Constitutionality of San Francisco's Proposed Circumcision Ban Debated

A number of posts around the blogosphere in recent days debate the constitutionality of San Francisco's upcoming ballot issue (see prior posting) that would ban male circumcision on individuals under 18 years of age except in cases of clear medical necessity, with no exception for religiously mandated circumcision. The posts look at three related issues: free exercise issues (under state and federal law), parental rights issues, and the so-called "hybrid rights" doctrine (free exercise claims reinforced by a parental rights claim). Here are links to some of the more thoughtful analyses:

• Eugene Volokh, Proposed San Francisco Circumcision Ban (with No Discussion of Religious Freedom In This Post) [discussing parental rights issues].
• Eugene Volokh, Proposed San Francisco Circumcision Ban, and Religious Freedom
• Slate's Jeremy Singer-Vine, Snip: A San Francisco ballot measure would ban circumcision. Is that legal? [discussing free exercise issues]
• Michael Helfand, Why San Francisco Ballot Measure Proposing Circumcision Ban Is Unconstitutional [discussing hybrid rights theory]
• Mirror of Justice, Circumcision and Hybrid Rights

[Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead on some of this.]