Flap’s California Morning Collection: June 3, 2011
Literature for SF’s anti-circumcision measure stars “monster” rabbis and blonde superheroes
San Francisco’s anti-circumcision measure will be decided by voters in November, but the literature for the moovement aims to sway them with some disturbing images — including dark, evil-looking rabbis and a blonde superhero saving babies from their clutches.
The measure, supported by self-described “inactivists,” would make circumcision performed on anyone under 18 a misdemeanor, even if it is done for religious purposes.
It would be punishable by a $1000 fine, or up to a year in jail.
These “visualizations” are starting points based only on public testimony so far.
Circumcision and the Special City
In 2010 San Francisco supervisors banned Happy Meals. They showed no regard for parental choice.
So it should not come as a shock that activists have managed to put a measure on the November ballot that essentially would outlaw the circumcision of baby boys. If it passes, then parents won’t be able to choose to circumcise their infant sons. The penalty for the “genital cutting of male minors” will be a $1,000 fine and/or up to a year in jail.
The ballot measure bills itself as a ban on “forced genital cutting” and “mutilation.” Clearly the authors want to confuse voters by equating male circumcision to female genital mutilation, the barbaric, unsanitary butchering of a young girl’s private parts in a procedure that has been known to leave girls severely infected and in pain.
The purpose of female genital mutilation is to reduce a woman’s sexual pleasure. The World Health Organization says it has “no health benefits for girls or women.” On the other hand, a 2007 WHO report recommended that male circumcision be recognized as “an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that parents be informed that “newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.” Palo Alto pediatrician Erica Goldman follows the guideline. She informs parents of the pluses – reduced chances of urinary tract infection and sexually transmitted diseases – as well as the risks – it’s a permanent cosmetic change. “It really is a decision to be made on a personal and cultural basis,” Goldman told me.
“I personally believe the medical benefits outweigh the medical risks,” Goldman added.
Online social network privacy bill dies in Senate
A bill designed to give online social network users more control about how their personal information is displayed on websites failed to muster enough votes to pass the Senate today.
The California Chamber of Commerce and many companies in the Internet technology industry had said the bill would stifle innovation in one California’s growing industries.
The measure’s author, Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro, said it made “all the sense in the world” to let users opt-in to reveal anything more than their name and city of residence. The measure would have forced users to set their privacy settings as part of the registration process to join sites such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Eharmony and Match.com.
Enjoy your morning!
Previous:
Flap’s California Collection Archive