Jewish groups have expresed strong opposition to a proposal which would ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco.

The measure has been placed on the ballot for city elections in November, which means voters will be asked to weigh in on what until now has been a private family matter but some regard as a form of ‘mutilation’. 

For religious Jews, male circumcision is a religious obligation, and Jewish leaders have branded the proposal as a clear violation of constitutionally protected religious freedoms.

“For a city that’s renowned for being progressive and open-minded, to even have to consider such an intolerant proposition … it sets a dangerous precedent for all cities and states,” said Rabbi Gil Yosef Leeds of Berkeley. Rabbi Leeds is a certified “mohel,” the person who traditionally performs ritual circumcisions in the Jewish faith.

He said he receives phone calls every day from members of the local Jewish community who are concerned about the proposed ban. But he said he is relatively confident that even if the measure is approved, it will be abruptly—and indefinitely—tied up in litigation.

If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions.

City elections officials confirmed Wednesday that the initiative had received enough signatures to appear on the ballot, getting more than 7,700 valid signatures from city residents. Initiatives must receive at least 7,168 signatures to qualify.

The initiative appears to be the first of its kind in the country to actually make it to this stage, though a larger national debate over the health benefits of circumcision has been going on for many years. Banning circumcision would almost certainly prompt a flurry of legal challenges alleging violations of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom to exercise one’s religious beliefs.

Supporters of the ban say parents should not be able to choose male circumcision for their children, and claim that ‘genital mutilation’ is extremely painful and even dangerous.

“Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what’s in the best interest of the child. It’s his body. It’s his choice,” said Lloyd Schofield, the measure’s lead proponent.

International health organizations have promoted circumcision as an important strategy for reducing the spread of the AIDS virus. That’s based on studies that showed it can substantially prevent the spread of AIDS among heterosexual men in Africa.

But there hasn’t been the same kind of push for circumcision in the U.S., in part because nearly 80pc of American men are already circumcised, a much higher proportion than the worldwide average of 30pc. 

For years, US health officials have been working on recommendations regarding circumcision. 

The effort was sparked by studies that found circumcision is partially effective in preventing the virus’ spread between women and men. The recommendations are still being developed, and there is no date set for their release, said a spokeswoman for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
 
The CDC doesn’t have a position on the San Francisco proposal, said the spokeswoman, Elizabeth-Ann Chandler.