There is some speculation that Frankenstein's monster was a golem constructed from flesh....
Almost by definition!
I'm sorry to bash your formal penis, but I think he is indeed missing his suit!
Perhaps GoshisDead stole them back from me. He frequently gets tired of me taking his penis' clothing. Maybe it gets cold?
I'm sorry to bash your formal penis
I meant...how do you plan to get the trousers ON the penis?
cities have no right to make specific areas of medical practices illegal.
Religious Groups and Doctors Sue to Block Circumcision Ban from S.F. Ballot
By: Brian Shields - Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:28:06 -0800
SAN FRANCISCO (KRON) -- It could be up to the courts to decide if San Francisco voters will get to choose whether to criminalize circumcision in the city.
Opponents of the proposed ban have now filed a lawsuit in Superior Court seeking to force the Department of Elections to remove the proposition from the November ballot.
Plaintiffs in the suit say since the state regulates physicians, cities have no right to make specific areas of medical practices illegal.
“The law is clear,” Michael Jacobs, partner at Morrison and Foester, LLP, which is leading the case, said in a written statement. “It is misleading to San Francisco's electorate to put an initiative on the ballot where they lack the power to enact it. By prevailing in this lawsuit, we will protect doctors against being charged with misdemeanor for carrying out a routine and beneficial medical procedure. We will also protect parents' choice to make medical decisions for their children. And we will protect faith communities against efforts to restrict religious freedom.”
The plaintiffs in the case include leading Jewish and Muslim organizations in the Bay Area as well as a number of physicians.
It's unclear when the first hearing in the lawsuit will be held.
(CNN) -- San Francisco residents will not be voting on whether male circumcisions should be banned in the city this fall.
A Superior Court judge ordered Thursday that the proposed measure, which had initially made it onto the November 8 city ballot, be removed entirely.
The measure proposed banning male circumcisions with the penalty of jail time or a $1,000 fine. It would not have granted religious exemptions.
From the beginning, the controversial ballot measure faced strong resistance from medical, religious and civil liberties groups.
Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi wrote that male circumcision is "a widely practiced medical procedure" and that medical services are left to the regulation of the state, not individual cities.
The judge's ruling was hailed by the Jewish Community Relations Council, the Anti-Defamation League and others who had sued to remove the measure from the ballot.
"While we are confident that the overwhelming majority of San Franciscans would have voted to defeat this extreme measure and are grateful for the outpouring of support from every sector of the community, we believe the right decision was made in the right venue," said Abby Michelson Porth, associate director of Jewish Community Relations Council.
The plaintiff's efforts were also supported by the American Civil Liberties Union and San Francisco's Medical Society. And even the San Francisco City Attorney's office expressed concerns about whether the measure was constitutional.
"It's unusual for a judge to order an initiative off the ballot, but the proposed circumcision ban presented that rare case where the court should block an election on an initiative," said ACLU Northern California staff attorney Margaret Crosby in a released statement. "Not only is the ban patently illegal, it also threatened family privacy and religious freedom. The court's order protects fundamental constitutional values in San Francisco."
Anti-circumcision advocates who had gathered more than 7,000 signatures to put the measure on the ballot expressed disappointment and said they would appeal.
"To remove an initiative before it comes on ballot is an extraordinarily irregular thing to do," said Lloyd Schofield, who is part of a Bay Area advocacy group that says the surgery violates human rights and likens it to "male genital mutilation."
"To go to this length to have it struck from the ballot is undemocratic," he said. "It's very, very unfortunate."
Funny how the some of the same groups desperate to protect the unborn are so keen to mutilate them as soon as they are!