are much higher than the rates among Whites (27% of cases with 65% of the population).

 

Why informative? Because the rates of circumcision are much higher among Whites than Blacks and Latinos. Where there is a higher rate of circumcision there is a low rate of HIV and vice versa.

 

Bill

 

Wow. Huge leap there Bill. There are many, many, many other variables here.

[Ellie]

I think this initiative screams unconstitutional. Whether I (collectively) like the practice or not, it is fundamentally tied to the practice of the Jewish faith. Now, if CA wants to start public service announcements to "warn" the general populace of the dangers/drawbacks of circumcision in order to educate the (what I believe to be) minority of parents who seek circumcision as a (blind/uneducated) default practice , then that would be just fine.

 

ETA: But, I believe that most parents do way the pros and cons of this procedure.

I don't believe it's the government's job to do that. Just sayin'...

[Impish]

It is not a "bill" (I should know :D) it is a ballot initiative.

 

It is a monstrously bad idea. Unconstitutional, and I hope will never pass.

 

Bill

:iagree:

[Veritaserum]

I find the proposal to be consistent with Federal bans against any form of female genital cutting, including the forms that are analagous to or less invasive than male circumcision, for any reason, including religious reasons. No exceptions are made for religion in the case of females because their right to be protected from permanent modification of their genitals overrides the religious beliefs or cultural preferences of their parents.

[mommymilkies]

I find the proposal to be consistent with Federal bans against any form of female genital cutting, including the forms that are analagous to or less invasive than male circumcision, for any reason, including religious reasons. No exceptions are made for religion in the case of females because their right to be protected from permanent modification of their genitals overrides the religious beliefs or cultural preferences of their parents.

:iagree: And I agree as someone raised Jewish. It's a double standard.

[AvasMom]

I agree it's a double standard. We discussed this in an anthropology class and one classmate is African and mentioned this. She, however, is in favor of allowing female circumcision. She felt like Americans were putting a value judgement on something integral to her culture and pointed out that this is no different than male circumcision. I agree with her on that with the exception that the female procedure would have to be as clean and as safe as possible to consider them equal. Whatever the decision is, the two procedures can't be seperated as one being good and the other evil.

[lionfamily1999]

:lol: I thought this was about protecting the rights of transvestites to show up to work dressed either way. Then I started reading the responses and saw "elective surgery" and was almost convinced... till I read SpyCar's post saying it's unconstitutional. :lol:

 

That was a rollercoaster of fun.

 

I think it's wrong and rediculous, but that's just me.

[Mrs Mungo]

Our son is intact.

 

I would not support such a law/ordinance/whatever it would be in the end because I think I should be the decision maker on such matters.

 

As to the studies-the AAP doesn't think it's reason enough to advise routine circumcision. Besides, my son can choose for himself in the future, my decision is reversible.

[Heather in WI]

I think it is unconstitutional and eventually would be overturned if it ever passed.

[ktgrok]

I think it is unconstitutional and eventually would be overturned if it ever passed.

 

Would that mean that the laws against female circumcision are also unconstitutional and should be overturned?

 

I don't understand the difference in theory.

[Heather in WI]

Would that mean that the laws against female circumcision are also unconstitutional and should be overturned?

 

I don't understand the difference in theory.

 

No, I don't view them as similar at all.

 

I don't want to argue with you. I see you are very strongly anti-circumcision (based on a quick Google of past circ threads).

[ktgrok]

No, I don't view them as similar at all.

 

I don't want to argue with you. I see you are very strongly anti-circumcision (based on a quick Google of past circ threads).

 

I respect that. I am indeed very anti circ, although most of my friends have circumcised their children and I don't shout at them about it or anything :tongue_smilie:

 

But I should clarify that there are various types of female circumcision, some of which are less invasive and certainly comparable to male circumcision. Yet they are still outlawed, not because of how much damage is done, but because genital mutilation is considered repugnant when it is done without consent of the patient. That is where I don't understand...if we outlaw ALL female gential cutting, not matter what (and there have been attempts to make the most minimal form legal in order to keep people from having more drastic forms done in back alley situations), why is it ok for men? I don't like circumcision of any sort, but it would make more sense to have forms of both male and female allowed, than to make one illegal and the other practiaclly a constitutional right?

[Carol in Cal.]

 

But I should clarify that there are various types of female circumcision, some of which are less invasive and certainly comparable to male circumcision.

 

No, there aren't any forms of female circumcision that are comparable to male circumcision. Every form of FC, even the 'little removal of the end' is much more extreme than male circ. I'm anti-circ either way, but the two are in no way comparable.

[Impish]

My understanding is that to truly compare female and male circumcision, it would have to involve removing the head of the penis, not just the foreskin. The nerves in the clitoris and in the head are the same.

[Veritaserum]

My understanding is that to truly compare female and male circumcision, it would have to involve removing the head of the penis, not just the foreskin. The nerves in the clitoris and in the head are the same.

 

But removal of the clitoral hood, a form of female genital modification, is anatomically analogous to removal of the foreskin. Both the male and female foreskin have sexual nerve endings and sexual function. Both protect the tissue underneath.

 

But even removal of the clitoral hood is outlawed.

[mommymilkies]

We'll have to agree to disagree. The evidence is there if you look.

 

http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html

http://www.boystoo.com/fgm&mgm.htm

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=59

http://www.drmomma.org/2008/01/mgmfgm-visual-comparison.html

 

My son was circ'd in accordance to my religious upbringing. I had no idea what actually happened before it was done. He has just faced his second surgery as a result of this horror. I wish I could undo it.

[AvasMom]

Isn't the point that either one is alteration of the genitals for cultural reasons? I'm not sure the details are as significant in cases where both are done humanely.

 

This is the link we discussed in my anthro class. Interesting perspective that differs from what many Americans assume. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/a-new-debate-on-female-circumcision/

[ktgrok]

It was my understanding that when they were talking about legalizing a minimal form of it they were talking about a small incision to the clitoral hood only. Perhaps I was mistaken. I know that the first 3 types are horrific.

[Carol in Cal.]

The evidence in this thread demonstrates that the male and female versions have parallels.

 

However, it in no way demonstrates that they are comparable.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Carol in Cal.

[Parrothead]

Not wanting to get into the circumcision debate, I'll just say that ballot initiative is one way to get the Jews and Muslims out of town. :glare:

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. I think the whole thing is a bunch of malarkey.

[Spy Car]

Would that mean that the laws against female circumcision are also unconstitutional and should be overturned?

 

I don't understand the difference in theory.

 

Not even remotely comparable. FGM involves removal of the clitoris with the purpose of destroying the possibility a girl/woman can experience sexual pleasure.

 

It is intellectually dishonest to equate the two.

 

Bill

[Ester Maria]

I firmly believe that the child's right to the integrity of his / her body, which excludes the performance of not medically needed procedures with permanent effects, overrides the parents' cultural / religious / etc. adherences. Not that I think it is the end of the world if a child gets circumcised, I can think of many worse parental choices, but if speaking of principles, I am opposed to it (except for the cases where it is medically needed, of course).

DH is equally strongly pro "Tradition! Tradition!".

 

The compromise was that, if we have a male child (chas veshalom :D, for this reason exactly) and the father still insists on circumcision, we would sign statements in a presence of a third party / witness / lawyer that the mother was adamantly against the procedure for the aforementioned reasons and succumbed to the pressure of the same-sex parent as the boy for that and for cultural reasons, but that she washes her hands off it entirely, while the father accepts the full moral and legal responsibility for perfoming a non-essential medical procedure. I wanted to include that already in our prenup, but then it seemed a little overboard to me LOL.

 

Thankfully, we were blessed with three daughters and no sons, so it never really became an issue, but we are both pretty stubborn about our stances.

 

I doubt this law proposal or whatever it is would pass, anyway. Circumcisions would still be happening, only secretly and illegally. People who find it a religious duty for them would probably find that religious duty to override the civil law, because it really is a big thing, even for people who are merely traditional. And you could even argue it is unconstitutional, though again, I hold that in many cases child's rights (such as to integrity of his / her body) override religious and parental rights.

 

I know, I am a lousy Jew (in general, and I have some guilt over that); but I cannot help it, this is one of those issues I feel strongly enough about to go directly against my own tradition. I find it ethically wrong to make such a drastic, irreversible decision about another person's body if not medically needed - boys should be able to make that decision for themselves when they reach age of legal responsibility.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Ester Maria

[Carol in Cal.]

Not even remotely comparable. FGM involves removal of the clitoris with the purpose of destroying the possibility a girl/woman can experience sexual pleasure.

 

It is intellectually dishonest to equate the two.

 

Bill

 

Exactly right.