Judge Orders Circumcision Measure Removed from Ballot

[4chunut1]

This was supposed to appear on the ballot in San Francisco in November, as petitioners had enough signatures to insure that.  Now a judge says not so fast...  Here's the link:

http://www.baycitizen.org/courts/story/judge-orders-circumcision-measure/ 

For every two steps forward in the intactivism fight, there is a step back.  Not only do we have to convice the medical community of the harm of circumcision in a physical and sexual sense, but there are formidable obstacles from certain religious, political, and now, judicial organizations.  Why they cannot see this as a clear human rights violation that also applies to boys is very strange.  Girls have already been protected by law from genitial mutilation...boys, still awaiting those protections.   The fight must continue...

[philomom]

I'm not a Fbook member, I'll have to rely on some of you to make good comments.

[japonica]

Originally Posted by 4chunut1 

This was supposed to appear on the ballot in San Francisco in November, as petitioners had enough signatures to insure that.  Now a judge says not so fast...  Here's the link:

http://www.baycitizen.org/courts/story/judge-orders-circumcision-measure/ 

For every two steps forward in the intactivism fight, there is a step back.  Not only do we have to convice the medical community of the harm of circumcision in a physical and sexual sense, but there are formidable obstacles from certain religious, political, and now, judicial organizations.  Why they cannot see this as a clear human rights violation that also applies to boys is very strange.  Girls have already been protected by law from genitial mutilation...boys, still awaiting those protections.   The fight must continue...

I think this is the most mind boggling thing for me personally. If you say that it's NOT okay to alter a minor's genitals of one sex, why is it perfectly fine and legal for the other? I'm surprised cases haven't been brought up on this...this is an inequality according to the law based solely on sex of the individual. 

I know I've had a few discussions with pro-circ individuals about this and I've mentioned this contradiction and hypocrisy. Either you're for genital alteration for ALL minors (ugh, which would mean they should go out there and lobby that any prohibitive FGM laws be struck down to make everyone equal--ha, as if they would) or you acknowledge that minors of BOTH sexes MUST be protected under the law. You can't discriminate in this manner. 

"That's different," I've been told. Is it really?

[QueenOfTheMeadow]

I have removed numerous posts from this thread. We do not allow discusion of religion in ths forum. Some new time members may not be aware of this, so please familiarize yourselves with the forum guidelines stickied on the top of the forum. For those of you who have been here longer, .

[To-Fu]

I have just deleted several more posts discussing religion.  As QueenoftheMeadow already said, please (re-)familiarize yourself with the TCAC-specific rule stickied at the top of the forum.  Discussion of religion is not welcome here. If it continues to reappear in this thread, it will need to be locked. 

As you were!

[LonelyPageTurnr]

I'm willing to discuss this issue in the appropriate forum, if anyone is interested.  This is not an attempt to violate the rules, but if people are interested, I don't mind having the discussion.

[serendipity22]

I don't understand how it can be appropriate for a judge to stop the ballot.

If there had been a valid reason to do so, it would have needed to be done a long time ago.

Having come this far, it would have been better to allow its course.

Methinks the judge caved under pressure and the decision is inappropriate  = unfair = corrupt = stinks.