Banning Circumcisions in San Francisco.
Unbelievable. Really. A guy by the name of Lloyd Schofield, got a group of "people" together and "submitted 12,000 signatures on Tuesday to the city’s Department of Elections. In order to qualify, 7,200 signatures are needed and the group has 30 days to verify the signatures."
Schofield said to Reuters, “It’s excruciatingly painful and permanently damaging surgery that’s forced on men when they’re at their weakest and most vulnerable.”
You know what? I haven't heard of anyone whine like this in a while, especially since most circumcisions are performed on babies. It was a standard procedure when I was born. He's right though, I guess I was vulnerable at 2 or 3 days old. Still, I don't have any psychological scars from it. Quite the contrary but that's not, pardon the pun, the point.
What's my problem with this story? San Francisco has a population of 805,000 people and it takes 7,200 signatures to propose a ban? That's .9% or (0.0089) of the population. The 12,000 signatures brings it up to a whopping 1% (0.0149) of the population.
I always thought majority ruled or am I the only one that sees this as being completely wrong?
No comments:
Post a Comment