Circumcision Ban Didn't Make the Cut in Santa Monica

Categories: Health, Only in SF
Ancient Circumcision-thumb-275x192-thumb-250x174.jpg
Only in San Francisco
So it is only in San Francisco that a ban on circumcising would make it to the ballot. Efforts to replicate the city's outlandish proposal in Santa Monica are no more.

Jena Troutman, a self-described child advocate, has been leading the charge to gather signatures to place a ban on the city's ballot. Yet she told media outlets today that she is abandoning her campaign, claiming the issue has gained too much negative attention. She blamed the media for "misrepresenting" the campaign as an attack on religion.

"It shouldn't have been about religion in the first place," she told the Jewish Journal. "Ninety-five percent of people aren't doing it for religious reasons, and with everyone from the New York Times to Glenn Beck focusing on the religious issue, it's closing Americans down to the conversation."
Troutman runs the site, which claims babies are born perfect, so "let's keep them that way."

SF Weekly called Matthew Hess, who wrote the ballot language for San Francisco's circumcision ban, to ask whether he thinks this will affect his momentum. Hess, who is also the director of Male Genital Mutilation, a nonprofit attempting to criminalize circumcision nationwide, said her decision to withdraw the campaign was "understandable."

Hess told us last week that he believes San Francisco's ballot measure is just the beginning. He plans to continue pushing his ban all the way to the federal level.

"Even though there will be no MGM Bill ballot measure in Santa Monica, Jena did help focus needed attention on the problem of forced circumcision in this country and that alone is an important accomplishment," he said in a statement.

Hess fueled the fire recently when he released a comic, Foreskin Man, which illustrates the story of a superhero who saves a baby from evil rabbis who are attempting to circumcise him.

San Francisco's circumcision ban will go before voters in November.

Follow us on Twitter at @TheSnitchSF and @SFWeekly

My Voice Nation Help
Sort: Newest | Oldest

So why wasn't the Constitutions "Equal protection of the law" clause taken into consideration?Unless you extend protection to under 18 years of age hymens of girls, you show this law to be nothing but a Homo-fascist phallic obsession. Not in enlightened San Francisco please.Extend equal protection to the hymen as well as the foreskin and you might have a credible case. But I wager that was never on anyone's mind at the time.


Steven Streets wrote "So why wasn't the Constitutions "Equal protection of the law" clause taken into consideration?"

1996 US Federal law banned all forms of female infant/minor genital cutting without medical justification while leaving male infant/minors with no such protection.  So, the SF proposal to ban male infant/minor genital cutting would be the equal protection you refer to.

Elizabeth frantes
Elizabeth frantes

This really is about a group of fetishers, the creepy thing is how the jerk behind it is so obsessed with "cleaing out" the foreskins of babies and children.  No way to get around that fact.  I've noticed that the anticircs are crazier than antivaccination freaks and antiabortion nutters combined.  And the antiSemitism cannot be ignored. 

Now Trending

From the Vault


©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.