The more time goes on, the more San Francisco distinguishes itself as the last place on Earth that I would wish to live. The individuals they've elected to run the place are not fit to tie their own shoelaces.
Recently, their board of supervisors banned the Happy Meal, although Mayor Newsom is expected to veto the bill today.
Dr. J does not need to expound to the Gormogons's readership about concepts such as liberty, so he won't. Suffice it to say, the Little Intern and Little Med Student enjoy a Happy Meal about once a month. Little Med student gets through about 1/2 of his cheeseburger and doesn't touch the fries. He will usually wash it down with about 1-2 ounces of high fructose corn syrup-laden Sprite. The Little Intern devours her cheeseburger, has a few fries, and washes it down with bottled water.
The Little Med Student, truth be told, enjoys the toys more than the meal. He still has a Batmobile, and several other of the little tschotskes he's found in his Happy Meal, over the years. In other words, the Happy Meal makes the Little Med Student HAPPY. As his father, I resent anyone wanting to suck joy out of his day. Thank goodness New Atlantis, despite its share of goofy liberals (such as Rep. Cooper, D-TN-5), would not dare infringe in such a manner on our liberty.
Dr. J, writes to the august Gormogons not simply over the issue of the Happy Meal, but the next example of overreaching by San Francisco liberals. It appears that there are individuals trying to get a ban on (male) circumcision on the ballot.
The author of the ballot measure, Lloyd Schofield said the following:
“People can practice whatever religion they want, but your religious practice ends with someone else’s body,” said Schofield. “It’s a man’s body and…his body doesn’t belong to his culture, his government, his religion or even his parents. It’s his decision.”Clearly Mr. Schofield is a know-it-all progressive of the worst order.
Circumcision, or the removal of the male foreskin, has been performed on male infants since the dawn of time, or at least since Abraham made a pact with God. The benefits of circumcision include a decrease in urinary tract infections and concomitant strictures, transmission of HIV and other STDs, and also reduces the likelyhood of acquiring penile cancer. Indeed Dr. J has uncircumcised nephews who have had to have circumcisions later in life because of frequent UTIs and strictures. Dr. J. is definitely on the Pro-side of the debate. Given that the downside of not circumcising is not apocalyptic, he respects the decision of others to not circumcise their children (though he silently mocks their poor judgement). The main decision not to circumcise is a fear of a complication, or fear of a decrease in sensation. Ultimately, Dr. J. believes that the decision tracks most closely with whether the father is circumcised.
Furthermore, it is a sacred initiation into the Jewish faith. Consequently, this ballot measure wouldn't past constitutional muster, violating the First Amendment.
Indeed, the American Academy of Pediatrics, a more liberal leaning of the medical professional societies has come out neutral on the issue, saying:
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making thisdecision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.Pediatrics 103(3)686-693, 1999. Reaffirmed in 2005.For the record, there is no medical benefit to female circumcision and that should be banned as meritless mutilation of an innocent child. It's not a double standard.
Dr. J finds it ironic that folks, who have no issue with the killing of their young in utero, who elect politicians (who in turn cannot publicly state that a child that has been born is alive), give a flip if one is choosing a medical procedure that has clear medical benefits for their newborn child.
Royal Surgeon to the Gormogons