Circumcision Available For All Under New Law Signed by Jerry Brown

By Dennis Romero Mon., Oct. 3 2011 at 8:07 AM

Brown is down for the cut.

Gov. Jerry Brown over the weekend said enough with the touchy-feely-we're-liberal-but-we're-still-going-to-tell-you-what-to-do b.s. that seems to permeate some of California's lefty cities.

More specifically, he said no to cities enacting bans on circumcision. And while trimming the penis of one's baby boy doesn't always turn out perfect (allegedly), it keeps some adult men clean and exposes them to fewer diseases (at least according to Dr. Drew Pinsky).

And, frankly, we're sick of the Nanny State being, er, erected in hippie-dippy places like San Francisco, which ...

... most notoriously attempted to let voters decide if families get to go kosher or not with their boys. Backers of the ban said it wasn't fair that babies had no say in whether they should go through with the painful procedure (though the howl of "wahhh!" could be a hint). A judge struck down the effort.

Then Mike Gatto, a state Assemblyman from right here in Burbank, sponsored a bill (AB768) that would prevent cities from enacting circumcision bans. (Thanks, Mike).

On Sunday Brown signed the bill into law. (Thanks, Jer).

Now all Brown and Gatto have to do is whip up a broader ban on cities that enact up stupid, take-your-eye-off-the-real-issues rules like West Hollywood's fur ban (what about leather?) and L.A.'s own cat declawing ban.

Yeah, we need a ban on this insanity.

[@dennisjromero/djromero@laweekly.com]

Tags:

circumcision, fur ban, Jerry Brown, Mike Gatto, San Francisco, West Hollywood

We Recommend

minorityview

Circumcision causes significant pain and trauma, behavioral and neurological changes in infants, potential parental stress from persistent crying (colic) of infants, disrupted bonding between parent and child, and risk of surgical complications. Other consequences of circumcision include loss of a natural, healthy, functioning body part, reduced sexual pleasure, potential psychological problems, and unknown negative effects that have not been studied.

Some circumcised men resent that they are circumcised. Sexual anxieties, reduced emotional expression, low self-esteem, avoidance of intimacy, and depression are also reported. Some doctors refuse to perform circumcisions because of ethical reasons.

Relying on the presumed authorities (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics or doctors who echo AAP views) is not sufficient (see http://www.circumcision.org/mi....

For more information see http://www.circumcision.org.

Tom Tobin

Dear Mike,You protected the status quo.What really needed to be legally protected was male children, the same way female children are protected, from medically unnecessary surgery.

Jon Hughes,This is no laughing matter. Circumcision commonly removes half the skin of the male genitals.How much of your current genitalia would you like to keep?How much would you want removed, with sugar water for anesthesia?Ever meet anyone who thought they had "extra". Yeah, neither have I.

Jon Hughes

Tom tom tom,I realize in retrospect I worded it poorly, but I am 'FOR the ban of circumcision' - I think it is barbaric and should be illegal. If by the age of 18 you would still like some of your skin removed from the best area that a person can have, by all means. chop away. but to force a new born baby into something like this because of a religion or the false idea that its 'cleaner' is idiotic beyond belief.

drops1

At first i was going to complain about the title,it really says to me 'state will pay for circumsition' obviously not whats happening,more of bill sign to prevent ban of circumsition would be the most PROPER title...anywho..

anywho i agree with you...but bad habits are hard to die.