JNN 18 June 2011 : There is plenty of reason to oppose the ban on its own merits. There is no need for a law: if people do not believe in circumcision, they should not have it done to themselves or their children. And even if there were to be a circumcision ban, this one is poorly constructed because of the well-founded religious objections that are being raised.

The anticircumcision debate began in April when a group of self-proclaimed “intactivists” — people who believe strongly that infant boys have a right to keep their foreskins intact — submitted enough signatures to put a circumcision ban on the ballot. The intactivists have taken up the language of international human rights: they are fighting, they say, for “genital autonomy” and “male-genital-integrity rights.” Framed this way, it seemed like an appropriately earnest next step for a city that last year banned any kind of Happy Meal that paired toy giveaways with fast food.

The intactivists argue that circumcision needlessly inflicts pain on newborns, and they compare it to female genital mutilation — which is, in fact, a far more serious procedure. (Female genital mutilation can produce severe harm, including infertility and an increased risk of newborn deaths.)

Still, the drafters of the San Francisco referendum could have avoided the religious issue — and kept the focus on the harms and benefits of circumcision — if they had included an exception for circumcisions done for religious reasons. Jews, whose religious traditions require male children to be circumcised eight days after birth, and Muslims, who also practice circumcision, are a small part of the city’s population.

 Instead, the referendum expressly states that the ban would apply equally to religious circumcisions. If it passes, Jewish parents in San Francisco who hold a traditional bris, or circumcision ritual, could be sentenced to a year in jail.

This strict policy certainly seems insensitive. Jews who circumcise their sons trace the tradition back thousands of years. It is a sign, they believe, of a covenant with God, and an affirmation that the Jewish people will survive. There are accounts of circumcisions performed in the direst of circumstances, including in concentration camps. The intactivists aren’t swayed by such arguments and insist it’s gone on long enough.

Claims of insensitivity, however, have recently turned into charges of outright anti-Semitism. One of the referendum’s key supporters has written a comic book, Foreskin Man, that portrays a blond, Aryan-looking superhero doing battle with “Monster Mohel.” (Mohels are people trained to perform ritual Jewish circumcisions.) The bearded, prayer-shawl-wearing mohel leers manically at defenseless infants. As one rabbi blogger put it, “Hey San Francisco, 1930’s Germany Called — They Want Their Anti-Semitic Propaganda Back!”

If the referendum passes, it is unclear whether it would survive a constitutional challenge. The First Amendment protects people against laws that unduly interfere with their religious rituals. The question is, How would the courts see this particular interference?

In 1972, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Amish parents to not send their children to school past the eighth grade. Yet more recently, it held that the “free exercise” clause does not protect Native Americans who want to engage in ritual use of peyote, an illegal drug. Under the logic of the peyote case, the ban could well survive. The ban could also be challenged under California’s state constitution, which might contain broader religious protections than the U.S. Constitution.

On one level, the stakes in the San Francisco vote are small. If the referendum passes, parents can easily take their children out of the city to be circumcised. The danger, though, is that intactivism could spread — and that more localities, and eventually states, will enact bans.

On the other hand, the intactivist movement could come to a quick end. Last week, an activist who had been collecting signatures to put a similar referendum on the ballot in Santa Monica, Calif., announced that she was halting her effort because, she said, a cause that was not intended to be about religion had become a religious issue.

U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman will introduce a bill to prevent cities from banning male circumcision, the California lawmaker’s office said.Sherman’s bill, which his office announced Tuesday, comes in response to a measure that qualified recently for the November ballot in San Francisco that would outlaw the circumcision of males under the age of 18, making it punishable by a $1,000 fine and a one-year prison term.

The congressman said it was also a reaction a comic book called “Foreskin Man,” which gained notoriety earlier this month for its depictions of a handsome hero battling against a hook-nosed “Monster Mohel” to prevent a baby boy’s circumcision.

“I became aware that this was going to be a San Francisco ballot measure and I said hey, I have to do something about this,” Sherman, a Jewish Democrat, told JTA. “Then I saw this outrageous comic book and decided I need to make it a priority.”

Sherman said the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011 will ensure Jewish and Muslim families will be able to enjoy the free exercise of their religious beliefs. Judaism and Islam are the two major religions that practice male circumcision as a religious ceremony.

“This could happen in any city,” Sherman said of the ballot measure. “This ought to be stopped statewide and it ought to be stopped nationwide.”

Sherman, whose congressional district is in the Los Angeles area, pointed to studies in the medical community that show the health benefits of circumsion.

“To infringe the religious rights of so many Americans, San Francisco should have some compelling medical reason,” he said. “However, the medical literature actually shows clear benefits of male circumcision. Congress has a legitimate interest in making sure that a practice that appears to reduce disease and health care costs remains available to parents.”

Sherman said the bill currently has one co-sponsor, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the first Muslim elected to Congress. Sherman said he expects to pick up a number of additional co-sponsors and plans to introduce the bill within the next week.

A similar effort to put a circumcision ban on the ballot in Santa Monica, Calif., was dropped last week.