BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
AB 768 (Gatto and Ma)
As Amended August 15, 2011
Hearing Date: August 23, 2011
Fiscal: No
Urgency: Yes
RD
SUBJECT
Male Circumcision
DESCRIPTION
This urgency bill would bar any city, county, or city and county
from prohibiting or restricting the practice of male
circumcision, or the exercise of parental authority to have a
child circumcised. This bill would also make legislative
findings.
BACKGROUND
While male circumcision is considered a commandment from God in
Judaism, and is also routinely practiced by Muslims, male
circumcision is now also widely practiced by many others in the
United States for social reasons, as well as hygiene or other
health-related reasons. Though now in the minority worldwide,
circumcised men remain the vast majority in the United States.
(Ogilvie, The Debate over Circumcising Baby Boys, L.A. Times
July 11, 2011 �as of August 17, 2011].)
To date, many major medical associations have not yet taken a
position on routine male circumcision. The American Academy of
Pediatrics (AAP) states that circumcision has both risks and
benefits and further states that parents should be given all the
information available to make an informed decision as to whether
to circumcise their children or not. (AAP website,
�as of August 17, 2011].)
(Note: the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is
(more)
AB 768 (Gatto and Ma)
Page 2 of ?
currently working on a recommendation on the practice of
circumcision, but no such recommendation has been released as of
the writing of this analysis.)
In 2004, a coalition of individuals opposed to the practice of
male circumcision sought to introduce a bill in Congress called
the "Male Genital Mutilation Bill." (MGM Bill, Press Release
February 23, 2004, available at
�as of August 17, 2011].)
Since that time, similar measures have been proposed in various
localities, including a recent initiative proposed in San
Francisco, as further discussed below.
In 2011, sufficient signatures were gathered to qualify the
placement of an initiative on the November ballot in San
Francisco to ban the practice of male circumcision, also coined
as "Male Genital Mutilation" by proponents of the ban, comparing
the practice of male circumcision with female genital mutilation
(FGM), which is prohibited by state and federal statute. (Pen.
Code Sec. 273.4; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 116; See Comment 3b for a
discussion of the practice of FGM.) Specifically, the proposed
San Francisco measure would have made the practice of
circumcision a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to
$1,000 or up to one year in jail. The measure did not provide
for religious exemptions. (SF MGM Bill, available at
�as of August 17,
2011].) In Santa Monica, sufficient signatures were also
obtained to place a similar measure on the ballot, but the
measure was later removed voluntarily. Together, these
initiatives represent part of a greater movement to ban male
circumcision.
Separate from this bill, opponents of the San Francisco male
circumcision ban filed suit in Superior Court, seeking the
removal of the measure from the November ballot. The American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the San Francisco City
Attorney's Office both filed amicus briefs in favor of removing
the measure from the ballot. On July 28, 2011, several weeks
after the introduction of this bill, a San Francisco Superior
Court judge ruled in favor of the male circumcision ban's
opponents, removing the measure from the November ballot. The
judge's ruling states that "the proposed ballot Initiative is
expressly preempted by California Business and Professions
�Code] �460(b). The evidence presented is overwhelmingly
persuasive that circumcision is a widely practiced medical
procedure. California Business and Professions Code �460(b)
AB 768 (Gatto and Ma)
Page 3 of ?
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 �of] statewide concern. Because the proposed
ballot initiative attempts to regulate a medical procedure, the
proposed ordinance is expressly preempted." (Jewish Community
Relations Council of San Francisco, et al v. John Arntz, in his
official capacity as Director of Elections, et al, available at
�as of August 17,
2011].)
In making legislative findings in favor of the health benefits
of male circumcision and in order to clarify existing law's
prohibition against local authority to regulate medical
practices, this bill would expressly preclude any prohibition or
restriction of the practice of male circumcision or the exercise
of parental authority with respect to male circumcision through
any city, county, or city and county statute, ordinance,
regulation, or administrative action. In order to ensure
uniform application of male circumcision laws throughout the
state, this bill expressly provides that it shall apply to
general law and charter cities, general law and charter
counties, and charter city and counties. The bill also
reaffirms parental authority to make decisions as to male
circumcision.
AB 768 includes an urgency clause and would take effect
immediately.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , the U.S. Constitution, provides in part that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (U.S.
Const., 1st Amend, as applied to the states through the 14th
Amendment's Due Process Clause; See Cantwell v. Connecticut
(1940) 310 U.S. 296 and Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
U.S. 330 U.S. 1.)
Existing law , the California Constitution, provides that free
exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or
preference are guaranteed. Existing law also specifies that
AB 768 (Gatto and Ma)
Page 4 of ?
this liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are
licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the
State. Existing law also provides that the Legislature shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion. (Cal.
Const. Art. 1, sec. 4.)
Existing law , the U.S. Constitution, prohibits any state or
local government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of the law. (U.S. Const., 14th
Amend., Sec. 1.) Existing case law recognizes that the due
process clause protects "a realm of personal liberty which the
government may not enter," including the right of parents to
direct the upbringing of their children. Planned Parenthood v.
Casey (1992) 505 U.S. 833, 847. Existing case law also holds
that "the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control
of their children . . . is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental
liberty interests." Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57, 65.
Existing law provides that no city, county, or city and county
shall prohibit a healing arts professional licensed with the
state, as specified, from engaging in any act or performing any
procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope
of practice of that licensee. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 460(b).)
Existing law , criminalizes the practice of female genital
mutilation, as defined as the excision or infibulation of the
labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, or vulva, performed for
nonmedical purposes. (Pen. Code Sec. 273.4.)
This bill would provide that no city or county, or city and
county statute, ordinance, regulation or any administrative
action may prohibit or restrict the practice of male
circumcision, or the exercise of a parent's authority to have a
child circumcised.
This bill would apply to general law and charter cities, general
law and charter counties, and charter city and counties as part
of a stated need to have uniform application of laws affecting
male circumcision throughout the state.
This bill would make related legislative findings.
This bill would go take effect immediately as an urgency
measure.
AB 768 (Gatto and Ma)
Page 5 of ?
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
There have been recent efforts by some to enact local
ordinances banning this very personal parental choice. A
local initiative in the City of San Francisco had qualified
for the ballot this November that would ban this otherwise
legal practice. A court ruled the initiative unconstitutional
and removed it from the ballot in San Francisco. . . . AB 768
seeks to nullify such a ban in the event the San Francisco
initiative passes this coming November, by occupying the field
at the state level as it pertains to male circumcision. This
measure would further serve to prevent anyone from trying to
introduce a similar initiative either in San Francisco or
anywhere else in the State, and would save money in legal
costs by eliminating the need for lawsuits challenging the
constitutionality of such measures if they are brought up in
other localities. Even if the courts keep the San Francisco
initiative off the ballot, AB 768 would effectively prevent
future attempts to qualify similar initiatives that might be
drafted to answer the courts' concerns, again saving money in
legal costs for the future court challenges that would come as
a result of such redrafted measures.
The ACLU writes that it supports AB 768 "because it clarifies
that existing law preempts local ordinances banning or
restricting circumcision and it is important because of the
fundamental rights at stake. . . . A local ban or
criminalization of male circumcision interferes with the
parents' right to direct the medical treatment and religious
upbringing of their children."
The California Medical Association (CMA) writes:
�T]he CMA has long endorsed the concept of newborn
circumcision as an effective public health measure. Numerous
studies and clinical trials have associated male circumcision
with a lower risk for HIV and HPV infection and, to some
extent, transmission. While, like many medical procedures,
there are some risks, serious complications are rare. Despite
the varying opinions on the benefits and risks of the
procedure, the CMA is generally concerned �with] any local
jurisdictions passing an ordinance that will interfere with
AB 768 (Gatto and Ma)
Page 6 of ?
the practice of medicine. The decision to perform such a
medical procedure should be left up to the parents in
consultation with their physician.
2. Freedom of religion
This bill would prohibit local governments from banning the
practice of male circumcision in an effort to ensure uniform
laws with respect to medical procedures throughout the state.
The bill also would have the effect of prohibiting interference
in the practice of religion insofar as male circumcision is a
tenet of that religion. As a result, it could be argued that
this bill potentially raises issues as to the constitutional
guarantees of freedom of religion.
The United States Constitution's First Amendment provides for
freedom of religion in that it states: "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof." Thus, the right to believe in and to
practice one's religion is encompassed in two parts reflected in
the language of the First Amendment: the establishment clause
and the free exercise clause.
Similarly, the California Constitution provides that "�t]he free
exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or
preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not
excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace
or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion." (Cal. Const. Art. 1,
sec. 4.)
Although the constitutionality of a statute is an issue for the
courts, for the reasons discussed below, it does not appear that
this bill would raise free exercise clause issues.
a. Free exercise clause
The free exercise clause, first applied to the states through
the due process clause of the 14th Amendment in Cantwell v.
Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296, is directed at individual
liberty and interpreted to provide that the government may not
compel or punish religious beliefs; all persons have the
individual liberty to think and believe in whatever they want.
(Erwin Chemerinksy, Constitutional Law Principles and
Policies (2006) 3rd Edition, pg. 1182; 1246.)
AB 768 (Gatto and Ma)
Page 7 of ?
By expressly precluding local governments from prohibiting or
restricting the practice of male circumcision, this bill does
not compel religious beliefs or practices, but instead
prohibits local governments from interfering with the free
exercise of religion by enacting ordinances or measures that
punish religious beliefs and practices that involve the
practice of male circumcision. As such, this bill arguably
does not directly raise issues with respect to the free
exercise clause.
b. Establishment clause
The establishment clause, first applied to the states through
the due process clause of the 14th Amendment in Everson v.
Board of Education (1947) U.S. 330 U.S. 1, "?appears more
directed at the government. The Supreme Court, however, has
explained that the establishment clause, too, protects
liberty." (Erwin Chemerinksy, Constitutional Law Principles
and Policies (2006) 3rd Edition, pg. 1182.) The clause
prohibits not just the establishment of an official state
religion, but also prevents the establishment of a preference
for one (or more) religion(s) over any others by the
government, or a preference for all religions over no
religion, the effect of which is to prevent not just the
creation of a state religion, but also to allow individuals
the utmost freedom to exercise the religion of their choice or
no religion at all.
Under current U.S. Supreme Court case law, if government
discriminates among religious groups, it violates the
establishment clause unless it meets the strict scrutiny test
(i.e. it must be justified by a compelling government interest
and the law must be narrowly tailored to achieving that goal
or interest). If there is no discrimination, the Supreme
Court has applied a three-part test first articulated in Lemon
v. Kurtzman (1971) instead of the strict scrutiny test. (403
U.S. 602.) Under the Lemon test, government violates the
establishment clause unless it meets the following: "First,
the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second,
its principal or primary effect must be one that neither
advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not
foster an excessive government entanglement with religion."
(Id. at 612-3.)
AB 768 (Gatto and Ma)
Page 8 of ?
In other words, a statute fails the Lemon test if its primary
purpose is to advance religion, or if the principal effect is
to aid or inhibit religion, or if there is excessive
government entanglement with religion. With respect to the
California Constitution's guarantee against the establishment
of religion, California courts have likewise applied the Lemon
test (see e.g. California Educational Authority v. Priest
(1974) 12 Cal.3d 593; East Bay Asian Local Development Corp.
v. State of California (2000) 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 280).
Because AB 768 would generally recognize that male
circumcision has benefits and would protect the practice of
male circumcision from local government prohibition or
restrictions, and because this particular procedure is closely
tied to the practices and beliefs of both the Jewish and
Muslim religions, the issue may arise as to whether the
proposed statute would violate the establishment clause of the
First Amendment. Since the law is neither exclusive to those
religions nor facially lends preference to either of those
denominations over others, the relevant test to determine
whether there is any violation of the establishment clause is
the Lemon Test; strict scrutiny does not appear to apply
because the bill is arguably a neutral law of general
applicability.
i. Whether the bill has a secular legislative purpose
Here, with respect to the first prong of the Lemon test, AB
768 arguably has a secular legislative purpose: as
reflected in the language of the bill itself, AB 768 seeks
to advance uniform laws regulating medical procedures
throughout the state. The reason male circumcision has
been specifically highlighted is to ensure clarity that
current law, Section 460(b) of the Business and Professions
Code applies to this procedure as well as any other medical
procedure within the scope of the profession, in light of
local efforts to circumvent the state legislative process
and prohibit that particular procedure. The author further
asserts that "the statute has a purely secular purpose in
that it (a) addresses a medical procedure and (b) makes no
reference to religion."
ii. Whether the primary effect of the bill is to advance
or inhibit religion
AB 768 (Gatto and Ma)
Page 9 of ?
With respect to the second prong of the Lemon test, the
primary effect of this bill is neither to aid nor inhibit
religion as it leaves the status quo in place and has the
primary effect of prohibiting inconsistent laws about a
particular medical procedure throughout the state. As
stated by the author, this bill merely "occupies the field
to regulate a medical practice, something �the state] has
done on countless other medical practices." Moreover,
Committee staff notes that the proposed statute would
arguably aid persons of non-Jewish or non-Muslim faith who
wish to circumcise their sons just as much as it would aid
persons of those faiths. Circumcision is a decision made
by many families for reasons wholly unrelated to religion,
but instead having to do with social concerns (for example,
wanting their sons to look like their friends in locker
rooms), hygiene benefits or other medical-related reasons.
iii. Whether the bill fosters an excessive government
entanglement with religion
Finally, with respect to the third prong of the Lemon test,
this bill does not appear to cause excessive government
entanglement with religion given the secular nature of the
bill. In making such a determination, the Supreme Court
has stated that "we must examine the character and purposes
of the institutions that are benefited, the nature of the
aid that the state provides, and the resulting relationship
between the government and the religious authority."
(Lemon, 403 U.S at 615.) Thus, the nature of the improper
aid does not have to be in the form of monetary funds; the
Court pointed to Justice Harlan's dissent in Walz v. Tax
Commission (1970) 397 U.S. 664, which "echoed the classic
warning as to 'programs, whose very nature is apt to
entangle the state in details of administration . . . . '"
(Id. (citation omitted).)
In the case of AB 768, the proposed statute arguably would
not result in excessive entanglement with religion as it
does not solely benefit Jewish and Muslim institutions;
religious institutions benefit frequently from general
laws, as they would in this case. The nature of the aid
that would be provided by the proposed statute appears to
be to both secular and non-secular groups, insofar as it
would prevent local government entanglement in the
restriction or prohibition of a medical procedure that is
currently being performed and available to the general
AB 768 (Gatto and Ma)
Page 10 of ?
public (i.e. including both religious and non-religious
persons who wish to have circumcision performed on their
sons), irrespective of their religion or lack thereof. As
such, proponents of this bill argue that AB 768 would
affect both secular and religiously-motivated
circumcisions, and constitutes a permissible, though not
mandatory, accommodation of religion.
The author would further argue that "�t]he state has long
regulated medical practices, but it does not inquire into
the religion of the person engaging in the practice. This
is no more an endorsement of religion than is the state's
tolerance and regulation of wine, which is used by many
Christians as a sacrament." To this end, Committee staff
notes that the bill does not result in the state becoming
further involved with circumcision as a practice any more
than it has been before, as there would be no need for
state administration or oversight of the practice of
circumcision as a result of this bill. Arguably, the bill
merely prohibits local government interference with the
performance of circumcision, which the court in San
Francisco has already indicted would violate the free
exercise clause of the First Amendment. (See Jewish
Community Relations Council of San Francisco, et al v. John
Arntz, in his official capacity as Director of Elections,
et al, available at
�as of
August 17, 2011].)
3. Parental rights
This bill would permit parents to continue to make decisions
about circumcision of their sons with their physician. Frequent
arguments made against male circumcision include that parents
should not be able to make this decision for their children in
light of the health risks, that male circumcision is in fact
more aptly described as Male Genital Mutilation and is the
equivalent of allowing parents to amputate appendages of
children without medical necessity or is analogous to the
outlawed practice of FGM (see Comment 3b). In support of male
circumcision, the argument is inversely made that parents have
the right to direct the upbringing of their children, including
not only making decisions based on religious beliefs, but also
making medical decisions for the child, and that the health
benefits of male circumcision are sufficient to allow parents to
AB 768 (Gatto and Ma)
Page 11 of ?
make this decision in consultation with their children's
doctors.
a. Preserving the right of parents to direct the upbringing
and medical treatment of their children
By explicitly stating that local governments may not restrict
or prohibit the practice of male circumcision, or the exercise
of parental authority with respect to the same, this bill not
only clarifies and reinforces existing law as to the authority
of the state to regulate medical procedures (see Comment 4),
but it also protects the fundamental interest of parents to
direct both the upbringing and the medical treatment of their
children, reinforcing what is already a matter of existing
constitutional law.
While proponents of a male circumcision ban argue for the
bodily rights of children who are unable to make this decision
for themselves and equate the practice to FGM or amputation of
any other body part without medical necessity, numerous
sources recognize medical benefits as well and parents often
must make the decision of treatment for their children,
despite any bodily autonomy rights of children, and in face of
potential risks. Moreover, doctors have an ethical obligation
to do no harm to their patients, and would not likely perform
a procedure on a child whose overall health would be clearly
harmed by the performance of the procedure. Committee staff
also notes, in Comment 3c below, the significant difference
between FGM and male circumcision, as well as premature
amputation of appendages.
In support of this bill, the ACLU argues that "�t]he
circumcision of male infants is a fundamental religious ritual
of the Jewish and Islamic faiths. Parents from these faiths
have a protected right to direct the 'religious upbringing and
education of their children in their early and formative
years.�'] Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 213-214 (1972).
Banning circumcisions would deny parents this right. A ban
would also interfere with parents' right to direct the medical
treatment of their children. According to the World Health
Organization, 'there is compelling evidence that male
circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV
infection in men by approximately 60%.'
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index/html"
It is well established by U.S. Supreme Court precedent that
AB 768 (Gatto and Ma)
Page 12 of ?
the U.S. Constitution prohibits any state or local government
from "depriving any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of the law." (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.,
sec. 1.) The Supreme Court has interpreted the due process
clause as "a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm
of personal liberty which the government may not enter,"
including the right of parents to direct the upbringing of
their children. (Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) 505 U.S.
833, 847; see also Truxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57, 65:
"We have long recognized that the Amendment's Due Process
Clause . . . 'guarantees more than fair process.' �Citation
omitted.] The Clause also includes a substantive component
that 'provides heightened protection against government
interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty
interests.'") In Troxel, the Supreme Court noted that "the
interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their
children . . . is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental
liberty interests." (530 U.S. 57, 65.)
At the same time, under Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), if it
appears that parental decisions will jeopardize the health or
safety of the child, or have a potential for significant
burdens, there may be limitation to even the claim of a First
Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, which
includes directing the religious upbringing of one's child.
(321 U.S. 158.) Likewise, while the state can clearly enter
the private "realm of personal liberty" guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment in cases such as those involving child
abuse, neglect, or other dangers to the child's health or
safety, to equate male circumcision to such cases or to FGM or
unnecessary amputation of appendages arguably overlooks that
there are documented health benefits associated with male
circumcision that are recognized by many in the medical
profession, even if the medical community has not definitively
made a recommendation one way or another at this time.
The author's office notes that the comparison of male
circumcision to FGM is "an apples and watermelons comparison.
FGM involves the complete removal of female body parts, namely
the clitoris, or the sewing together of their vulva.
Circumcision, obviously, does not involve the complete removal
of the penis, or the sewing together of any part of the penis.
Unlike FGM, which is known to cause serious health issues in
women and endanger their lives, circumcision is known to have
health benefits. From a sociological perspective, FGM is
essentially a means to subjugate women. Circumcision is done
AB 768 (Gatto and Ma)
Page 13 of ?
by parents with no such societal intent. The intent is to
provide for the health of their male offspring."
This bill would allow doctors and parents to continue to
evaluate and make these decisions in private, for children who
are not of age to make this decision for themselves. Parents
make similar decisions continually for their children until
they reach the age of maturity. As a matter of public policy,
for local governments to insert themselves in this private
realm as parens patriae arguably appears premature, if not in
violation of the 14th Amendment, absent the finding among the
medical community that this is the equivalent of FGM or
harmful amputations.
Furthermore, if such a ban is to take place, because of
concerns for uniform laws for medical procedures, it is also
arguable that as a matter of public policy such a decision is
one that should be made at a statewide level, as recognized by
existing state law, Business and Professions Code Section
460(b). (See Existing Law.)
b. Female genital mutilation is distinct both in character
and consequences from male circumcision
In 1996, the California State Prohibition of Female Genital
Mutilation Act was enacted, making various legislative
findings about FGM and criminalizing the practice, which the
bill defined as the excision or infibulation of the labia
majora, labia minora, clitoris, or vulva, performed for
nonmedical purposes. (AB 2125 (Figueroa, Ch. 790, Stats.
1996); Pen. Code Sec. 273.4.) Among the findings made are
that FGM is a medically unnecessary modification of the female
genitalia which typically occurs at about seven years of age,
but is known to be practiced on girls any time between infancy
and puberty. FGM involves the excision of a young girl's
clitoris and other parts of the external genitalia. The most
extreme form of this mutilation, known as infibulation, also
involves the sewing together of the two sides of the vulva,
leaving only a small opening for the passage of menstrual
blood and urine.
As stated in AB 2125, FGM constitutes a major health risk to
women, with lifelong physical, psychological, and human rights
consequences. Complications due to FGM include, shock,
hemorrhage, infection, tetanus and septicemia from
unsterilized instruments, bladder infection, and even death.
AB 768 (Gatto and Ma)
Page 14 of ?
Long-term complications include chronic vaginal and uterine
infections, severe pain during urination, menstruation, and
sexual intercourse, and obstetric complications due to
obstruction of the birth canal by scar tissue. For the
obstructed infant, labor can lead to brain damage or death.
4. Arguments in opposition
In opposition to this bill, Jews for the Rights of the Child
writes:
Our group believes it is anachronistic for Jews and Muslims to
be allowed to commit a heinous crime on their boys, amounting
to ritual sexual abuse, in the name of religion. No other
religious or cultural groups are granted such license. We
Jews are required to respect the Law of the Land. We feel it
is high time for the Law of the Land to reflect current policy
and thinking about the personhood and rights of infant and
minor boys. If the US Government and the State of California
will not, our Cities must have the right to do so.
The claims to medical advantages for infant male circumcision
inserted into the bill are fraudulent. Any amputation
(provided the victim survives) results in a lower infection
rate of the missing part (even with female genital cutting).
But in no other context does that slight benefit provide
sufficient justification to legally perform the amputation of
a healthy organ (such as the prepuce) from a protesting minor.
The short- and long-term neurological, psychological, sexual,
relationship, social, cosmetic, ethical, and financial -- as
well as medical (including death) -- harms from circumcision
(certain and potential) far outweigh any advantages.
Also in opposition, Intact America argues that "�n]o medical
society in the world recommends circumcision as necessary
medical care. Neonatal circumcision destroys erogenous tissue
and places newborns at immediate risk of infection, hemorrhage,
penile damage, and even death. In 2010, a Georgia boy received
$2.3 million as compensation for a botched circumcision that
removed a large part of his penis. Earlier this year, a South
Dakota family was awarded $230,000 for the loss of their son,
who bled to death following his circumcision." �Emphasis in
original.] Intact America further asserts that "�c]ircumcision
violates a child's basic human body right to bodily integrity.
All children must be protected from bodily harm. In the United
States, federal and state laws prohibit any form of genital
AB 768 (Gatto and Ma)
Page 15 of ?
cutting on girls by health care professionals or laypersons,
while the genital cutting of boys is not only currently
tolerated but actually promoted in medical settings." �Emphasis
in original.]
Support : American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); California
Medical Association (CMA)
Opposition : Alliance for Transforming the Lives of Children;
Bay Area Intactivists; Circumcision Resource Center; Colorado
Chapter, National Organization of Circumcision Information
Resource Centers; Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.); Intact
America; Intact Sonoma; Jews for the Rights of the Child;
MGMbill.org; National Organization of Circumcision Information
Resource Centers (NOCIRC); Wellness Associates; seven
individuals
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : AB 2125 (Figueroa, Ch. 790, Stats. 1996),
See Comment 3b.
Prior Vote : Not Relevant
**************