California Business & Professions Code 460(b) reserves the regulation of medical procedures to the state, and preempts contrary local rules:
No city, county, or city and county shall prohibit a healing arts professional licensed with the state under Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) from engaging in any act or performing any procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of that licensee.
(1) This subdivision shall not be construed to prohibit the enforcement of a local ordinance in effect prior to January 1, 2010, related to any act or procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of a healing arts professional licensed under Division 2 (commencing with Section 500).
(2) This subdivision shall not be construed to prevent a city, county, or city and county from adopting or enforcing any local ordinance governing zoning, business licensing, or reasonable health and safety requirements for establishments or businesses of a healing arts professional licensed under Division 2 (commencing with Section 500).
This appears to preempt the proposed San Francisco ban on circumcision of boys, at least as applied to procedures conducted by doctors (as opposed to mohels who don’t have a medical license). And a California judge’s tentative ruling released yesterday agreed with this argument (the final ruling is expected at some point after oral argument today):
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.
Why didn’t the court simply hold that the ban couldn’t be applied to doctors, but could be applied to others (such as mohels)? The opinion doesn’t say, but it could be that the judge concluded that if such an important part of the proposal is preempted, the proposal has to be entirely removed, perhaps because voters who vote for the proposal as written might well not have voted for a radically narrowed proposal. (That’s the “severability” question, which often arises both as to voter initiatives and legislatively enacted statutes; there’s a complex body of law related to that in each state.) Or perhaps the court was influenced by the argument that a circumcision restriction limited to non-medical-professions would in effect apply solely or almost solely to religious circumcisions, and would thus be impermissibly targeted against religion.
In any case, unless the decision is reversed on appeal (unlikely, I think), it now appears that there will be no legal battle about the difficult constitutional issues here, whether having to do with parental rights or federal and state religious freedom constitutional provisions. The dispute would have to await either a California statute or a state statute or local ordinance in some other state, and neither option seems terribly likely politically. Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.
Repeal 16-17 says:
Can’t the initiative’s proponents simply attempt to convert it into a State ballot initiative? I don’t know how likely that would be to work, but it would seem to be their only option if they don’t win on appeal.
July 28, 2011, 12:23 pmMalvolio says:
That’s too bad, I would have enjoyed watching the ban get slapped down on other, less technical grounds, so instead of saying “Oh, our law got overturned on a technicality”, its supporters would have to admit “Our law got overturned because we’re a bunch of busybodies and anti-Semites.”
OK, I realize that the law is not supposed to be about supplying me personally with daily doses of Schadenfreude, but it’d be nice.
July 28, 2011, 12:27 pmrb1971 says:
Looks like they would need 500k+ people to sign up for a statewide initiative:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/how-to-qualify-an-initiative.htm
Given that hurdle, plus the high costs, plus the low likelihood of ultimate success, I doubt they will try.
July 28, 2011, 12:34 pmalittlesense says:
So if the portion of the law overturned by this ruling covers only those with medical licenses, does it not leave a ban based solely on religion, which violates the First Amendment?
I love San Francisco, but things like this make me think we should perhaps try to sell it to some other country.
July 28, 2011, 12:53 pmRichard Johnston says:
Question to which someone out there may have an answer:
I had thought the legal viability of a proposed initiative statute could be tested only after the initiative passed and became law. Some variant of ripeness or justiciability or actual controversy or some such. I recall, I think, efforts to attack Prop 8 in California before the election, and running into a roadblock because it wasn’t ripe for decision until it was passed (if not Prop 8 I am quite sure that occurred regarding some other initiative).
Maybe I am wrong on the legal principle, or maybe there’s a difference if you’re talking preemption as opposed to constitutionality.
I think this was likely a correct decision on the merits but am curious about the procedural question.
July 28, 2011, 12:55 pmAnym_Avey says:
San Francisco, of all places, should not be trying to ban safe, principally cosmetic surgical procedures that reduce the likelihood of STD transmission.
July 28, 2011, 1:05 pmJHW says:
Had the measure actually gotten to the ballot, it would have lost, badly.
July 28, 2011, 1:08 pmyankee says:
I would disagree with the judge’s characterization of routine circumcision as a “medical” procedure, but I can’t dispute that it falls within doctors’ “professionally recognized scope of practice.” The tentative ruling appears entirely correct.
July 28, 2011, 1:20 pmEugene Volokh says:
Richard Johnston: My sense is that different states have different rules about this. What do you think the California rule is, given the case cited by the court?
July 28, 2011, 1:48 pmRichard Johnston says:
Hey I wanted to be spoon-fed here!
The case cited, Dunkl, cites in turn to this, which does explain things; it appears I guessed correctly that there’s a distinction between challenges based on constitutionality and other types:
Although past cases have observed that “it is usually more appropriate to review constitutional and other challenges to ballot propositions or initiative measures after an election rather than to disrupt the electoral process by preventing the exercise of the people’s franchise, in the absence of some clear showing of invalidity [citations]” (Brosnahan v. Eu (1982) 31 Cal.3d 1, 4, 181 Cal.Rptr. 100, 641 P.2d 200 (Brosnahan I )), subsequent decisions have explained that this general rule applies primarily when a challenge rests upon the alleged unconstitutionality of the substance of the proposed initiative, and that the rule does not preclude preelection review when the challenge is based upon a claim, for example, that the proposed measure may not **1096 properly be submitted to the voters because the measure is not legislative in character or because it amounts to a constitutional revision rather an amendment. (See, e.g., American Federation of Labor v. Eu (1984) 36 Cal.3d 687, 695–697, 206 Cal.Rptr. 89, 686 P.2d 609 [granting preelection relief when initiative measure violated article V of the federal Constitution and exceeded the scope of the initiative power]; Legislature v. Deukmejian (1983) 34 Cal.3d 658, 665–667, 194 Cal.Rptr. 781, 669 P.2d 17 [granting preelection relief when initiative measure violated one-reapportionment-per-decade rule]; see also McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 196 P.2d 787 [granting preelection relief when initiative measure in its entirety constituted a constitutional revision rather than an amendment]; Boyd v. Jordan (1934) 1 Cal.2d 468, 35 P.2d 533 [granting preelection relief when initiative petition failed to contain accurate short title as required by statute]; Clark v. Jordan (1936) 7 Cal.2d 248, 60 P.2d 457 [granting preelection relief in circumstances similar to Boyd v. Jordan ].)
Senate of State of Cal. v. Jones, 21 Cal. 4th 1142, 1153, 988 P.2d 1089, 1095-96, 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 810, 818, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12508, 1999 WL 1133578 (1999)
July 28, 2011, 2:10 pmFub says:
I think your question is answered in the case cited above, City of San Diego v. Dunkl, (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 384, 389:
July 28, 2011, 2:16 pmcampanile says:
A constitutional battle over this would’ve been painful: Foreskin and seven years ago our fathers brought forth etc the proposition that all men are created equal and so forth.
July 28, 2011, 2:22 pmA. Zarkov says:
Does this ban have any practical importance? Parents who want their boy circumcised can simply travel to anyone of many nearby cities. None would be so foolish as to pass such an ordinance except for Berkeley. Berkeley once tried to outlaw electro-shock therapy, but got slapped down by the state for the same reasons. San Francisco and Berkeley are the Gog and Magog of the Bay Area.
* Gog and Magog are evil creatures that appear in Ezekiel, and Revelations 20:7-9.
Gog and Magog are also the evil robots under the control of a foreign power in the 1954 science fiction movie Gog.
July 28, 2011, 2:59 pmA. Zarkov says:
You can watch the whole Gog movie for free, here. Got good reviews. A lot of fun.
July 28, 2011, 3:04 pmAnthony says:
Well, even trivial-to-bypass barriers have some effect, and if you had the baby in a SF hospital, being forced to go to a different place for the circumcision is enough of an obstacle that a fair number of people won’t do it.
On the issue of non-doctors doing circumcisions, I wonder if they’re still regulated as medical procedures by the state. They probably should be.
July 28, 2011, 3:10 pmYankev says:
Painful indeed. “Who puns thus would pick my pocket!” – Patrick O’Brian.
But thanks for the tip.
July 28, 2011, 3:15 pmSteve says:
Your thought process reminds me of Justice Scalia’s dissent in Gonzales v. Oregon, where he opined that John Ashcroft’s view of what constitutes a “legitimate medical purpose” was more important than the view of actual medical professionals. My view is that if doctors see it as a medical procedure, I’m not going to argue with them.
July 28, 2011, 3:31 pmNobody Really says:
My understanding is that the ban would also apply to those who transport a minor outside of the city to have the procedure.
July 28, 2011, 4:39 pmRKV says:
You wouldn’t apply logic like “travel to anyone of many nearby cities” to the first amendment. Nor should such logic apply here.
July 28, 2011, 5:01 pmMenshevik says:
A. Zarkov: if San Francisco and Berkeley are the Gog and Magog of the Bay Area, what is Oakland?
July 28, 2011, 5:47 pmMikeR says:
I don’t suppose that I’m the only one amused that a severability question arose on these facts?
July 28, 2011, 5:47 pmYankev says:
Now cut that out!
July 28, 2011, 5:58 pmCrunchy Frog says:
Let’s not make mountains out of mohels here.
July 28, 2011, 6:01 pmJoshL says:
I’m convinced that half the reason circumcision threads are popular here is to keep the constant stream of witty puns intact.
July 28, 2011, 6:13 pmA. Zarkov says:
I didn’t know that. I thought it only applied to the procedure, and the persons performing the procedure. Not the parents. If San Francisco were to pass an ordinance saying the residents of the city can’t eat hamburgers (quite possible for SF); does that mean the city could apply that to someone who left the city to buy a hamburger in San Rafael? “Guilty of transporting a minor child to eat a hamburger– 30 years at hard labor.”
Suppose someone had two residences, one in San Francisco and one in another city. In California one can have more than one residence, but only one domicile. In a bizarre ruling a California appellate court decided that a minor child can have rotating domiciles. The case involved Safeco Insurance company and a minor child in joint custody who went back and forth between the parents on a weekly basis.
July 28, 2011, 6:19 pmA. Zarkov says:
I was afraid someone would ask me that. As I once lived in Oakland for a number of years, I should have a good answer. Any suggestions?
July 28, 2011, 6:23 pmMenshevik says:
A. Zarkov:
I was afraid someone would ask me that. As I once lived in Oakland for a number of years, I should have a good answer. Any suggestions?
I can’t think of a suitably scary yet incompetent monster. Maybe a dyslexic Mothra.
July 28, 2011, 6:29 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Thanks for the link! We’ll probably watch that tomorrow night. Recently saw “Colossus: the Forbin Project” and spent the entire movie after about the first 15 seconds saying WHOEVER THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA??!!
July 28, 2011, 6:34 pmFub says:
Gomer. First son of Japeth. Magog was the second.
If you start making the movie quickly, maybe Andy Griffith is still available.
July 28, 2011, 6:51 pmMDJD from NY says:
Amalek?
July 28, 2011, 7:00 pmFub says:
What’s not to like about a computer that orders its system programmers executed?
Apps programmers wrestling with CDC SCOPE OS to get their jobs run (Forbin Project extensively used CDC gear in filming) thought it was a great idea.
July 28, 2011, 7:07 pmJason D McClain says:
I am a resident of San Francisco, and have been for, well, most of my life. I love The City. The food. The weather. The level of tolerance. The gorgeous women in their late 20s, 30s, and 40s who seem to be very comfortable with themselves and their …
*ahem* sorry, got distracted.
And, f8kc the politics drive me batty.
While I get this one is tricky on many fronts, what I do not understand is that circumcision has been clearly demonstrated to radically reduce HIV infection. I have not really seen or heard this variable/issue in the discussions/discourse.
Seems like a no-brainer for SF ::: as a matter of public safety, they should allow parents to choose as they please on this matter.
1 in 4 men in San Francisco are HIV+. You would think they would be endeavoring to stay out of the way of a procedure that may reduce that shocking percentage.
You would also think they would let people have their religious and spiritual preferences [if that comes into play].
I just don’t get it.
What … are they bored? [referring to the Board of Supervisors in SF].
July 28, 2011, 7:29 pmA. Zarkov says:
Gomer is good. I like it.
July 28, 2011, 7:38 pmPhil says:
Who knew that Foreskin Man is vunerable to state law preemption? I’m guessing that the villain in the next issue will be an “evil judge”.
July 28, 2011, 7:41 pmA. Zarkov says:
The first 7 minutes of Gog are really well done and scary. It’s a pretty creative movie.
I liked the Forbin Project a lot. Did you know that something like Guardian actually exists? It’s called “Dead Hand” and was put in operation in the 1980s in the Soviet Union. A fail deadly system designed to almost automatically retaliate in a nuclear war with little or no human interference.
July 28, 2011, 7:43 pmPeter B says:
How about Gath or one of the other Philistine city-states for Oakland?
Proof text: 1 Samuel 13:17 “And [R]aiders came out of the camp of the Philistines.”
July 28, 2011, 7:45 pmArthur Kirkland says:
At least we could get something for San Francisco. We would need to pay someone to take Alabama, Mississippi, Utah, South Carolina, Wyoming, Oklahoma, or some other states off our hands.
July 28, 2011, 8:08 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
WHOEVER THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA?
July 28, 2011, 8:17 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
There were some things about the Forbin movie to like. It’s just that the main premise is so utterly stupid. No back door to shut the thing off. No testing was done. It was put in control of all the missile silos and things before it was ever even switched on the first time.
One understands a certain amount of nonsense or there’d be no plot. But I also get irked at Star Trek episodes where we’re apparently going to forget all about circuit breakers (how many people have been fried on the bridge?) and safety belts or hanging straps. Can we not assume just even a minimal amount of self-preservation instinct?
July 28, 2011, 8:21 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I remember a Dilbert cartoon where he was setting up his new computer. It booted up and did some stuff, and then it said, “I found your credit card number and I’m ordering some things we need.” The next frame has him jerking the plug out of the wall. That’s what I’m talking about. Of course, a laptop with wireless internet and a battery …
July 28, 2011, 8:24 pmTomB says:
And the other half are incredibly insecure guys who like to scream “MALE GENITAL MUTILATION!!11!one!eleventy!!!
July 28, 2011, 8:24 pmPhil says:
By the way, is this state law preempting the proposed ordinance the same one that was passed to stop cities from outlawing cat declawing? The reference to Jan 1, 2010 made me think of that. If I remember right, some cities(including San Fran, I think) were able to pass such ordinances before the law went into effect.
July 28, 2011, 8:41 pmpmorem says:
(my bold)
I suspect that there is an element of denial, to the point of willful rejection of that involved here.
July 28, 2011, 8:51 pmGiant Frog says:
reserves the regulation of medical procedures to the state
It did seem strange for a city to pass laws about medical procedures, regardless of their barbarity, uselessness and stone-cold perverse silliness.
You forgot “incredibly anti-semitic” as well as insecure – but those guys, pitiful as they are, can’t hold a candle to N.O.W. – those gals are so insecure and anti-semitic that they have to operate at the federal level to appease their faulty emotions, rather than at the demeaningly grass-rootsy local level. So two!twelvety!!! for them I suppose.
July 28, 2011, 8:55 pmA. Zarkov says:
The Politboro.
For all the carping in the 1980s from the left that Ronald Reagan was a reckless cowboy, it was the Soviets that put in place a fail-deadly system. Something akin to a Doomsday Machine. Not only that, they kept it a secret. In the famous words of Dr. Strangelove: “Why did you not tell the world.”
July 28, 2011, 9:02 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Well, what good is a doomsday machine if you don’t tell the world about it?
MAD only works if you convince the other side that you may lose, but they sure as hell won’t win.
July 28, 2011, 9:30 pmGuy says:
Because the premier likes surprises, duh. Are you sure you watched the movie?
July 28, 2011, 9:54 pmGuy says:
Bizarre how none of the “intactivists” is quoted trying to distance themselves from that. Then again, it’s really hard to credit claims that this isn’t motivated by antisemitism when it doesn’t make an exception for religious circumcision.
July 28, 2011, 9:59 pmA. Zarkov says:
MAD is like two guys playing chicken with their cars. You get the Doomsday Machine when one of them throws his steering wheel out the window.
July 28, 2011, 10:16 pmA. Zarkov says:
Well sure. The premier was waiting for the Party Congress to make the announcement, but Strangelove didn’t know that.
Probably watched the movie at least a dozen times. I have the DVD too.
BTW Ronald Reagan, and I think some other presidents thought there really was a room with “The Big Board” somewhere under the White House, and was sorely disappointed to find out that the whole thing was made up.
From Wikipedia
July 28, 2011, 10:27 pmReaderY says:
Agree the issue of severability should have been discussed. If it had been discussed, I believe the inevitable conclusion would be that that the rump scope of applicability left over after severing out the medical profession would be completely lacking in generality by anyone’s definition. It would be targeted essentially exclusively at religiously motivated circumcisions and hence at religion. It would therefore fail Free Exercise Clause review under Smith. ,
And ReaderY predicted this outcome.
July 28, 2011, 11:09 pmjuris imprudent says:
Yeah, I really don’t get what the flap is all about.
July 29, 2011, 12:08 amAnatid says:
They are also creatures available to Inferno cities in the unforgettable game, Heroes of Might and Magic III. Gog throws fireballs and Magog throws explosive fireballs that damage not just the target but also any surrounding creatures. True fact!
The only way to win is not to play.
July 29, 2011, 2:58 amtfkw says:
Thought experiment: What if San Francisco engaged in the time-honored Californian practice of falling back on labeling laws?
“Dr. Smith is not a signatory to this city’s voluntary ban on child genital mutilation, a practice known to the City of San Francisco as _____.”
July 29, 2011, 5:13 amBuck Turgidson says:
Put a lid on it!
July 29, 2011, 6:18 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Of course, they had to say that.
July 29, 2011, 8:09 amPunkinheadDelux says:
No, you’re mistaken. The proposed ban only applied to anyone attempting to perform a circumcision within the city. You may be thinking of the for female genital mutilation.
July 29, 2011, 10:25 amPunkinheadDelux says:
Maybe you should do more homework. The reduction is not “radical” and only applies to transmission from female to male. Circumcision has no effect on male to male transmission and was even found to increase transmission from males to females.
Besides, babies are not sexually active and don’t need protection from sexually transmitted diseases. Once he’s old enough to become sexually active he can weigh the pros and cons for himself.
July 29, 2011, 10:31 amPunkinheadDelux says:
Since about 95% of circumcisions performed in the US are non-religious, a blanket ban would be an incredibly inefficient way to be anti-semitic, don’t you think? It’s motivated by a concern for the human rights of all children to be free from unnecessary genital cutting. If we said we care about the rights of all babies except Jewish babies, then you could accuse us of anti-semitism.
July 29, 2011, 10:40 amNMH says:
I think you’re confusing “medical” with “medically necessary”. The cutting of flesh with a knife by a doctor is indisputably medical, whether it is necessary is separate.
July 29, 2011, 10:52 amloki13 says:
Actually, many of us accuse the majority of you of things like hysteria and abrogating the rights of families. We only accuse the subset of those who publish and condone, inter alia, Foreskin Man of anti-semitism.
July 29, 2011, 11:06 amPunkinheadDelux says:
Haven’t seen a single person here condone Foreskin man, and I’m pretty sure his creator isn’t on this blog, and yet every single thread about circumcision has had comments accusing intactivists of anti-semitism. Exaggerate much?
And last I checked, the Constitution protected individual rights. Not group, or “family” rights.
July 29, 2011, 12:11 pmloki13 says:
Haven’t seen you go out of your way to distance yourself from it, instead just seeing a bunch of excuses. I don’t hold people up to the standard of the lowest common denominator of their group, but an *intactivist* like you should probably do better than just say that there isn’t any anti-semitism when there is evidence like that, instead of brushing it aside by saying “Yes, it would end your religious practice, but we’ll also get some other people as well!”
Sure. The Constitution totally allows the government telling parents what languages their children can and can’t learn and how they should raise their children. Because it takes a village to raise a child, and since the child has individual rights, it’s up the government to raise them. Makes sense to me, oh arbiter of freedom!
July 29, 2011, 12:21 pmNobody Really says:
I definitely saw it reported, although Google only gives me this, which is sourced to the AP.
The fact that it was reported, however, doesn’t mean it was accurate.
July 29, 2011, 12:55 pmJoe says:
While I get this one is tricky on many fronts, what I do not understand is that circumcision has been clearly demonstrated to radically reduce HIV infection. I have not really seen or heard this variable/issue in the discussions/discourse.
I saw the issue mentioned on another legal blog talking about this topic though “clearly demonstrated to radically reduce HIV infection” was not how strongly it was put. Sounds a tad strong. And, as noted above, babies don’t spread HIV infections that way.
I do think parents should have the discretion to choose here. I just think this lays it on a tad thick.
July 29, 2011, 12:56 pmNobody Really says:
So he is only old enough to be sexually active at 18?
July 29, 2011, 12:58 pmPunkinheadDelux says:
Your link doesn’t mention a travel ban, but here is a link to the actual wording of the SF bill. No travel ban.
July 29, 2011, 1:12 pmPunkinheadDelux says:
In my house, yes. But if you want to tell your sexually active minor he doesn’t need to worry about condoms once he’s circumcised that’s up to you.
July 29, 2011, 1:15 pmyankev says:
Um, a Netflix commercial?
July 29, 2011, 1:24 pmloki13 says:
Actually, by your previous reasoning, it’s up to the government- not the parents.
Sex (liberty) might be a basic human right that you shouldn’t, as a parent, interfere with. Remember- it’s not what you value, and what you want your kids to do; it’s what other people think is best for them.
July 29, 2011, 1:26 pmHouse Mouse says:
Did you hear the one about the wallet made out of foreskins?
July 29, 2011, 1:28 pmA quick shuffle between the hands and it turns into a briefcase.
PunkinheadDelux says:
Are you referring to my joke about my child not being old enough for sexual activity? Because my previous and current reasoning all leave the circumcision decision up to the individual. Not his parents or the government.
And you finally got something right – sex (liberty) is a basic human right that parents shouldn’t interfere with. We don’t have the right to determine the type of sexual protection, method of birth control, sexual practices, or partners for our children. We can arm them with the best information available, but ultimately it’s up to them to make their own decisions.
July 29, 2011, 1:33 pmloki13 says:
Awesome. Personally, as a parent, I will have something to both say and do if I find my five year old engaged in sexual practices with another child. I guess I am less libertine than you.
July 29, 2011, 1:41 pmloki13 says:
As an aside, as a parent, I circumscribe (as opposed to circumcise) my children’s liberty all the time. Where they go. When they go to bed. Sometimes… even if they’re allowed out of the house or their room! Horrors!
I’m just violating the Constitution left and right.
July 29, 2011, 1:43 pmYankev says:
Some parents have even been known to tell their children what the children may say and what they may not. Or even what they must.
Being open minded is fine until you reach the point where your brains start falling out. Whether pumpkins reach that point sooner I cannot say.
July 31, 2011, 5:21 pmBeldar says:
San Francisco mohelim rejoice!
July 31, 2011, 6:30 pmNobody Really says:
Of course it is not an issue what I tell my children, because you want to get to decide how I raise my children.
Any objections to ear piercings, or are some deformations suddenly not “human rights” anymore?
August 1, 2011, 10:31 amentropy says:
That is a mighty broad brush you are painting with. The fact that circumcision is a tradition in the Jewish community does not remotely enter into my belief that its practice contrary to basic principles of human rights. Do I have to sanction each and every practice of orthodox Judaism to pass your “anti-Semite” sniff test?
August 4, 2011, 2:45 pm