BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 768
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 768 (Gatto and Ma)
As Amended August 15, 2011
2/3 vote. Urgency
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(May 26, 2011) |SENATE: |37-0 |(August 30, |
| | | | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: NAT. RES.
SUMMARY : Seeks to 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.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill, and
instead:
1)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.
2)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.
3)Make legislative finding that male circumcision has a wide array
of health and affiliative benefits, and that laws affecting male
circumcision should have uniform application throughout the state.
4)Contain an urgency clause, allowing this bill to take effect
immediately upon enactment.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides, under the U.S. Constitution, that Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.
2)Provides, under the California Constitution, that free exercise
AB 768
Page 2
and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are
guaranteed. Specifies that this liberty of conscience does not
excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or
safety of the state. Provides that the Legislature shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion.
3)Prohibits, under the U.S. Constitution, any state or local
government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of the 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. Holds that "the interest of parents
in the care, custody, and control of their children . . . is
perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests."
4)Provides that no city, county, or city and county may 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.
5)Criminalizes the practice of female genital mutilation, defined as
the excision or infibulation of the labia majora, labia minora,
clitoris, or vulva, performed for nonmedical purposes.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill dealt with air pollution.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : Male circumcision is considered a commandment from God in
Judaism, and is also routinely practiced by Muslims. It is also
widely practiced by many others in the United States for
health-related reasons and for social reasons. Though now in the
minority worldwide, circumcised men remain the majority in the
United States. The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated 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 or not to circumcise their sons.
This year, an initiative to ban the practice of male circumcision,
comparing it with female genital mutilation, which is prohibited by
state and federal statute, qualified for placement on the November
ballot in San Francisco. 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
AB 768
Page 3
jail. The measure did not provide for religious exemptions.
Sufficient signatures were also obtained in Santa Monica to place a
similar measure on the ballot, but that measure was later removed
voluntarily.
Opponents of the San Francisco initiative filed suit seeking the
removal of the measure from the November ballot. The trial court
ruled in favor of the ban's opponents and ordered the initiative
removed from the ballot. The trial court found that male
circumcision is a widely practiced medical procedure and that its
proposed ban was expressly preempted by the Business and Professions
Code, which provides that no local jurisdiction may prohibit a
licensed healing arts professional from engaging in any act or
performing any procedure that falls within the professionally
recognized scope of practice of that license.
This bill expressly precludes any prohibition or restriction of the
practice of male circumcision or the exercise of parental authority
with respect to male circumcision through any city or 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 applies to general
law and charter cities and counties. The bill also reaffirms
parental authority to make decisions as to male circumcision.
California law bans female genital mutilation performed for
nonmedical purposes, noting that it constitutes a major health risk
to women, with lifelong physical, psychological, and human rights
consequences. Opponents of the bill argue that male circumcision
has the same harmful consequences for boys. Proponents counter that
the two procedures are not at all comparable, that male circumcision
has health benefits, including a lower risk for HIV and HPV
infection, and that a local ban or criminalization interferes with
the parents' right to direct the medical treatment and religious
upbringing of their children.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0002122