In May, a group of San Francisco nanny state extremists decided that your baby's winkie should not have to endure the horrendous ritual of genital mutilation—which most folks just call circumcision.
A proposed ban on what has always been—and should remain—a family's personal decision, had gained enough signatures to end up on the November ballot.
Loudmouth Lloyd Schofield, the measure's lead proponent, actually said: "Parents are guardians and have to do what's in the best interest of the child. It's his body. It's his choice." In other words, your 1-day-old son should be checking the "yes" or "no" box from the incubator to decide what he wants for his wee wee. Oh, Cali, come on!
Fortunately, San Fran Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi nixed the whole preposterous notion Wednesday, saying it's "expressly preempted" by state law. That means the California Business & Professions Code prohibits local regulation of medical procedures. Giorgi added the proposal "serves no legitimate purpose" and ordered it removed from the ballot.
Had the measure passed, circumcision would've been prohibited under the age of 18, with no religious exemptions, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to a year in jail. Looks like the local referendum is going to be a few inches shorter, after all.