Circumcision Ban Cut from the Ballot

Intactivist_Signs.jpg
"Intactivist" David Pinckney
The city's controversial circumcision ban was officially snipped from the November ballot after Judge Loretta Giorgi ruled this morning that the measure would violate state law that prevents cities and counties from regulating medical services -- when they are a matter of statewide concern.

Oral arguments were heard this morning at the San Francisco Superior Court, since bill proponent Lloyd Schofield filed an opposition to Giorgi's tentative ruling yesterday. Giorgi clearly anticipate heightened emotions as she reminded both sides this morning: "The issue for debate today is not the pros and cons of the circumcision procedure. What's before us today is solely issue of whether the proposed city ballot measure is preempted by state law."

Attorney Michael Kinane, speaking on behalf Schofield, argued that the measure would be equivalent to state laws which ban female circumcision. He pointed out that state laws have neither supported nor banned male circumcision. "San Francisco needs to protect our babies," Kinane said. But Giorgi concluded that Kinane's arguments only reinforced her decision.

Intactivist_Intersection.jpg
Meanwhile, outside the courthouse, Bay Area "Intactivists" displayed signs such as "10 out of 10 babies oppose circumcision" and "Circumcisers are child mutilating rapists." 

David Pinckney, who was outside the courthouse today, said he knew that Giorgi was not going to change her mind, but he hopes to popularize the cause by bringing it to the public's attention. When asked how people had been responding to his signs, he said: "Unfortunately, most people don't really care."

Matt Hess, executive director of the Male Genital Mutilation, told SF Weekly yesterday that his organization plans to appeal today's decision. So we guess it's fair to assume we've not entirely nipped this one in the bud.

Follow us on Twitter at @TheSnitchSF and @SFWeekly.

My Voice Nation Help
2 comments
Law Jen
Law Jen

Not at all. I don't think there needs to be a specific law which covers female circumcisi­on. I believe it can be addressed in other ways. For instance, it should be considered a surgical procedure, performed in an appropriat­e setting under qualified personnel which would include a medical exam.     http://bit.ly/mUvR5O

bigriggs
bigriggs

A judge with some common sense....

Now Trending

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Loading...