Quantcast


Advertisement

Bloggish

Email | Print | Text - Text +

July 27, 2011 | 3:30 pm

UPDATED: S.F. court rules to remove anti-circumcision measure from ballot

Posted by Jonah Lowenfeld

Photo

In a tentative ruling published this afternoon, a San Francisco Court ruled in favor of removing a controversial proposition that would have prohibited circumcision of males under 18 from the city’s November 2011 ballot.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Loretta M. Giorgi found that because the proposition aims to enact an ordinance that “attempts to regulate a medical procedure, the proposed ordinance is expressly preempted” by an existing California State Law.

Giorgi issued her tentative ruling in advance of an already scheduled hearing for Thursday, July 28, which will go ahead as planned.

The decision was welcomed by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, even as they acknowledged that the tentative ruling wasn’t likely to be the end of the court battle over the ballot measure.

“We expect that the other side will appeal, so we’re in this for the long haul, but this is extremely good news and will make tomorrow’s court hearing less of a nail biter,” Abby Michelson Porth, associate director of the Bay Area Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC), wrote in an email.

The JCRC led a group of plaintiffs in bringing the lawsuit, which included Jewish and Muslim families, doctors and Jewish ritual circumcisers.

Lloyd Schofield, the ballot measure’s proponent, defended it against the lawsuit. Schofield notified the plaintiffs Wednedsay afternoon that he will appear in court on Thursday morning to oppose the ruling.

According to documents filed with the court, Schofield is acting as his own attorney. He could not be reached for comment.

“It’s a great win for San Francisco parents,” Nicole Aeschleman, an attorney representing three of the plaintiffs in the case, said of the tentative ruling. “Parents will continue to have the ability to make decisions about the health and well-being of their children in consultation with the medical professionals who will actually be performing those procedures.”

Schofield submitted over 12,000 signatures on behalf of the measure, which was certified in May to appear on the ballot in November.

Aeschleman said she believed that the language of the ballot measure had not been finalized before Wednesday’s ruling, nor had any ballot materials been printed.

“We brought this motion when we did so that it could be decided before any costs would be expended on the ballot,” she said.

Though much of the discussion—particularly in the Jewish community—has centered around the ballot measure’s lack of a religious exemption, Wednesday’s tentative ruling made no mention of religion.

The text of the ruling is below:

CPF11511370

Case Title:JEWISH COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL OF SAN et al VS. JOHN ARNTZ, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR et al

Court Date: Jul-28-2011 09:30 AM

Calendar Matter: Notice Of Motion And Motion To Grant Writ Of Mandate And Injuinctive Relief; Compilation

Rulings: Set for hearing on Thursday, July 28, 2011, line 8, PETITIONERS JEWISH COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL OF SAN FRANCISCO, THE PENINSULA, MARIN, SONOMA, ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES, THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE, JEREMY BENJAMIN, JENNY BENJAMIN, LEO FUCHS, JONATHAN JAFFE, YAEL FRENKEL-JAFFE, SHEILA BARI, LETICIA PREZA, KASHIF ABDULLAH, BRIAN MCBETH, ERIC TABAS, Motion To Grant Writ Of Mandate And Injunctive Relief.

The Court finds that the proposed ballot Initiative is expressly preempted by California Business and Professions §460(b). The evidence presented is overwhelmingly persuasive that circumcision is a widely practiced medical procedure. California Business and Professions Code §460 (b) applies to medical services provided by a wide range of health care professionals. The statute speaks directly to the issue of local regulation of medical procedures and leaves no room for localities to regulate in this area. In fact, the legislative history of §460(b) confirms that the legislature intended to prevent cities and counties from regulating medical services which is a matter statewide concern. Because the proposed ballot initiative attempts to regulate a medical procedure, the proposed ordinance is expressly preempted. Moreover, 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. City of San Diego v. Dunkl, (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 384, 389 Accordingly, the Court issues a Writ of Mandate Ordering the Director of Elections for the City and County of San Francisco to remove the measure from the ballot in its entirety. The applications to file a brief as amicus curiae, to file a brief in excess of the maximum number of pages, and for pro hac vice admission by the Doctors Opposing Circumcision are denied. These motions were filed two days before hearing and courtesy copies were not provided until the day before hearing, which is extremely untimely.

35 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.

Predicted by this reader early on. Still comforting to know that at least one jurist in Northern California has the brains he (or she) had been born with. Aunty Mame

Comment by Mr. Againster on 7/27/11 at 5:10 pm

A welcome development.

But you will notice that the COurt took a fairly mechanical point of law to remove the measure, instead of the false political correctness and anti-Semitic deception of the perpetrators.

This was an easy way out for the court, and it will surely climb the ladder to to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals, which will have the courage to address the implications of the measure,  And it is not because that Court was appointed by Republicans that they will do the right thing.

Comment by The Logician on 7/27/11 at 5:17 pm

what’s sad is any idiot who believes this bill was anti semetic to begin with. I’m jewish and the whole concept sickens me.

if anyone ever read the bill, instead of whining like babies about anti semitism, you’d see that the bill was not targeted towards jews at all and even allowed for a medical intervention. What people don’t get is that it’s not medically necessary…at all so to call it interfering with a medical practice is complete crap. Way to go my fellow “chosen people”...way to completely avoid democracy because a law might actually force you to leave somone elses genitals alone for the sake of your religion.

Comment by Mister Equality on 7/27/11 at 6:44 pm

A lot of things aren’t medically necessary.  What about plastic surgery or teeth bonding?  And of course, this is anti-Semitic.  If you saw “Mohel Man,” you might get the point, or maybe not.  No matter.  Guess Lloyd Schofield will have to go after something else like kosher bakeries.

Comment by Tzippo. on 7/27/11 at 8:37 pm

Tzippo, really? The bill was anti-semetic? Where in the BILL did it say anything about Jews? If that’s your argument, then the FGM bill was anti-semetic too because it targets Muslims.

the comic also targeted doctors in the first issue, so I guess because he targeted doctors who do unnecessary surgery, he’s anti doctor. God you’re stupid. Your argument about plastic surgery and teeth proves your stupidity. None of these procedures can be done to children without medical necessity.

I guess since guys like girls with big breasts, I can give my two year old implants. No biggie, right?

please stop with the anti-semetic whining smokescreen. You give real jews a bad image.

Comment by Mister Equality on 7/27/11 at 9:09 pm

Mister Equality—

As a card caryying liberal, I looked at the cartoons Schofield created.  He is very much is anti-Semitic and rabid about it.

I will not call you too politcially correct. Just misinformed.  You have to be vigilant, and not just generous with freedoms.

I am also an atheist and care nothing for rituals, but if people want to invest in them, I support their right to do so.

What irritates me is the intellectual dishonesty of the “religious exemption.”  Who would decide? The government may not intervene in religious decisions, let alone decide who is a Jew.

The bill is as preposterous as a vegan mandate to ban hot dogs, and masquerades as being just as politically correct.

Comment by The Logician on 7/27/11 at 9:18 pm

You’re not that “logical” at all. 1) Reynolds v US says that religious practices can be governed if it infringes upon the rights of others. 2)The AAP has already said for decades that circumcision is non therapeutic and that religious beliefs does not constitute the right for non therapeutic. The 14th amendment applies here. Men are entitled to equal protection under the law…something in our pledge that says “with liberty and justice for all.” unless you’re a male, right?

tell me, where were you when they banned Muslims from circumcising their daughers? That’s anti semetiv too.

Comment by Mister Equality on 7/27/11 at 9:42 pm

Mr. Equality—

What kind of idiot are you?  Do you think that the bill had no implications?  There are consequences to every law, and the consequences do not have to be stated in the bill.

That is what courts are for.

I am one of the most liberal voices on these threads and find your hostility embarrassing.  It’s hot-headed people like you, left or right, who don’t think things through or know how to read, who give Jews a bad name.

Comment by The Logician on 7/27/11 at 9:43 pm

Implications? Lets see…to preserve the bodily rights of everyone, regardless of what religion their parents belong to. This bill being quashed on “medical” grounds is a crock. Circumcision is non therapeutic in almost all cases, and the bill was written identically to the FGM bill…no mention of faiths and a medical necessity exemption.

the only people that give jews a bad name are the ones who abuse infants in the name of God and who continue to grasp at whatever straws they can to justify it…then call others anti-semetic.

Comment by Mister Equality on 7/27/11 at 10:05 pm

Mr. Equality—

FGM is different. It often has dire lifetime phsyiological or psychological effects.  It is a form of male domination, unlike the more symbolic male circumcision, which I agree is a kind of domination by the fallacious idea of a divine covenant.

Compared to bad schools and no universal health care, or an addiciton to the internet and video games, it does no damage to young boys.

Unemployed parents, lack of reproductive health care and education for young women are far greater crimes against humanity.

Try looking deeper at what bothers you about it. You can have yourself reconstructed if that is the problem.  It can be just as twisted as your comments here.

Comment by The Logician on 7/27/11 at 10:21 pm

hahah! You’ve proven your stupidity right there. I know that anything you say is bs.

FGM is only “different” to you because Muslims do it. FGM is defined as ANY form of genital cutting…including type 1, removing the clitoral hood…ie foreskin. You’re one of the many people who try that argument and FAIL. SO: FGM + Muslim = bad and MGM + Jew = good…right.

Doesn’t matter what is done, what sex, or what age. It’s your religion being imposed on someone else’s genitals. How logical are you? Really?

Comment by Mister Equality on 7/27/11 at 10:38 pm

Mister Equality—

Here;s the logic.

In female denital mutilation, they also cut more than the hood off, leaving scaring, vulnerability to infection at that time and after.  Some women are left barren by the complications.  Some die.

The amount of tissue removed is many times over greater. The risks far greater.

Not only your spelling but your logic could use improvement.  It is “anti-Semitic.”

It is very much not apples and oranges, despite your juvenile mathematical formula.

When you have your hood removed, let us know if it hurt as bad as your foreskin.  I suggest you talk to some of FGM victims and ask them.

Comment by The Logician on 7/27/11 at 10:59 pm

Sorry “logician” you still fail. Male circumcison also causes scars, has other side effects, and hell has even caused death. Why are you still here, seriously? The foreskin has more nerve endings than the hood does, and has more nerve endings than the clitoris. You obviously know nothing. The amount of tissue makes up the size of a 3 x 5 index card for a male when stretched out. It’s a double layered piece of skin. Not so much with women. I have talked to fgm “victims”. They give the same excuses you give for male circumcison. Also, most procedures only remove the hood. You keep citing Western media interpretations of FGM. They’re both identical. Keep grasping at those straws.

Comment by Mister Equality on 7/27/11 at 11:19 pm

oh, and if I’m “anti semetic” because I disagree with male circumcison, you’re anti semetic against Muslims because you disagree with female circumcision. See? I can name call too. The anti semite card has been overplayed. Just because someone doesn’t agree with molesting and harming children doesn’t mean they hate you or your religion. Seriously, GROW UP!

Comment by Mister Equality on 7/27/11 at 11:24 pm

Mr. Equality—

The two procedures are very different with different consequences.  Apples and oranges.  You may not logically use that argument to slander me.

The word is correctly spelled “anti-Semitic”. 

IT is not my religion although yo say it is yours.  I am merely in support of parental rights to elect this procedure until it is proven dangerous.

FGM is dangerous and has far more traumatic reactions.

You are the exception.  Circumcision has obviously made you not only angry but hostile, as well as unable to read or spell.

Comment by The Logician on 7/27/11 at 11:37 pm

Dear God. You ARE an idiot! AND, you had some typos too…talk about spelling. “yo = you?”

So Jews get parental rights to cut their sons and Muslims can’t for their daughters. So there is no equality for everyone? Jews own the genitals of their boys? Are you logical, or a pervert? You’re obsessed about cutting the genitals of minors, so I’m thinking the latter…that and you keep mentioning my genitals in your posts. Both procedures have their own respective consequences, and you’ve proven your stupidity by using the parental rights card. Either everyone is equal under the law or not…do we even need the 14th amendment with people like you trying to butcher our constitution?

Comment by Mister Equality on 7/28/11 at 12:04 am

Also, please tell me where in the first amendment that says you can cut someone else’s genitals? Reynolds v United States states religious practices can be banned…keep trying. You’re still a sick pervert and you still fail.

Comment by Mister Equality on 7/28/11 at 12:07 am

This is great news ! Thank you Hachem for blocking this ridiculous anti-religion measure disguised as a health issue. Shame on those who support it.

Comment by das73 on 7/28/11 at 11:35 am

Logician says: “As a card carying liberal, I looked at the cartoons Schofield created.  He is very much is anti-Semitic and rabid about it.”

Of course!!! Being a liberal is a proof of wisdom… in the eyes of the behoder…

Comment by Rabid Liberal on 7/28/11 at 1:33 pm

Dear Rabid—

You quoted me out of context, just like a Republican operative.

The comment was aimed at someone accusing me of being a mean spirited narrow minded Jew.

He also had not seen the cartoons.

Another aspect of his blindness is that circumcision on boys is performed at birth.  Girls must wait until puberty when the psychological aspects are far more harmful.  Their first lesson that it is a man’s world and they must submit.

So you would choose to attack a liberal person even when they support a conservative point of view?  Hmm…looks like you’ve got a little work to do on yourself.

Comment by The Logician on 7/28/11 at 2:58 pm

Logician, you are not only 100% correct, but you are also very humble and very open minded, especially with conservatives. This is what I like about all liberals. And I have NEVER attacked you. Why would I?

Comment by Rabid Liberal on 7/28/11 at 3:08 pm

There is a factual error in this article: The “doctor” plaintiff IS ALSO the ritual circumciser; they are one and the same person. His name is Brian McBeth and he’s one of the top-grossing child circumcisers in the entire Bay Area, so it’s no surprise he would come out against this ballot measure. Abby Porth purposely obscured this fact in her press releases.

Here is the page McBeth uses to drum up his business of forcing genital cutting on children: http://www.sfbaymohel.com/About_Dr.html

Jonah, I pointed out this factual error in a previous article as well.

~Barefoot Intactivist

Comment by Barefoot Intactivist on 7/28/11 at 9:06 pm

Barefoot Intactivist,
Among the plaintiffs was not just one doctor-mohel hyphenate, but two. Dr. Brian McBeth and Dr. Eric Tabas are, according to the brief filed in June, both physicians and mohels. So I stand by my use of the plural.
Thanks.

Comment by Jonah Lowenfeld on 7/28/11 at 9:19 pm

Jonah, the point is, your article implies doctors AND mohels were plaintiffs, when the reality is the plaintiffs were doctor-mohels. None of the plaintiffs were non-mohel doctors. The wording is very misleading.

Comment by Barefoot Intactivist on 7/29/11 at 10:33 am

I just came across this website http://thejewishrevolution.com/

On the home page is a CBS news report in which random non-Jewish people in SF all think the measure is screwy, and Lloyd Schofield is interviewed. Nobody can tell me he is not on anti-psychotic medication.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/29/11 at 3:12 pm

No, Ben, we can’t tell you what medication he’s on, but we can tell that you’re a sadomasochistic pedophile. Here’s my logic here: any type of cutting on a girl, even for religious or perceived health claims is “barbaric” yet your entire faith is bases their commandment with God with a baby’s penis. How is that not pedophilic?

Comment by Mister Equality on 8/13/11 at 5:38 pm

I don’t know. Ask God. I do know that neither I nor God are pedophiles, and that you are not God.

On the other hand, the great Dr. Brian J Morris, a world class molecular biologist has been tracking the STD epidemic for decades. He advocates universal male circumcision, an issue I obviously have no need to get into. He identifies the anti-circ movement as a home for and driven by homosexual pedophiles with foreskin fetishes.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/13/11 at 10:14 pm

Ah, so that’s why all of Morrison’s websites link to circumfetish websites…like the Gilgal society? All of these sites cite false info, and this the same dude that pays to go to Africa to watch little boys get cut to get off, and the people that want to protect the innocent have a fetish? Right, great source there. The rest of the world has discredited him, knowing he’s a fraud. Nice try though.

Comment by Mister Equality on 8/14/11 at 3:33 am

Sure, a top clinician and researcher cites false info. And the CDC and the WHO and the UN are also promulgating junk science, and Lloyd Schofield and you have have no images of children on your computers that the FBI would find of interest. Dream on. The fact that your fellow fetishists are hysterically squealing like stuck pigs does not equate to discrediting Morris.

Just for fun, for your next post I want you to link to an anti FGM comment somewhere in cyberspace dated before the stamp on this post, attributed to you or any of the other dozen so-called intactivists swarming around these threads like fruit flies. Fruit? Get it? I crack myself up.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/14/11 at 4:54 am

More to the point (since Jewish circumcisions constitute only a couple of percent of the world total), why don’t you throw in a link to an anti-circumcision post dated before 8/14/11 at 7:54 am by you or any of your fellow fetishists on a non-Jewish religious website, an Islamic one would be a good start. Nobody in the world except Jews gets circumcised because of the Jewish God, Moses, the Bible etc. You could be saving 50 times as many foreskins elsewhere (don’t get too excited).

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/14/11 at 6:32 am

You also fail to mention how the Australian medical society discredits Morris. Did you ever notice how his claims are written in erotica format? And the WHO? The same WHO that in 1979 said that removing the clitoral hood, identical to the male foreskin had no side effects and has the same “benefits”? Yeah, nice try again. You’re still a sick freak and a sadomasochistic pedophile. Try citing something besides debunked medical claims or religious voodoo if you want to get anywhere. You’re failing miserably.

Comment by Mister Equality on 8/14/11 at 5:03 pm

Mister Equality—

You make a lot of sense, but emails are so dripping with venom that no one wants to listen to you.

Ben is indeed a troubled person, but you bring out the worst in each other.

Are you sure you have investigated your own anger enough so that it doesn’t cloud your judgment?

Comment by The Logician on 8/14/11 at 5:08 pm

Logician, you’re right. He has brought out the worst in me and I do apologize. My anger does cloud my judgment at times, but so does ignorance. My apologies for anything offensive towards you. I am Jewish btw, sometimes you do have to say things you don’t mean, but you’re right about the venom, it serves no purpose.

Comment by Mister Equality on 8/14/11 at 5:15 pm

Mr. Equality—

That is a real step forward from you and I really appreciate it.

People yell at each so much in these threads, that no one gets through to anyone else.

I share so much of your skepticism and try to get others in these threads to examine their emotions and the logic to improve the conclusions they arrive at or to keep their minds open.

Comment by The Logician on 8/14/11 at 5:28 pm

You’re right again. I’ve tried using logic, but logic and religion just don’t mix. My logic is that everyone, male and female have foreskins so they do serve a purpose. Sure removing it could prevent something from possibly happening in the future, but doing so for a non therapeutic purpose is medically unethical. I say this because I was one of the Jews who got herpes in the 80’s due to this, and I’ve had others laugh at me for it. If this was such a big medical necessity, then the rest of the industrialized world would follow suit. But it’s not and they don’t, so the logic behind it fails.

Comment by Mister Equality on 8/14/11 at 5:38 pm

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