Brown Signs Bill to Protect Male Circumcision
California governor Jerry Brown signed a bill Sunday that prevents local governments from banning male circumcision of minors.
The bill, proposed by Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D) of Silver Lake, came as a response to a proposed San Francisco ballot measure that would make the surgical removal of a baby's foreskin illegal, excluding those cases deemed medical necessities.
Gatto said his measure would "protect parental rights and liberties."
Anti-circumcision advocates in Santa Monica abandoned their attempts to get a similar ban on the practice put on local ballots after the bill passed.
If the bill had not passed, parents who chose to have their sons circumsized would have faced possible fines and even prison.
A 2011 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that the practice of circumcision has been declining in the past two decades, but it is still held as an important rite by certain religious groups.
Other proponents of circumcision cite medical evidence that the procedure decreases the risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
Anti-circumcision advocates claim that undergoing such a painful procedure should be a choice made by an adult, not forced onto an infant.
California has "taken a big step backward," Matthew Hess, an anti-circumcision activist, told the Chronicle.
The circumcision bill was just one in a pile of hundreds that have accumulated on Brown's desk, all of which must be approved or vetoed by Oct. 9.
Basically, circumcision is the operation of removing part or all of the foreskin which covers the glans of the penis. The minor case of circumcising dates back to prehistoric times, and so this is one of the oldest operations performed by men. A while ago, I was able to browse another site which was entitled "California law bans prohibition of male circumcision". It also covers the news about the law. I definitely support this law because circumcision does not only carry dual significance, both ethnic and religious but it also has medical relevance. From a medical point of view, if a boy or a man has recurrent health problems related to the foreskin, the operation is really advised. Another thing is, it has been suggested in studies that penile cancer and transmission of the HIV infection are less likely in circumcised men. Therefore, circumcision must not be prohibited. Let us support AB 768!