Skip to main content

Restoring Tally logo

One man's journey through life

  • Home
  • Foreskin Restoration
  • Intactivism
  • Links
  • About
Home » Blogs » Tally's blog

California proposes an Anti-anti-circumcision bill

by Tally on July 9, 2011 Bookmark and Share

California State AB 768: the Anti-anti-circumcision BillI am speechless. At least I can still write, though. I just found out that the state of California is proposing to outlaw any local effort to restrict male circumcision. California State Bill Number AB 768, amended, was introduced by Assembly Member Gatto.

Assemblyman Gatto is seeking to reform California's initiative process.[1] California allows members of the public to file ballot measures through the initiative process. Although subject to abuse by monied interests, the California initiative process allows the public to participate in governing themselves.[2]

Along with Assemblyman Gatto's initiative reform, he also seems to be targetting one initiative in particular, the San Francisco Male Infant Circumcision Ban that is coming up for a vote in November.

The proposed California State Bill AB 768, as amended, is reproduced below [3]:

SECTION 1. Part 10 (commencing with Section 125850) is added to Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code , to read:

PART 10. MALE CIRCUMCISION

125850. (a) The Legislature finds and declares as follows:

(1) Male circumcision has a wide array of health and affiliative benefits.

(2) This section clarifies and augments existing law.

(b) No local statute, ordinance, or regulation, or administrative action implementing a local statute, ordinance, or regulation shall prohibit or restrict the practice of male circumcision, or the exercise of parental authority with respect to the same.

SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:

In order to clarify the state's authority with respect to the regulation of the practice of male circumcision at the earliest possible time, it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately.

The bill was originally written to amend the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Low Carbon Fuel Standard.[4] On July 7, 2011, Assembly Member Gatto rewrote the bill to specifically pevent any local government from trying to restrict male circumcision, such as currently being proposed in San Francisco.[3] 

The proposed bill AB 768 poses several troubling issues.

Male Infant Circumcision has Risks and Complications

Bill AB 768 includes the statement: "The Legislature finds and declares as follows: (1) Male circumcision has a wide array of health and affiliative benefits." I assume that Assembly Member Gatto plans on holding public fact finding investigations to support such a claim. I am sure that many would volunteer to offer lots of evidence showing that the male circumcision for infants has few, if any, medical benefits.

The declaration that Assemblyman Gatto seeks to make is not supported by medical professionals. Worldwide, no organization of medical professionals currently endorses non-therapeutic male infant circumcision. For example, recently the South African Medical Association's Human Rights, Law & Ethics Committee stated that it was unethical and illegal to perform circumcision on infant boys.[5] Further, the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that male infant circumcision prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information.

First Amendment: Separation of Church and State

Another troubling aspect of the proposed bill is that AB 768 likely runs afoul of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.[6] The first part of the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That means no law can show a preference for or favor a particular religion.

California has an approximately 22% male infant circumcision rate.[7] Also, the current percentage of the California population that is Jewish is approximately 2.9%.[8] Considering that most Jews circumcise their infant boys, a significant proportion of all male infant circumcisions are performed for religious reasons. A very strong argument can be made that the proposed Bill AB 768 unconstitutionaly favors a specific religious practice.

Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection

The first section of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[9]

California has a law making female genital mutilatin a felony. "'Female genital mutilation' means the excision or infibulation of the labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, or vulva, performed for nonmedical purposes."[10] The US federal government has a Female Genital Mutilation Act that protects females from circumcision, excision, or infibulation of "the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris."[11] Females are protected from circumcision or other genital cutting at both the State and Federal level. The proposed California Bill seeks to treat males differently than females. Why is it that the genitals of girls are protected, but boys can have their genitals freely cut?

Parents have Limits on what they can do to their children

Also troubling is that Bill AB768 seeks to create a parental right to cut the genitalia of their child. The rights of parents are not absolute. Bill AB 768 seeks to establish by law a parental right for male circumcision. That Assemblyman Gatto believes that parents can have part of their child's penis cut off flies in the face of California's restriction on parents tattooing their children.[12] I think cutting off part of a male's penis is much worse than getting a tattoo.

Learn More:

To learn more about California Bill AB 768, including its current status, visit the California State Legislature page. In the Bill Search block on the right side of the page, search for bill number "AB 768" or for keyword "circumcision." You will end up with a page of links showing the current Bill status, the Bill's history, how the Bill has been amended, the Bill's committee analysis, and who has voted on the Bill.
 

Related Links:

  1. Wikipedia: Initiative
  2. Sacramento Bee: Viewpoints: Approve reforms to ballot measure system, June 15, 2011
  3. California Bill AB 768: Male Circumcision, as amended on July 7, 2011
  4. California Bill AB 768: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Low Carbon Fuel Standard, as amended on April 25, 2011
  5. South African Medical Association denounces circumcision of infants
  6. United States Constitution: First Amendment
  7. MGMBill.org: Hospital Circumcision Rates by State
  8. WikiPedia: States with the highest proportion of Jews
  9. Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
  10. California Penal Code §273.4: Female genital mutilation is a felony
  11. USC Title 18, Sec. 116: Female genital mutilation is a crime
  12. California Penal Code §653: Tattooing a minor is a misdemeanor
  13. Jewish Journal: Circumcision fight moves to California State Legislature
Tags:
  • Intactivism
  • Politics
  • Tally's blog
  • Login to post comments

Comments

#1 Uh...

Submitted by Joseph4GI (not verified) on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 9:04pm.

"I am speachless. At least I can still write, though."

Uh, not to burst your bubble, but it's "speechless." And uh, yeah. This bill is seeking to curtail the democratic process, nevermind the favoritism for Judaism. The ban should be allowed to play out, and the people should vote it down. What good is a voting system if you can't even vote? And Gatto needs to show us how a parent is entitled to elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgeries on their normal, healthy children, and why doctors are even obliged to perform it.

  • Login to post comments

#2 OK, maybe I cannot write, either

Submitted by Tally on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 9:16pm.

Oops. I fixed my spelling error.

  • Login to post comments

#3 Typical

Submitted by Timothy (not verified) on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 9:25pm.

Those people that suffer abuse are prone to want to see it happen on others. Since people who have been circumcised are the ones that usually want to see it kept up, they're trying to rationalize the violation that happened to them when they were younger and make sure that others suffer the same fate as them.

Appaling.

  • Login to post comments

#4 Land of the free!

Submitted by James Mac (not verified) on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 7:15am.

"No local statute, ordinance, or regulation, or administrative action implementing a local statute, ordinance, or regulation shall prohibit or restrict the practice of male circumcision, or the exercise of parental authority with respect to the same."

I've always wanted to have a group of fundamentalists from my church come around to my house and help me circumcise my teenage son with a chainsaw, and now I will be able to, free from the interference of do-gooding child protection workers. America; the land of the free!

  • Login to post comments

#5 Religious Covenant and Blasphemy Laws

Submitted by Frederick Rhodes (not verified) on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 9:59am.

A similar law to the religious Coven-ant law is the religious Blasphemy law. It allows parents to excise their children's lives if they embarrass their religious beliefs.

(1) Infant male circumcision has a potential array of  health  benefits for the affiliative uneducated and an array of known short term and long term risks and harms for its victims. This would be a more honest statement than what the proponents of infant male prepuce excisionists claim.

  • Login to post comments

#6 Anti-anti-circumcision bill.

Submitted by freddys (not verified) on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 1:21pm.

  It is an uphill battle against people who are unwilling to think logically, but with the decrease in percentage of neonatal circumcision in California, there should be a sufficient number of parents who would vote for an anti-circumcision bill.  The problem is to convince them to vote.  I am not at all familiar with the California legal system, but now that enough signatures have been collected to bring it to a popular vote, can the language of the proposed bill be modified?

  No matter what the outcome in San Francisco turns out to be, the subject of infant circumcision is getting out in the open.  Perhaps, the intactivist movement should now concentrate on Colorado, where the state legislature stopped Medicaid funding for circumcision.  Although not considered as important as the West Coast, Colorado is also a trend-setting state, with a large number of pragmatic voters.

  • Login to post comments

#7 The Defence of Circumcison (with Boxcutters) Bill

Submitted by Hugh7 (not verified) on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 7:53pm.

It's gone Fe(de)ral! http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-2400

So this bill will make it legal for a blind man with Parkinsons to circumcise a protesting 17-year-old with a boxcutter, just so long as one parent has consented and it's a clean boxcutter...?

(LandoftheFree - I think they'd argue that a chainsaw couldn't be made sufficiently "hygienic")

  • Login to post comments

#8 Conflict With Federal Law?

Submitted by Nathan (not verified) on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 11:18pm.

Wouldn't the language of "the exercise of parental authority with respect to the same" put this in direct conflict with federal law against female genital cutting when the cutting causes equal or less damage than a male circumcision? 

  • Login to post comments

#9 Equal Protection must be considered

Submitted by Tally on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 4:27pm.

Thanks for pointing that out, Nathan. I revised the post to include the US Constitution's 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause.

  • Login to post comments

#10 South Africa speaks better English than we

Submitted by Frank McGinness (not verified) on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 3:47pm.

South African Medical Association's Human Rights, Law & Ethics Committee stated that it was unethical and illegal to perform circumcision on infant boys. The Committee expressed serious concern not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. http://tinyurl.com/3rhhpx8

  • Login to post comments

#11 Gatto is a stalking horse for Cong. Sherman

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 5:25pm.

"(1) Male circumcision has a wide array of health and affiliative benefits."

I recoil in horror at the prospect of a state legislature asserting that there are health benefits. And pray tell, what is an "affiliative benefit"?? And how do these supposed benefits go down the tubes if the operation is delayed until after the 18th birthday? Especially given that it is illegal for a boy to have sex until he is at least 16.

The only way to explain why this law is being proposed in California, despite its current ~20% circ rate, is that Gatto is not aware of current maternity ward practice, and is a protege of Congressman Brad  Sherman.

  • Login to post comments

Who is this guy?

Restoring Tally is just an ordinary guy who had to confront his prostate and circumcision problems. This site chronicles his journey in dealing with these issues. He has had prostate surgery and he is restoring his foreskin.

Read more about Tally

Recent Blog Posts

  • Happy 9th Birthday, RestoringForeskin.org!
  • 9 year foreskin restoration progress report
  • Happy 8th Birthday, RestoringForeskin.org!
  • Happy 7th Birthday, RestoringForeskin.org!
  • Happy 6th Birthday, RestoringForeskin.org!
  • My first Intactivist protest
  • 6 year foreskin restoration progress report
  • SPAMMERS go away!
  • Happy 5th Birthday, RestoringForeskin.org!
  • Circumcision and The Infection Myth

more . . .

Blog Tags

Back pain Barefoot BPH Burn out Catheter Circumcision Circumcision harm Exercise FGM Foreskin Foreskin restoration FR Benefits Growing old Health HoLAP Intactivism Men's Stories Oddities Patent Politics Progress Prostate Pucker Rant Restoring device Retainer Sensitivity Sexual Pleasure Surgery Tugging routine Turkey neck Week in Review Weight Women's Stories

Monthly Archive of Blogs

  • September 2013 (1)
  • August 2013 (2)
  • July 2013 (1)
  • June 2013 (2)
  • May 2013 (1)
  • April 2013 (1)
  • March 2013 (2)
  • February 2013 (1)
  • January 2013 (1)
  • December 2012 (4)
  • « first
  • ‹ previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • next ›
  • last »

Recent Web Links

  • The Anosognosic's Dilemma: Something's Wrong but You'll Never Know What It Is (Part 1)
  • Psychology Today: What Is the Greatest Danger for an Uncircumcised Boy?
  • Sexually Transmitted Infections and Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
  • YouTube video: Penis: A study of the Human Penis
  • American Urological Association BPH Symptom Index Questionnaire
  • YouTube Video: Child Circumcision: An Elephant in the Hospital
  • Foreskin of the Day picture site
  • Self-ratings of genital anatomy, sexual sensitivity and function in men using the 'Self-Assessment of Genital Anatomy and Sexual Function, Male' questionnaire
  • Not a surgical vaccine: there is no case for boosting infant male circumcision to combat heterosexual transmission of HIV in Australia
  • YouTube Video: Anatomy of the Penis

more . . .

Recent comments

  • Misunderstandings can happen.
    Vicky, I certainly respect your point of view, but it seems you have mistaken my meaning. As a true-equality feminist...
    Naida - 10:22pm Fri, Apr 25, 2014
  • skin bridge
    I am 15 from Georgia in the us. And I also have a skin bridge, I'm thinking about the procedure as well. My main fears...
    Anonymous (not verified) - 12:11pm Thu, Apr 10, 2014
  • My most sincere thank you
    Hello. I'm a 33-year old Finn, who was circumcised 10 days ago due to medical reasons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...
    a grateful Finn (not verified) - 6:08pm Sat, Apr 5, 2014
  • Cheaper What?
    ^^ hookah silicon grommet ^^ Wow, the geometry is not the same but the basic idea is similar.  I wonder how...
    TLCTugger (not verified) - 11:01am Mon, Mar 31, 2014
  • Cheaper
    You can get a hookah silicon grommet and its cheaper than the tlc and its the same material and same shape.
    Anonymous (not verified) - 3:24am Mon, Mar 31, 2014
more

Calendars

Foreskin Restoration Calendar

Intactivist Calendar

Terms of Service | About | Contact

RestoringTally.com is a blog addressing Men's issues, particularly prostate problems and circumcised men who are restoring their foreskins.

Tell someone you love how nice it is to have a foreskin.