Why do I get the sense that by early November, the entire world is going to be focusing on whether or not the San Francisco circumcision ban passes? And that until then, the puns are going to be coming fast and furious.

AP is already on the case, producing a three-minute video on the story and weighing in with this bon mot:

“Voters in San Francisco may soon decide to cut out circumcision.”

  • http://www.circumstitons.com Hugh7

    It is simply not true that penile cancer is “a huge health issue” anywhere. A recent study of penile cancer in Brazil found 20% of cases were circumcised men, while the circumcision rate there is much less (Circumcision advocates have to claim that circumcision prevents penile cancer when done to a baby, then miraculously turns around and provokes it in adults.) The penile cancer rate is lower in non-circumcisng Denmark than the United States. All the other “health benefits” claimed for circumcision are either exaggerated or bogus.

    Complications? Yes, a Richmond, VA, pediatric urologist has repaired 1600 botched circumcisions in three years, suggesting a rate of more than 13% botched.

    Why the focus on Jewish circumcision when that is about 3% of circumcision in the USA? Here are contact details for celebrants of Brisot Shalom (non-surgical naming ceremonies).

    This law should be unnecessary. There is no explicit exemption of the infant male foreskin from the laws against cutting normal, healthy, functional, non-renewable parts off of people’s bodies. A Fresno man is serving time for putting a small tattoo on his nine-year old son, and that didn’t even remove any tissue!


Jon Brooks

Jon Brooks writes mostly on film for KQED Arts. He is also an online editor and writer for KQED's daily news blog, News Fix. Jon is a playwright whose work has been produced in San Francisco, New York, Italy, and around the U.S.

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor