San Francisco Circumcision Ban Unconstitutional, Professor Says

Submitted by anthony on Tue, 2010-11-16 15:48

Article here. Excerpt:

'San Francisco can have its proposed circumcision ban, or it can have the First Amendment. But it can't have both. That's the opinion of Peter Keane, dean emeritus at Golden Gate University School of Law and a constitutional law professor.

The potential ballot measure is the brainchild of Lloyd Schofield, an anti-circumcision crusader and foreskin-regeneration activist. While he has said he hopes his potential ballot measure leads to "a flood of legislation protecting baby boys from forced genital mutilation," Keane says 80 years of Supreme Court cases will, ahem, nip that in the bud.

"It's not Constitutional. It would be a violation of the First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion -- religions like Judaism that require [circumcision] as an essential part of the belief system."'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

"The religion argument doesn't hold up. Simply put, if my religion said I had to amputate a baby's left arm shortly after birth, would I still be permitted to do so under Amend 1? There you have it. Point is, acts of *speech* and *worship* are allowed _provided they do not harm others_. The limit on any right is hit when it brings injury to another person, especially measurable injury. The satisfaction of circumcising one's child is hardly measurable against the loss of function and feeling that a circumcision inflicts on males. Case closed, professor."

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2010-11-17 02:25