Politics

June 15, 2011

Circumcision fight moves to California State Legislature

Assemblyman Mike Gatto is proposing a bill to stop cities from banning the surgery for infants.

By Jonah Lowenfeld

Tweet

Share

On Tuesday, Congressman Brad Sherman announced he is preparing to introduce a bill in congress to prevent municipalities nationwide from enacting laws banning male circumcision.

Today, The Journal has learned, California State Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D - Burbank/Glendale/Silver Lake) will begin the process of introducing similar legislation in Sacramento.

These legislative moves to stop cities from banning the circumcision of male babies come just one month after a proposition banning all circumcision in the City of San Francisco was approved for inclusion on a November ballot there.

Gatto has represented the Los Angeles-area 43rd district for just over a year; previously he worked for Sherman, a Democratic congressman from Sherman Oaks, for five years, starting as a field representative and rising to the position of district director. It was a conversation with his former boss that convinced the 36-year-old Assemblyman to join the fray over circumcision at the state level and attempt to prevent cities in California from banning a practice that is a sacred rite to Jews and Muslims.

“He talked to me about how important the issue was, and it was, quite frankly, an easy sell,” Gatto said. Sherman is Jewish and an ardent supporter of Jewish causes; Gatto, who is Christian, pointed out “there are a lot of Christians, too, who believe that circumcision dates back to the origins of our faith.”

Gatto decided to create a bill focused on protecting a parent’s right to circumcise sons less than one year old when he saw “Foreskin Man.” The comic book, available online, was written by Matthew Hess, one of the central backers of the San Francisco anti-circumcision ballot measure. “Foreskin Man” has been roundly denounced as anti-Semitic by the Anti-Defamation League and other groups. “I had to rub my eyes and tell myself that it was 2011, and tell myself that this was not something being put out in 1905,” Gatto said.

Even as the Federal and California State bills are advancing, the Committee for Parental Choice and Religious Freedom, a new coalition spearheaded by the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) in the San Francisco Bay Area, is ramping up efforts to convince San Francisco voters to reject the proposed ban in November.

All 11 members of San Francisco’s City and County Board of Supervisors have joined the coalition, as well as two-dozen prominent doctors, a handful of HIV/STD researchers and many local and national civic and religious leaders.

“The mayor of Santa Monica just joined our coalition,” said Abby Michelson Porth, associate director of the JCRC.

Both Gatto and Sherman said they were not coordinating their legislative agendas with the JCRC, however Gatto said he is open to collaboration. Told about the Sherman bill on Tuesday morning, Porth said the news came as a surprise. She would not comment on either bill.

It remains to be seen how Sherman’s bill, titled The Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011, and Gatto’s bill will progress in Congress and the California State Assembly. As of Wednesday morning, neither had been formally introduced.

On Tuesday, Sherman said that he is gathering cosponsors. “One of note is Keith Ellison,” Sherman said, referring to the Minnesota Democrat, the first Muslim American to be elected to Congress.

“I think the voters of San Francisco would vote down this ridiculous proposal,” Sherman added, “but parental rights and religious rights should not even have to run that gauntlet.”

Nevertheless, Sherman said he believes a law protecting the rights of parents to decide whether or not to circumcise their sons is still necessary. He said that precedent does exist for the federal government to pass laws superseding city laws that would create obstacles to religious freedom.

Gatto, for his part, said that the State of California has declared in certain cases that its laws trump certain city ballot initiatives—a practice known as “occupying the field”—and could do so in this case.

But for either the federal or state government to enact a law preventing cities from banning circumcision, Sherman and Gatto will have to show that the United States or the State of California has a vested interest in preventing the establishment of obstacles to the surgical procedure.

To do so, they will have to rely on the act’s religious underpinnings, the perceived prevalence of circumcision in American culture, and—perhaps most importantly—medical evidence showing that it offers health benefits.

In Sherman’s “Dear Colleague” letter outlining the bill to other members of Congress, he noted that, “recent studies have demonstrated that circumcised males have a lower risk of contracting HIV, human papilloma virus, and other sexually transmitted diseases.” He also mentioned that male circumcision has been practiced for “thousands of years,” and called it “a deeply important ceremony for several religions.” Furthermore, Sherman wrote, “American parents have chosen circumcision for over 75% of male children.”

Bringing the conversation about male circumcision onto the floor of the California Statehouse and the House of Representatives could also draw increased attention to the movement to ban it, known as intactivism.

J. Steven Svoboda, founder and executive director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, sees the potential of these bills to increase awareness of his cause. He said he has not yet seen either bill and so would not comment on their specifics.

“Nobody knows for sure, but when you’re perceived as a fringe movement, typically any publicity is good,” Svoboda said.

However, he said he believes the time has come for a more nuanced discussion of the issues at hand. As the head of the only “legally focused intactivist organization,” Svoboda pointed to an existing federal law that prohibits any cutting of the genitals of women under the age of 18, which is being used as the foundation of the movement to ban the ritual.

That law, Svoboda said, is problematic in light of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

“You can’t protect girls without protecting boys,” Svoboda said. “There’s no way for that to legally pass muster.”

Sherman said he did not consult the text of the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995 in composing the bill he will put forth in Congress.

“I think people who make that analogy are so wrong that their thinking does not color my thinking,” Sherman said.

He added that he “would angrily denounce anyone who thought I should consider any talk of female circumcision and male circumcision in the same conversation. They are not analogous.”

Svoboda said he isn’t trying to draw a one-to-one comparison between the cutting of male and female genitalia.

“There certainly are distinctions,” he said. “I’m not saying they’re the same. But there are certain forms of female cutting that are prohibited under the federal law that are less invasive than male circumcision.”

---

Post your comment below!

Click here to return to the homepage.

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.

It may be difficult to show a compelling state interest to legitimize this bill that would prohibit the protection of the bodily integrity of all boys. It apparently would run counter to the announced goal of protecting human rights.

Comment by Roland on 6/15/11 at 1:56 pm

If these preemptive laws pass, they will be challenged and will move eventually to the Supreme Court. The question of “harmless ritual” will be asked to support the First Amendment argument. Thanks to religious and medical professionals, the 1000’s of You Tube videoes posted of Brit Milah, Turkish Sunnet, Philipino Tuli and medical videos will clearly demonstrate the barbarism of this act. The FGM bill will stand and MGM will be added under Equal Protection. It will be ugly, but the current free pass to all religious groups will evaporate. What religious leaders and misguided parents don’t understand is that we live in Republic and citizens are protected by the state, no matter what age.

Comment by Perplexed on 6/15/11 at 4:48 pm

Harmless procedure? Plenty of boys have died & lost their entire penises during botched bris ceremonies. See:

“Atlanta Lawyer Takes On Botched Circumcision Claims Nationwide” http://bit.ly/lPvAms (Mogen Corporation was bankrupted from lawsuits after multiple boys lost their penises at Bris ceremonies)

“Baby Boy Dies After Circumcision At London Synagogue” http://www.ejpress.org/article/14206

How many more have to die before all children are protected from this genital mutilation barbarity?

~Barefoot Intactivist

Comment by Barefoot Intactivist on 6/15/11 at 5:11 pm

The foreskin has over 20,000 erogenous nerves, is a natural lubricant during sex and some research now shows it’s the most sensitive part of the penis. www.livesc­ience.com/­health/070­615_penis_­sensitivit­y.html Removing it is gynecologi­cally equivalent to removing the clitoral foreskin, one of several types of female circumcisi­on all of which are illegal to perform on infant girls. The Dutch Medical Associatio­n recently issued a report backed by 7 other medical associatio­ns finding infant male circumcisi­on is harmful, has no medical benefit and infringes on a child’s rights. www.norm-u­k.org/news­.html?acti­on=showite­m&item=130­6

Comment by Marc A on 6/15/11 at 7:21 pm

Whose body is it, anyway?  When it comes to physical mutilation, individual rights trump parental rights and religious tradition.  Let the owner of the foreskin reach legal age, then he can decide for himself whether he wants to enter into this particular “covenant with God.”  Given the choice, I don’t think you’d find many takers.

Comment by Dan Newman on 6/15/11 at 8:04 pm

Indeed it’s very good that this conversation is finally happening. Human beings are adaptable. Those who are saying that genital cutting of children is “harmless” are ignoring the facts, available to anyone who wishes to do a quick search: “circumcision damage botched death herpes gangrene lawsuits” etc. When this issue goes before higher courts the damage that has not previously spoken of will become public knowledge.

Human beings can evolve. It’s happening already, with further expose and education the rates of children being cut will continue to decline.

Comment by James Loewen on 6/15/11 at 11:24 pm

“I think people who make that analogy are so wrong that their thinking does not color my thinking… [I]would angrily denounce anyone who thought I should consider any talk of female circumcision and male circumcision in the same conversation. They are not analogous.” This reminds me of what was told to Galileo: “We don’t need to look through your telescope, Mr. Galileo. We know that there cannot be more than seven heavenly bodies.” - Male and female circumcision ARE TOO comparable. Not like I’m expecting a religious group to whom circumcision is important to even try.

Comment by Joseph4GI on 6/16/11 at 2:43 am

“recent studies have demonstrated that circumcised males have a lower risk of contracting HIV, human papilloma virus, and other sexually transmitted diseases.”

Of which newborn boys are at absolute 0 risk for, and against which condoms would far outperform circumcision, given that the research (and this is questionable) was correct.

“American parents have chosen circumcision for over 75% of male children.”

Of course, he means to say 33%, as per the CDC. And they’re even lower in CA.

And, um, according to the 1st amendment, isn’t it unconstitutional to be creating a law that favors a particular religion? I’m wondering if this pair will even get far…

Comment by Couscous4EVR on 6/16/11 at 2:57 am

@Joseph4GI: “Male and female circumcision ARE TOO comparable. Not like I’m expecting a religious group to whom circumcision is important to even try.” Well it would certainly be intersting if some Malaysian or Indonesian Muslims stepped up to the plate and argued that their sunnat of little girls was surgical, sterile and indeed comparable to male circumcision, and that if male circumcision should be allowed, so should theirs. Congressman Sherman and Assemblyman Gatto might find that they have opened a can of worms.

Comment by Hugh7 on 6/16/11 at 3:15 am

Many people of ALL faiths have a very serious issue with non-therapeutic genital reduction surgery performed on non-consenting minors.  Something like this bill that is intended to forever mute the voices of human rights workers who fight against both female and male circumcision on non-consenting minors would never pass.  Muting the voiced of an entire group of concerned citizens so that they can never be heard is not what democracy is about.

Comment by Jen on 6/16/11 at 3:43 am

Religious freedom is an important part of our constitution, however those freedoms are entirely debatable when they involve doing something to 3rd party who can not consent.  Also, equal protection is a hallmark of our constitution and this is clearly not being given to boys in our nation.

Comment by jen on 6/16/11 at 3:43 am

Mr Gallo should know that according to the New Testament, circumcision should not be performed. As a Jew, I recognize circumcision as a human right’s violation. To remove part of a nonconsenting child’s anatomy because of religion goes against freedom of religion because this is done to someone else’s body. Judaism changes with the times, Jews are smart enough to change, circumcision must be seen for what it is, a gross human right’s violation as well a violation of the freedom of religion. No one should force their religion on anyone else with a scalpel. I am a Jew.

Comment by karen on 6/16/11 at 4:13 am

Abraham was an adulterer, slave holder, and child abandoner. All these acts are wrong and Jewish law has changed with it. Why is circumcision still performed? We know the foreskin has essential function. It is not redundant skin and it is not dirty. Everyone must learn its importance, especially physicians and mohels who should understand human anatomy. There is an abundance of information on the internet. Jewsagainstcircumcision.org, drmamma.org, nocirc, etc

Comment by karen on 6/16/11 at 4:19 am

We can talk about what cultural practice is “worse” all day long. Perhaps saying that circumcision is mutilation is opinion, but if so, then so is saying that female circumcision is worse. The question is, is it, or is it not religious custom for the people who practice it? And is the state not already infringing on religious freedoms and parental rights by instituting a complete ban without religious exemption? Because if it is, then Sherman and Gatto tread on thin ice. South-east Asian immigrants will begin to stake their claim on their religious freedoms and parental rights, and they’ll have this legislation behind them, if it passes.

Comment by Couscous4EVR on 6/16/11 at 5:57 am

The right to believe is absolute, however the right to physically manifest religion is subject to laws of general application.

Courts have ruled against polygamy, the use of peyote, etc., as a religious practice. Religious practice must yield to laws of general application.

The proposed law in San Francisco applies to everyone, not just Jews. It is non-discriminatory and certainly not anti-Semitic because it protects the human rights of all children.

Comment by Roland on 6/16/11 at 8:14 am

It’s very true how backwards this country is on its religious freedoms that it applies only to select genders. As a Jewish man myself, I also agree that this “procedure” is barbaric, outdated and has no place in modern medicine or society. To think that this has continued under false medical pretenses for so many years is sad, and makes me wonder about the validity of our medical system in this country. It’s time to stop undermining our children’s natural God given bodies at birth just because we’re not used to the way God intended us to be. Clearly if God created us in his own image, and God is perfect and all knowing, he wouldn’t have intentionally messed up his own genitals…

Comment by MisterEquality on 6/16/11 at 2:46 pm

As a man who was circumcised 64 years ago, and is now unable to orgasm, I can only say that it is a harmful practice to cut foreskins off non-consenting babies.  My son is intact as are most males born here in the UK since 1948, except those born to Jewish mothers and to Muslim fathers.  It is high time that ALL baby boys received the same protection from genital modification that baby girls enjoy.

Comment by Keith Rutter on 6/17/11 at 3:46 am

Keith Rutter is right. The nerves are concentrated in the foreskin. Circumcision amputates the areas of greatest sensitivity.

A new study from Denmark of 5552 subjects confirms that circumcised men are more likely to be unable to orgasm.

The study also found that the female partners of circumcised men are more likely to have problems with dyspareunia and vaginismus.

The proposed law would protect boys from the certain injury of circumcision.

Comment by Roland on 6/17/11 at 4:02 am

Article One, Section four of the Constitution of the State of California states:

“The Legislature shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Mike Gatto’s bill to protect the alleged right of Jewish parents to cut the genitals of their sons would be a law respecting an establishment of religion and, therefore, unconstitutional.

Comment by Roland on 6/17/11 at 4:57 am

I support freedom of religion, as long as it does no harm.
I suggest the book Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective by Ronald Goldman
http://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Circumcision-Perspective-Ronald-Goldman/dp/0964489562
If circumcision were truly a health benefit, then doctors in countries like New Zealand, Australia, England and Canada would suggest circumcision.
Who is to say how much sensitivity any child - male or female- should be allowed to retain in his genitalia?

Comment by Hannah on 6/20/11 at 2:37 am

Congressman Sherman might see a fundamental difference between cutting girls and cutting boys, but the people that cut girls don’t and neither do I.  Neither did the US doctors that promoted female circumcision up until the 1960’s.

It’s illegal to cut off a girl’s prepuce, or to make any incision on a girl’s genitals, even if no tissue is removed.  Why don’t boys get the same protection?  Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether they want parts of their genitals cut off.  It’s *their* body.

Comment by Mark Lyndon on 6/22/11 at 1:34 pm

Mark, you cannot be more right. The US and the rest of the countries that think male circumcision is OK are the first ones to judge female circumcision, as if what we do is any different. The only difference is gender. I was circumcised when I was 7 before any law had been passed. Why can’t the owner of the body decide which parts they can or cannot keep? Religion has no place in medical science and vice versa. All of the claims of benefits from circumcision have evolved over time to keep up the support for this tradition: males = more money for hospitals. It’s sickeing when you think about it, and that’s why, as a Muslim, I support this circumcision ban.

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/25/11 at 8:37 pm

So much for “freedom of belief” when you’re imposing your beliefs onto a child’s body with a knife.

Comment by Stormwatch on 7/11/11 at 12:29 am

Few days ago, AB 768 is but one of several bills that approved Brown’s desk, according to LA Times. California bill AB 768, which makes it a criminal offence for local governments to make rules outlawing male circumcision, http://www.newsytype.com/12209-california-circumcision-law/. This has been authorized into regulation by Gov. Jerry Brown.  Well as for me, I have no issue with the surgery. From what I understand there’s a legitimate concern for hygiene and convenience. What could be my concern is that it associates extreme pain in that particular area during the first few days of life. Can’t help but wonder if that doesn’t have some kind of permanent psychological consequences.

Comment by KayeX on 10/04/11 at 10:48 pm

@KayeX , You may want to check out an interview with a man who speaks about circumcision has affected him and so many other men. There are many side effects and many men don’t even know that side effects they are suffering are a result of circumcision. Some men are physically sensitive, while some have had so much sensitivity stripped away , they say that there is no difference between sex with a condom and sex without one. The side effects vary and there is no regulation on the amount of skin cut. Here is the link.
http://www.beyondthebris.com/2011/05/going-bare-exclusive-interview-with.html

Comment by hannah on 10/05/11 at 2:42 am

KayeX is right. Male circumcision is loaded with emotional issues and alters human behavior throughout life. See the knol at:

http://knol.google.com/k/circumcision-and-human-behavior#

Comment by Roland on 10/05/11 at 5:38 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?