Search

The article presents the author's views on U.S. conservatives' criticism on San Francisco, California's proposed ban on male circumcision. He provides a brief history of circumcision in the country which started as a way to prevent or treat masturbation that was believed to be a sinful act. He discusses several reasons why uncircumcised penises are not dirty and unhealthy contrary to popular myth. He offers several arguments to convince Conservatives to support San Francisco's proposal.

The article reports on the numerous products and activities which have been banned by the city of San Francisco, California. These include declawing cats, selling cell phones without posted levels of radiation emission, and plastic shopping bags. Proposed bans on the circumcision of minors and the distribution of yellow pages telephone books are also noted.

The article presents the author's views on the legal status of home circumcisions. The author cites the laws in California that protect home circumcision from oversight which gives a green light to homegrown circumcisions. The author also elaborates the negative effects of using bathtubs as surgical venues, tools like linoleum cutters, hunting knives, and swords for circumcision, and horse styptic powder to control bleeding.

The article presents the author's opinion on California Superior Court's decision to drop a circumcision case. He discusses the court case wherein Jewish associations filed a lawsuit contesting a violation of the religious and parental right to circumcise and of the state's right to regulate medicine. He believes that the judge's removal of the petition and Governor Jerry Brown's approval of the parental right to circumcise bill were a miscarriage of justice.

The article reports that the male genital mutilation bill has been removed by a Superior Court judge from the November ballot, who states it would infringe on religious freedom of the Jewish and Muslim groups. It mentions that California is 1 of 18 states that have ended Medicaid funding for circumcision. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated the benefits of male circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded the inefficiency of the procedure.

The article reports that voters in San Francisco, California will vote on a ballot measure that would outlaw circumcision on boys under the age of 18. It mentions that the issue has caused much concerns for Jews in the area since they see it as a violation of the Constitution's protection of religious rights. It states that circumcision is a fundamental aspect of the Jewish custom and identity.

The article reports on the proposal of human rights activist Lloyd Schofield and like-minded advocates who call themselves as intactivists to ban all male circumcisions in San Francisco, California. The proposal indicates that those who violate the ban could be fined not more than 1,000 dollars or could be jailed for not more than one year. It notes that Schofield and advocates seek to make it unlawful to circumcise or mutilate the whole or any part of the child's foreskin, penis, or testicles.

The article presents a reprint of the article "California Slaps Down Attempts to Ban Circumcision," which appeared in the October 4, 2011 issue of "Agence France-Presse." It discusses the move of California which banned local authorities from outlawing male circumcision which was applauded by religious groups. Governor Jerry Brown reportedly approved a bill which prevents the state and counties from interfering with parents decision to have their sons circumcised.

The article details the events at a California Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the proposed bill to ban male infant circumcision. It states that proponents and opponents of the bill were asked to submit their comments to be evaluated in terms of how it affects existing law and other relevant issues. It mentions the members of the committee which include Noreen Evans and Tom Harman. The committees reportedly voted 5-0 in favor of sending the bill to the California Senate for a vote.

The article reports on the October 2, 2011 passing of a religious freedom law in California which prevents local authorities from restricting circumcision procedures.

The article reports on the passage of a new law protecting the right of residents in California to allow circumcision for their sons, despite attempts to block the measure through a referendum in San Francisco.

The article focuses on the new law passed in California in response to a proposed referendum in San Francisco to prohibit the genital clipping. It reports that the under the new law, Californians will have the right to choose whether to circumcise their sons. It informs that Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi shut down the referendum in July 2011, on justification that it violated a California law that makes regulating medical procedures a function of the state, not cities.

The article focuses on the new law passed in San Francisco, California in response to a proposed referendum that would prohibit genital clipping, wherein, the Californians will retain their rights to circumcise their sons under the law. It states that the ballot measure sponsored by anti-circumcision activist Lloyd Schofield has been struck down by Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi in July 2011. The court held that the refrendum violated a California law governing medical procedures.