In case you missed it, a group of San Franciscans has
qualified a ballot initiative to outlaw the circumcision of infants in that
city. They say that infants are being coerced into participating in a procedure
that carries health risks and is akin to female genital mutilation in Africa.
With activists in Santa Monica poised to follow suit, one can safely presume
that a local ban is just a first step in a campaign for a statewide
prohibition.
Now you can pinch yourself. Yes, you’re not dreaming.
Although I sometimes make jokes and use techniques of fiction in this space,
the San Francisco anti-circumcision initiative is real and is headed to the
ballot.
So where does one come down on this topic? Please pardon me
if I don’t get into an in-depth discussion of the health debates. I’m not a
doctor, nurse or health expert. And I’m no religious scholar, so I can’t
comment with any authority on religious objections to a circumcision ban.
But as a political and budgetary matter, a verdict is easy
to reach: the anti-circumcision activists of San Francisco have made a grievous
error with this initiative.
A ban on anything, much less circumcision, is a sure-fire
loser. Ban something and it’s sure to attract nasty opposition. Especially in
California. Jewish groups, for example, are already rallying against the
measure.
Plus, a ban comes with built-in new costs for government – a
bad idea in budget items as lean as these. Who would enforce the ban? An
expensive new health care bureaucracy?
No, if you want to cut down on circumcision (pun 110 percent
intended), there’s a better way:
Tax it.
A circumcision tax might weaken opposition, since it would
not outlaw anyone’s cultural or religious practice. It would merely give people
a choice: the pro-circumcision crowd could pay the tax or decide to give birth
in Marin, Alameda or San Mateo Counties.
Also: a tax could produce a new source of stable revenue for
government. If these tax revenues went to local government, they would happily
grab them, no matter how controversial the source. And, unlike with
redevelopment money, there’s no negative fiscal impact on schools or the state
budget.
Best of all (at least for those who hate circumcision), it
might just change behavior. Tobacco use has gone down since we started taxing
cigarettes. Californians hate taxes so much – they’d rather keep taxes property
taxes low than have a functioning system of government – that many would stop
circumcising their children.
One small request of the anti-circumcision activists: If you
end up taking my counsel and turning your ban into a tax, you don’t need to pay
me.
But, personally, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t make your
tax retroactive.