Intactivism is the belief in the right of baby boys to keep their foreskins intact, and there's a movement to legally ban circumcision. After introducing legislation last year, a San Francisco-based group of intactivists opposing male circumcision has collected enough signatures for a ballot initiative next November on whether to bar the practice in the city. "It's excruciatingly painful and permanently damaging surgery that's forced on men when they're at their weakest and most vulnerable," said Lloyd Schofield, one of the chief opponents.
The ordinance would outlaw the procedure throughout San Francisco, making it a crime to circumcise a boy before he is 18 years of age, even for religious reasons; the only exception would be for "compelling and immediate medical need." Schofield's group submitted approximately 12,000 signatures supporting the proposed ban. But experts say that even if such a measure were to pass, it would likely be quickly overturned as an unconstitutional attack on religious freedom. "The practice of Judaism requires a boy to be circumcised. I suspect the California courts would ultimately require the city to demonstrate the practice is harmful. I don't think there's sufficient medical evidence that it is, which would place the law's constitutionality in question," said Jennifer Rothman, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
The intactivist movement has been gaining steam for several years; back in 2005, NYC health officials began questioning some aspects to the circumcision tradition after a mohel was accused of transmitting herpes to three baby boys, killing one. Intactivists criticized Mayor Bloomberg for compromising public safety "to curry favor with the Orthodox Jewish community," and called on the city to regulate circumcision, arguing that it violates children's rights. However, in 2007, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene went in the other direction, promoting circumcision as a way to reduce the spread of AIDS (though Bloomberg distanced himself somewhat from the initiative).
Despite the worldwide campaign, the rate of circumcision among American baby boys declined over the last half of the 00s decade. It's an issue that is still protected in NYC, but is always controversial—NY Magazine had a feature on the practice a few years ago, with more pros and cons to peruse. It's highly unlikely any such measure could gain a foothold here...but then again, who would have thought we'd follow in San Francisco's footsteps by trying to neuter Happy Meals?
