I heard about the proposed ban earlier this summer and while I can’t say I was shocked (it is San Fran, after all), I was annoyed. I can see their side of the issue… babies unwillingly having a piece of their skin cut off. But where do we draw the line? There are a lot of things that occur within medicine that aren’t pleasant… immunizations, IVs. If I were a boy, I would hope that my parents would have gotten me circumcised when I was an infant. I know that my grandpa was circumcised when he was 19 years old due to an infection… I bet he wished he had it done when he was too young to remember it.
Circumcision is not just a cosmetic procedure. Boys/men who have been circumcised have a lower incidence of bladder infections, reduced incidence of balanitis (inflammation of foreskin/head of penis), reduction in spread of HPV to women during intercourse, as well as improved body image and ease of male hygiene.
California Governer Signs Law Preventing Male Circumcision Ban
(CNN) — California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law Sunday a bill that prevents local governments from banning the practice of male circumcision.
The legislation comes in response to an effort this summer by a San Francisco Bay Area advocacy group opposed to the practice to get a measure proposing a citywide ban added to the November 8 city ballot.
In July, a Superior Court judge ordered the proposed measure removed from the ballot, saying that male circumcision is “a widely practiced medical procedure” and that medical services are left to the regulation of the state, not individual cities.
The legislation signed Sunday, which takes effect immediately, prohibits governments at the local or county level from “restricting the practice of male circumcision” and “declares that the laws affecting male circumcision must have uniform application throughout the state.”
