We introduced you to Lloyd Schofield in February. He’s the California “intactivist” that has spent much of 2011 gathering signatures to introduce a vote on banning the practice of circumcision in San Francisco’s city limits. Well doggone it, he’s reached his goal.
Schofield and his supporters have submitted 12,000 signatures, more than enough to warrant a ballot initiative this November. San Francisco residents will have the opportunity to vote on the controversial practice later this year. Schofield compares removing foreskin from infant boys to the internationally denounced practice of female genital mutilation, and we kind of agree that he has a point.
Chief opponent Lloyd Schofield, 59, acknowledged circumcision is a ritual among Jews and a common practice among Muslims, but insisted it should be outlawed.
“It’s excruciatingly painful and permanently damaging surgery that’s forced on men when they’re at their weakest and most vulnerable,” he said.
San Francisco officials say Schofield’s group submitted about 12,000 signatures supporting his proposed ban, which is more than enough to get it on the ballot in November.
The measure, which would only apply in San Francisco, would make it a crime to circumcise a boy before he is 18 years of age, regardless of the parents’ religious beliefs.
Legal and medical experts disagree on the outcome of a vote. Lawyers suggest that such a ban would be unconstitutional as it prohibits a religious ritual. Some medical experts disagree, claiming that there is no evidence to suggest that removing skin from an infant’s penis is either beneficial or necessary. Either way, the ban would need to be passed by a popular vote, which is highly unlikely.
What do you think? Should men have a say in whether or not they are circumcised? Or is it OK to perform the procedure on non-consenting infants?