Quantcast


Advertisement

Bloggish

Email | Print | Text - Text +

July 1, 2011 | 4:00 pm

Could Foreskin Man keep circumcision legal in San Francisco?

Posted by Jonah Lowenfeld

Photo

A section from "Foreskin Man" No.2. (Image courtesy Foreskinman.com)

In an ironic twist, the writer of a San Francisco ballot measure that would prohibit circumcision of any boy under 18 for any reason other than a medical emergency also created the evidence that could lead to the proposition being declared unconstitutional and being thrown off of the ballot.

Matthew Hess, the president of MGMBill.org, wrote the San Francisco measure, which qualified for the November 2011 ballot in May. He also created “Foreskin Man,” a comic whose second issue featured imagery that was widely criticized as anti-Semitic.

In a legal brief filed on June 30, the San Francisco City Attorney’s office argued that an existing California statute could prevent the city from prohibiting doctors from performing circumcisions. If a judge rules that the state law prevents the city from interfering with the work of medical practitioners, the ballot measure would then apply exclusively to Jewish ritual circumcisers known as mohelim, the city attorney argued. In a news release announcing the submission of the brief, the city attorney said a ballot measure specifically targeting a religious practice would be “patently unconstitutional.”

Furthermore, the city attorney argued, the ballot measure was motivated by anti-Jewish animus, as evidenced by the depiction of Monster Mohel, the villainous Jewish ritual circumciser featured in “Foreskin Man” No. 2.

“There’s some very targeted, I guess you could call it propaganda, and that portrays religious circumcision by Jews in a very demonizing way,” Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart said.

Courts have used evidence of discriminatory animus as evidence to strike down statutes as unconstitutional.

Lloyd Schofield, the official proponent of the San Francisco ballot measure and the
“real party in interest” named in the June 22 lawsuit, has repeatedly argued that his ballot measure should not be judged on the basis of Hess’s comic book, pointing out that his group’s website, sfmgmbill.org, does not mention “Foreskin Man.” Other anti-circumcision activists have distanced themselves from Hess as a result of his controversial comic as well.

The city attorney’s brief was issued in response to a June 22 lawsuit filed by Jewish and Muslim families, doctors, and Jewish community groups attempting to get the measure struck from the ballot. That lawsuit cited a California statute that prevents cities from interfering with the work of a state-licensed “healing arts professional.”

Although that lawsuit was founded on the assumption that the statute would completely preempt the ballot measure, the partial preemption foreseen by the city attorney’s office wasn’t entirely unexpected.

“We indeed anticipated this issue,” Michael Jacobs, a partner in the San Francisco office of Morrison and Foerster who represented the group of plaintiffs in the lawsuit, wrote in an email on Friday. “But we are very grateful for the City’s vigorous protection of our Free Exercise rights and its defense against anti-Semitism.”

How the proposed ballot measure is impacted by the state law will be determined in court. Originally set for July 15, the court date was reportedly being changed at press time, to allow those defending the ballot measure to prepare their arguments.

8 Comments — Leave your comment

Share this post: del.icio.us Favicondel.icio.us Digg FaviconDigg Facebook FaviconFacebook Google FaviconGoogle Reddit FaviconReddit StumbleUpon FaviconStumbleUpon Technorati FaviconTechnorati YahooMyWeb FaviconYahooMyWeb

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

The “doctor” from the lawsuit is actually a certified practicing mohel, Dr. Brian McBeth, though you won’t find that on Abby Porth’s press releases. Here is his website: http://sfbaymohel.com/About_Dr.html

A few quick points:

(1) This is pure spin on the part of the SF attorney’s office. It’s quite clearly a political move in opposition of the ban—the office knows that most people won’t understand the whole “if a medical ban is preempted” part and will read its statement as saying the proposed ban targets religion. Herrera knows quite well that this ban is for ALL genital cutting forced on minors, not targeted whatsoever at religious groups.

Comment by Barefoot Intactivist on 7/01/11 at 4:23 pm

(2) The medical ban won’t be pre-empted, because non-therapeutic infant genital cutting is not a medical procedure. The bill specifically provides an exemption for medically necessary circumcision.

(3) Foreskin Man, the controversial comic, deals with secular doctors in issue #1 and African tribal circumcisers in issue #3. How is his inclusion of mohels in issue #2 “discriminatory” when the author is clearly going after any and all circumcisers of children?

Who knows what politics will go behind the court’s decision here, but Herrera has clearly revealed the (lack of) integrity of his character here with this huge spin move aimed at smearing Intactivists.

~Barefoot Intactivist

Comment by Barefoot Intactivist on 7/01/11 at 4:23 pm

Circumcision has been long debated among MOdern Jews.  However, this is a private relgious idea. It should be treated as such.  No gonvernment (Foreign, nation or local) has the right to ban what is definitely a religious tradition. Will this imposition on religious rites include forbidding Hassidic Jews to stop wearing old style clothes?  This law is probably from the same people who oppose abortion as a life choice.

Comment by David Abrams on 7/01/11 at 10:44 pm

Um, David, you’re wrong.

Reynolds v United States says that the govermnent can and will impose sanctions against religious practice, especially if it violates local, state or federal laws. I’m a circumcised Muslim woman, and out of the blue they banned it in 1996, no religious exemption or anything. What about our “rights”

And, on that note, can someone please tell me where banning cutting the genitals of someone ELSE infringes upon YOUR religious beliefs? Where in the first amendment does it even MENTION genitals?

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 7/02/11 at 1:56 pm

@David Abrams: “Will this imposition on religious rites include forbidding Hassidic Jews to stop wearing old style clothes?” No, of course not. It’s not about religious rites, it’s about cutting babies’ genitals.

Comment by Hugh7 on 7/02/11 at 8:33 pm

“This law is probably from the same people who oppose abortion as a life choice.” Funny, many of the bill’s opponents accuse Intactivists of being for “abortion as a life choice” or as they prefer to call it “killing babies” and thereby hypocritical. The fact is (unsurprsingly) that Intactivists are as divided about abortion as everyone else. It’s not about abortion, it’s about circumcision, or as we prefer to call it (because it is) “male genital cutting”.

You’re right that it’s a private matter - private to the person on the other end of the genitals.

Comment by Hugh7 on 7/02/11 at 8:35 pm

Keep ringing that “Anti-Semitism” bell it’ll break off the hinges.

If Jews/Jewish culture had nothing to do with circumcision Foreskin man #2 wouldn’t have had this subject.  If it were not so ingrained in Jewish culture -and- Jews/Jewish groups bitterly opposed any and all laws against infant circumcision, there would have been no “Monster Mohel”.


Look at issue #3, he went against the African practice.  He’s an “Equal Opportunity Offender”!  He’s not anti Jewish or anti Semetic, he’s anti-infant circumcision.  They want to get cut as adults, FINE…  But it’s a choice an infant cannot make.


Keep ringing the AntiSemitism bell, it’ll break soon.

Comment by Annexian on 7/03/11 at 11:00 am

Whatever the case, those artist need to learn how to draw a baby.

In the picture above and others, the baby does not look like a baby.  It is really creepy.

Comment by fakename on 7/11/11 at 8:42 am

Post a Comment

Name:  
Email:  

Type the word you see below:

Comment:


About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

RSS


Blog Archive






Newspaper

Serving a community of 600,000, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles is the largest Jewish weekly outside New York City. Our award-winning paper reaches over 150,000 educated, involved and affluent readers each week. Subscribe here.

© Copyright 2012 Tribe Media Corp.
All rights reserved. JewishJournal.com is hosted by Nexcess.net. Homepage design by Koret Communications.
Widgets by Mijits. Site construction by Hop Studios.

counter fake hit page