Penis Rights: Brown Signs Ban on Circumcision Bans Into Law

Photo by Einar Muoni via Shutterstock

Gentlemen and the parents of baby boys in California, you are free to do as you wish with the penises in your purview when it comes to circumcision. Specifically, you will not be subject to a ban on the act of male circumcision, thanks to Governor Jerry Brown signing into law a bill that bans the bans on foreskin removal.

AB 768 came on the heels of ballot initiatives in both San Francisco and Santa Monica to ban circumcision on boys under the age of 18. In San Francisco, the initiative gained enough signatures to go before voters, but was withdrawn from the ballot in Santa Monica.

The bill to counter the San Francisco ballot measure was authored by local state assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Burbank), who said banning circumcision interfered with "personal, medical and religious freedom."

As made into law, AB 768 precludes "a city, county, or city and county ordinance, regulation, or administrative action from prohibiting or restricting the practice of male circumcision, or the exercise of a parent' s authority to have a child circumcised." Further, AB768 provides "that the Legislature finds and declares that the laws affecting male circumcision must have uniform application throughout the state."

Opponents of circumcision believe the practice is a form of "genital mutilation."

Contact the author of this article or email tips@laist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Lindsay William-Ross in News on October 3, 2011 9:00 AM

Comments [rss]

khagler

Speaking of double-standards: has anyone heard of Jerry Brown or any other baby mutilation champion volunteering to let random strangers cut pieces off of their bodies? Ever? Because until that happens I'm thinking this is an example of why Democracy is a bad thing when the majority of the population is made up of sick freaks who like to torture babies.

Ed Yerke-Robins

If you don't like circumcision, don't get one.

hannah

I think the author needs to check the proposed facts of the San Francisco and Santa Monica bans. They were never meant to make circumcision for adult males illegal at all. The purpose was to allow the children to decide when they reached the age of 18, since only about 50% of infants are now being circumcised.
Some of the circumcised boys who reach the age of 18 might decide that they wanted the 19 functions that the prepuce serves.

Craig

This law is a terrible double-standard. It is illegal to make even the tiniest cut on a girl's private parts, but the CA state gov't is determined to ensure it's always legal to amputate large amounts of healthy, functional tissue from baby boys. So much for equal protection under the law...

The good news is that more and more parents are saying 'no' to circumcision and are keeping their baby boys intact. Parents are educating themselves, doing their homework and really understanding what circumcision entails. They are also learning that the foreskin is a healthy, normal, and important part of male anatomy. With this knowledge, more parents than ever are choosing to protect their sons from unnecessary genital cutting.
http://www.circumcision.org/

The foreskin is erogenous tissue, containing thousands of erogenous fine-touch nerve endings. The most sensitive and pleasurable parts of male anatomy are removed by circumcision. Here's color-coded diagrams showing the areas of sensitivity for both circumcised and intact anatomy:
http://www.circumstitions.com/...

Additionally, the foreskin acts as a linear bearing during intercourse, making the experience more comfortable and pleasurable for women. For diagrams of how this works, see:
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat...