San Francisco is trying to ban male circumcision. Apparently, they're following France's lead in passing laws that proscribe religious practice, i.e. Jewish circumcision. Their logic goes that removing chunks of your baby at a young age is mutilation in the same way that female circumcision is mutilation. While they're similar, male circumcision is much less destructive. With the female variant, you're not only removing skin, you're removing the densest ball of nerves on the human body. Moreover, female circumcision removes the vast majority of sexual pleasure... it's kind of the point. Male circumcision, while damaging sexual pleasure, does not eliminate it. So while both procedures count as mutilation, they are in different leagues as far as actual damage goes.
This case also runs counter to my belief that parental rights are paramount, even if that ends up killing the child. Parents, basically, have the right to do whatever they want to their child in their quest to raise the child "right." Considering that there are religious sects out there that won't bring their kids to doctors for any reason, letting parents remove a flap of flesh seems pretty inconsequential.