You can kill him, but you can't circumcise him

"SF May Ban Infant Circumcision"

Self-described "civil rights advocates" say that a ballot proposition to ban circumcision is on track for gathering signatures, meaning that San Franciscans may vote on the measure this November.

Only 7,000 signatures on a petition are required to get the measure on the ballot, a number that will be attained easily. There is no religious exemption, meaning Jewish infants could not be legally circumcised. The proposed law forbids circumcision for any reason for anyone not yet 18 years old.

So let me get this straight: the supreme idol of the liberal left (but I repeat myself) is "freedom of choice," meaning that a woman bearing a male unborn child may have the child killed for no reason other than she wants to. But once the child is born, the state will forbid freedom of choice for her to have him circumcised, even if she happens to be Jewish, whose traditions of circumcision go back more than 3,000 years.

So - free to kill an unborn male child? Yes! Free to circumcise him after birth? No!

Speaking of things affecting Jewish practice, here's the boo-boo of the month:

LONDON - UK budget airline easyJet apologized Tuesday to Jewish customers after the only food choices served on a flight from Israel were ham melts and bacon baguettes.

Passengers who follow the faith's ban on eating pork were forced to go hungry for the four-and-a-half hour journey from Tel Aviv to London.

No doubt once the San Franciscans hear, they'll put up a ballot measure that would compel people to eat pork on airline flights.