Circumcision Ban in San Francisco Could be Struck

On Wednesday, Loretta Giorgi, a San Francisco Superior Court Judge tentatively ruled that the initiative to criminalize circumcisions for anyone under the age of 18 will be removed from the November ballot.

The decision was in response to a lawsuit filed last month which argued that the measure violated a California law that makes regulating medical procedures a state matter, rather than a municipal issue. Giorgi called the proposed ballot initiative “expressly pre-empted” by state law. According to evidence “circumcision is a widely practiced medical procedure.”

She added that “it serves no legitimate purpose to allow a measure whose invalidity can be determined as a matter of law to remain on the ballot after such a ruling has been made.”

Under the proposed ban, anyone who performed circumcisions would face a misdemeanour charge and would be fined up to $1,000 or serve a maximum of one year in prison.

The judge will make her official ruling today at a hearing, which is expected to include oral arguments from Lloyd Schofield, the anti-circumcision activist spearheading the initiative.

“The foreskin is there for a reason,” Schofield told ABC News. “It's not a birth defect. It serves an important function in a man’s life, and nobody has a right to perform unnecessary surgery on another human being.”

In Judaism, circumcisions are an important ritual, as they are performed on 8-day-old males.

“This is the most direct assault on Jewish religious practice in the United States,” said Marc Stern, associate general counsel for legal advocacy at the American Jewish Committee. “It’s unprecedented in American Jewish life.”

Abby Michelson Porth, the associate director of the Jewish Community Relations Council and one of several plaintiffs in the suit, told the JTA that “we appreciate Judge Giorgi’s careful review of the proposed measure, and her willingness to put a stop to this extreme, hurtful measure.”

“There is no place on the ballot for a measure that contradicts California law and would put doctors in jail for performing a procedure with known health benefits and a religious purpose. The court ruling is an affirmation of the values of parental choice and religious freedom.”