The SFMS Executive Committee has voted to support the Coalition opposing the San Francisco ballot initiative to criminalize performing circumcisions. Please see below for excerpts from a MedPage article published yesterday, June 23, 2011:
A proposal to ban male infant circumcision in San Francisco, scheduled for a city-wide vote in November, may be pulled off the ballot if a lawsuit filed by physicians, Jewish groups, and a Muslim family is successful.
The ballot initiative was started by individuals who believe circumcision is a form of genital mutilation, sometimes called “intactivists.” In May, they filed petitions with enough signatures to qualify for placement on the November ballot.
It would make it “unlawful to circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years,” with fines and jail terms possible for violators.
The lawsuit against the proposal cited a California law prohibiting cities from setting restrictions on medical procedures.
According to the suit, cities may not “prohibit a healing arts professional licensed within the state … from engaging in any act or performing any procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of that licensee.”
One of the physician plaintiffs in the suit, Brian McBeth, MD, of San Francisco General Hospital’s emergency department, said in a statement that circumcision has definite medical benefits that would be imperiled by the ban.
He told of a six-year-old uncircumcised boy presenting with his foreskin stuck in a retracted position resulting in severe pain and swelling—all consequent to his parents’ unsuccessful efforts to treat an infection of the foreskin.
Pediatrician and obstetrician groups have endorsed parental rights to decide whether their children should be circumcised.
Most city officials in San Francisco have stated their opposition to the proposed ban, as have the AAP’s California chapter and the San Francisco Medical Society.
Source: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Parenting/27241
The measure may be withdrawn from the November ballot with a tentative ruling by a California judge on July 27. SFMS have filed an amicus brief on support of opposing the circumcision ban.
Rulings:
Set for hearing on Thursday, July 28, 2011, line 8, PETITIONERS JEWISH COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL OF SAN FRANCISCO, THE PENINSULA, MARIN, SONOMA, ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES, THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE, JEREMY BENJAMIN, JENNY BENJAMIN, LEO FUCHS, JONATHAN JAFFE, YAEL FRENKEL-JAFFE, SHEILA BARI, LETICIA PREZA, KASHIF ABDULLAH, BRIAN MCBETH, ERIC TABAS, Motion To Grant Writ Of Mandate And Injunctive Relief. The Court finds that the proposed ballot Initiative is expressly preempted by California Business and Professions §460(b). The evidence presented is overwhelmingly persuasive that circumcision is a widely practiced medical procedure. California Business and Professions Code §460 (b) applies to medical services provided by a wide range of health care professionals. The statute speaks directly to the issue of local regulation of medical procedures and leaves no room for localities to regulate in this area. In fact, the legislative history of §460(b) confirms that the legislature intended to prevent cities and counties from regulating medical services which is a matter statewide concern. Because the proposed ballot initiative attempts to regulate a medical procedure, the proposed ordinance is expressly preempted. Moreover, it serves no legitimate purpose to allow a measure whose invalidity can be determined as a matter of law to remain on the ballot after such a ruling has been made. City of San Diego v. Dunkl, (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 384, 389 Accordingly, the Court issues a Writ of Mandate Ordering the Director of Elections for the City and County of San Francisco to remove the measure from the ballot in its entirety. The applications to file a brief as amicus curiae, to file a brief in excess of the maximum number of pages, and for pro hac vice admission by the Doctors Opposing Circumcision are denied. These motions were filed two days before hearing and courtesy copies were not provided until the day before hearing, which is extremely untimely.
Judge Giorgi did uphold her preliminary prohibition on allowing the Male Circumcision Mutilation Initiative to be placed on the November ballot today. She states that this is the State’s responsibility to govern medical practice and is not the province of the Municipalities to regulate medical practice. This is a real victory for physicians, parental choice and religious freedom.