Sunday, October 9, 2011

CALIFORNIA: Triple-think?

I wonder just what is Governor Brown on.

On the one hand, he signs AB768, making it illegal to ban circumcision, protecting "religious freedom" and "parental choice." Parents can circumcise their sons all the way up until they turn 18, and they have no capacity to refuse.

And yet, he also signs AB499, which "allows" children 12 and above to "choose" to get Gardasil, a shot that is supposed to prevent HPV, without parental consent.

So while AB768 is supposed to "protect" so-called "parental-choice," AB499 basically takes it away.

To confuse things even further, he also passes a law that prohibits the use of tanning beds for children under 18.

Limiting circumcision to medically necessary procedures and to consenting adults 18 and above is precisely what intactivists were seeking to do in San Francisco, but for whatever reason this was a no-go.

Am I missing something?


  1. Join us in saying "vote out all incumbents, vote in human rights"

  2. What really the child has no capacity to refuse at 13? I thought generally doctors ask the child for their consent. Though a child under the authority of the parents can never freely consent.

  3. ...which is supposed to be the whole idea behind "parental choice," right?

    A parent can circumcise their son all the way up until he's 18, but at 13, the child should be able to "choose" Gardasil? But he has to wait until he's 18 to use the tanning beds?

    That doesn't make any sense.

  4. Politicians are vote/(campaign-contribution)-chasers.