# Oregon Supreme Court blocks circumcision!



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingn...blocks_fa.html

They want the MINOR child to be heard! Could this be amazing news for the intactivist movement?

Well, upon further reading, perhaps not...but still a good thing.


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

This is the actual decision link and an piece of what was written:

Quote:

Although the parties and amici have presented extensive material regarding circumcision, we do not need to decide in this case which side has presented a more persuasive case regarding the medical risks or benefits of male circumcision. We conclude that, although circumcision is an invasive medical procedure that results in permanent physical alteration of a body part and has attendant medical risks, the decision to have a male child circumcised for medical or religious reasons is one that is commonly and historically made by parents in the United States. We also conclude that the decision to circumcise a male child is one that generally falls within a custodial parent's authority, unfettered by a noncustodial parent's concerns or beliefs -- medical, religious or otherwise. Were mother's concerns or beliefs regarding circumcision all that were asserted in the affidavits in this case, we would conclude that mother did not carry her initial statutory burden to demonstrate a sufficient change in circumstances demonstrating father's inability to properly care for M.
Well, at least they acknowledged a little about circumcision...

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S054714.htm


----------



## Papai (Apr 9, 2007)

Ugh, they didn't want to get into whether or not circumcision was morally wrong, but at least they blocked it. Now I hope the boy is strong enough to stand up and say he doesn't want to be cut.


----------



## BamaDude (Aug 17, 2006)

The problem as I see it is that the boy still has to go home and live with his Dad after all this is over. If he stands up in court and says "No, I don't want to get circumcised" and his circumcision gets blocked, that could make life at home very difficult for him for the next six years or so.

On the other hand, if he wavers and says a circumcision would be okay then his Dad would probably be a lot easier to live with until the boy can get out on his own...at the expense of the boy's foreskin and body integrity, of course.

Basically, the boy is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

Quote:

We also conclude that the decision to circumcise a male child is one that generally falls within a custodial parent's authority, unfettered by a noncustodial parent's concerns or beliefs -- medical, religious or otherwise.
Thats the part that made me really angry. Just the way its said, "the decision to circumcise a male" it just makes it sound like (and is saying) that a male has no legal right to all his body. Its also saying, but a female does. So its like the judge is right out saying male children have less rights over their bodies, and thats perfectly fine. Its really showing that their is less respect for his body then say if it was his hypothetical twin sister in the court room.


----------



## Papai (Apr 9, 2007)

The court is talking out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand it re-affirms the right of parents to circumcise their boys without their consent, but then they block the circumcision because the father failed to prove that the boy wanted the procedure done. So which is it? Do parents have the right to circumcise their sons without their consent or not? This didn't clarify anything, just muddied the waters.


----------



## BunnySlippers (Oct 30, 2007)

so they have acknowledged that circumcision is invasive and unnecesary, but hey if the parents want it done, why not?

How about taking away that 'right' to let parents make the decision to circumcise since so many still dont get that it is invasive and unnecessary?

That poor child, what a thing to have to worry about.


----------



## glongley (Jun 30, 2004)

Here is the wording of the remand order. It says that if the boy does not want to be circumcised, that the father's custody rights may be revisited or altered.

"We remand the case to the trial court with instructions to resolve the factual issue whether M agrees or objects to the circumcision. In order to resolve that question, the trial court may choose to determine M's state of mind utilizing means available to it under the relevant provisions of ORS 107.425. (9) If the trial court finds that M agrees to be circumcised, the court shall enter an order denying mother's motions. If, however, the trial court finds that M opposes the circumcision, it must then determine whether M's opposition to the circumcision will affect father's ability to properly care for M. And, if necessary, the trial court then can determine whether it is in M's best interests to retain the existing custody arrangement, whether other conditions should be imposed on father's continued custody of M, or change custody from father to mother.

"The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The supplemental judgment of the circuit court is reversed. The case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings."

Gillian


----------



## BunnySlippers (Oct 30, 2007)

Quote:

In response, father, joined by amicus curiae American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, and Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (collectively, AJC), argues that the trial court did not need to hold an evidentiary hearing, because *M's attitude about whether he wants the circumcision is not legally significant*. *Father asserts that a child is not the decision-maker on such questions, any more than an infant who is circumcised*. If the legislature had wanted a male child to have a say in whether he is circumcised, he contends, it could have adopted a statute to that effect, as it has done in other statutes such as ORS 109.610 (giving minors the right to consent to treatment for venereal disease without parental consent). Father also contends that the health risks associated with male circumcision are de minimus. In any case, father maintains that the affidavits he supplied to the trial court demonstrate that M does want to be circumcised.

Finally, father and AJC argue that *father has a constitutionally protected right to circumcise his son.* _They maintain that American Jews must be free to practice circumcision because it is and has been one of the most fundamental and sacred parts of the Jewish tradition_. Father concludes that, if this court requires the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing, we would usurp the role of the custodial parent and violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Do they not see how wrong all of this is?!?!
Why can we see it but they can't!


----------



## BunnySlippers (Oct 30, 2007)

and if the father wins the child is circumcised. Wanna bet the father wins?

GAH! If he gets circ'd, then the mother eventually wins custody and wants the foreskin back what then? You can't replace it.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

This is excellent news that they are requiring the solicitation of the childs opinion.

and I found this really interesting

Quote:

If, however, the trial court finds that M opposes the circumcision, it must then determine whether M's opposition to the circumcision will affect father's ability to properly care for M. And, if necessary, the trial court then can determine whether it is in M's best interests to retain the existing custody arrangement, whether other conditions should be imposed on father's continued custody of M, or change custody from father to mother.

What kind of parent is willing to go to court to force their 12 year old to have his genitals mutilated? Seriously.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

If I was this boy, I would probably just run away. Honestly, its horrible that we live in a country where this could happen. Where this boy who probably sits up at night worrying if he can keep his full body. Its just disgusting.


----------



## blsilva (Jul 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *perspective* 
Thats the part that made me really angry. Just the way its said, "the decision to circumcise a male" it just makes it sound like (and is saying) that a male has no legal right to all his body. Its also saying, but a female does. So its like the judge is right out saying male children have less rights over their bodies, and thats perfectly fine. Its really showing that their is less respect for his body then say if it was his hypothetical twin sister in the court room.

ITA









I am overjoyed that it has been blocked for now, and that they are acknowledging that the boy's wishes have some importance, but the way they worded it, it really does give boys absolutely no rights over their own bodies.


----------



## kxsiven (Nov 2, 2004)

VOTE!

http://www.local6.com/family/1514071...orlpn&psp=news


----------



## Lisa85 (May 22, 2006)

Have you all even considered that it's possible the boy DOES want to be circ'd? You just assume he doesn't? Don't get me wrong, I'm not for circing personally. I'm against circing infants because they don't have a say, but I'm also against assuming another person automatically does or doesn't want something simply because _I_ believe it's not right.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lisa85* 
Have you all even considered that it's possible the boy DOES want to be circ'd? You just assume he doesn't? Don't get me wrong, I'm not for circing personally. I'm against circing infants because they don't have a say, but I'm also against assuming another person automatically does or doesn't want something simply because _I_ believe it's not right.

Well, the mother has said that her son came to her and said that he does not want to be circumcised, but that his Dad is pushing it on him, and wants it to happen either way. The Dad seems like a kind of pushy person, so its not surprising he would do this.

The real issue here is the fact that legally, children can make choices for themselves. They are not developed enough, or at least according to the law. Thats why sex that between a minor and and adult is illegal. Because children cant always make the right choice for themselves until they themselves are adults.

Yet if you listen to this case, the judges are careful not to force a circumcision, because they know forcing that on someone could really mess with the boy, and is not right. (I cant find the judges quote, although he is careful to limit his statement to "a 12 year old boy")

Basically, they are trying like hell not to confront the fact that if the court thinks its might not be in the boys best interest to be circumcised. It would make the case easier if they did just make that choice. (and if it was a girl in that situation, thats what they would do in a second) but if they say its not in his best interest, why not for a 11 year old, a 10 year old?, a 9, etc all the way to a baby. So they want to resolve the case, but still not admit the truth. So they are doing the very unusual thing and deciding the whole case on what the minor wants. Hoping to dodge a legal bullet.


----------



## BunnySlippers (Oct 30, 2007)

I voted.
Did yo uall read the article to 'cut or not to cut?' I liked it


----------



## Mommiska (Jan 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *perspective* 
...if you listen to this case, the judges are careful not to force a circumcision, because they know forcing that on someone could really mess with the boy, and is not right. (I cant find the judges quote, although he is careful to limit his statement to "a 12 year old boy")

Basically, they are trying like hell not to confront the fact that if the court thinks its might not be in the boys best interest to be circumcised. It would make the case easier if they did just make that choice. (and if it was a girl in that situation, thats what they would do in a second) but if they say its not in his best interest, why not for a 11 year old, a 10 year old?, a 9, etc all the way to a baby. So they want to resolve the case, but still not admit the truth. So they are doing the very unusual thing and deciding the whole case on what the minor wants. Hoping to dodge a legal bullet.

Absolutely right.

The judges know that it is 100% wrong to cut the genitals of a 12 year old child, who can express his disagreement.

And they realise full well that if they acknowledge that in their legal judgement, they are opening the flood gates for the eventual abolition of male infant circumcision.

Because, as Perspective says, if it's wrong to cut a 12 year old without his consent, then it's wrong to cut an 11 year old, 10 year old, 9 year old - all the way back to a baby.

Yes - it is blindingly obvious that cutting up a non-consenting infant's genitals is horrendously, heart-breakingly wrong.

But a lot of these judges have probably done it to their own kids. And they all have friends and family who have done it. And of course, there is the issue of the religions that demand that it is done.

No one wants to touch the ethics of it, because when you do, you can't fail to see that American parents are, over and over again, mutilating their children and depriving them of their basic human right to their own body.

So, so sad. (and infuriating).


----------



## Lisa85 (May 22, 2006)

Quote:

Yes - it is blindingly obvious that cutting up a non-consenting infant's genitals is horrendously, heart-breakingly wrong.
Actually, it isn't to everyone unfortunately.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommiska* 
No one wants to touch the ethics of it, because when you do, you can't fail to see that American parents are, over and over again, mutilating their children and depriving them of their basic human right to their own body.

So, so sad. (and infuriating).

Exactly.


----------



## Mommiska (Jan 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lisa85* 
Actually, it isn't to everyone unfortunately.

I see what you mean, but I do think that the Oregon case points out what should be obvious to any thinking person.

And I think that's why the judges won't touch the ethical questions raised here. Because if they do, they have to admit that it's morally wrong to cut up a protesting 12 year old boy (female 'circumcision' in Africa, anyone?).

And once you admit that ethically, the boy himself is the person who should decide whether or not his penis gets cut up, that points out that - hey, whatever the age, the boy in question will eventually have an opinion about whether or not he wants to be cut - so he's the one who should make that decision for himself.

What I was trying to say is that this case, when you actually start thinking it through to its logical conclusion, makes it obvious that the 'parental choice' line is crap, ethically speaking.

Which is, again, why the judges won't touch the ethics of what that father is trying to do.







:


----------



## tammyswanson (Feb 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kxsiven* 
VOTE!

http://www.local6.com/family/1514071...orlpn&psp=news

I notice many people said that it's wrong to circumcise ANY boy (just like it's wrong to circ any girl)







So far it's 47 percent...


----------



## fruitful womb (Nov 20, 2004)

I'm not so sure this is a good thing. I'm trying to be optimistic. I really am. Its just that...

The lower courts were already siding with the father. The Supreme Court didn't want blood on their hands so they bump them back to the lower courts where the father has more support for his wishes.

I believe if the child is going to have a say in this, he should he heard when he is 18. At the age of legal consent. Until then, let him keep all his body parts. I'm pretty sure that by the time he turns 18 no one can talk about forcing surgery on him.

Since he is going to be heard, I'm praying he won't be intimidated by his father and does something he might regret for the rest of his life.

I feel so sorry for that kid. Man oh man, this has to be already traumatizing to him. I can't imagine whats going on in his mind right now.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

That poor kid. In his place, I'd be terrified.

And that little carefully-worded document is vomitingly ridiculous.


----------



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitful womb* 
I believe if the child is going to have a say in this, he should he heard when he is 18. At the age of legal consent. Until then, let him keep all his body parts. I'm pretty sure that by the time he turns 18 no one can talk about forcing surgery on him.

That is what they did in that other case. That boy was spared until he could make his own decision at 18.


----------



## fruitful womb (Nov 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phatchristy* 
That is what they did in that other case. That boy was spared until he could make his own decision at 18.

Wow, thats interesting. I've never heard about this case. Where may I find the record of this case? Thank you for bring this to our attention! Could it possibly help the Boldt v. Boldt case?


----------



## mamajake (Jul 20, 2002)

:


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitful womb* 
Wow, thats interesting. I've never heard about this case. Where may I find the record of this case? Thank you for bring this to our attention! Could it possibly help the Boldt v. Boldt case?

I think they are talking about the Schmidt vs. Niznik, Cook County Illinois, NO. 00 D 18272 (2006). From the DOC Amicus Brief for the Misha Case:

"A custodial mother, having remarried to a Jewish man, claimed an obviously trivial medical justification to support the circumcision of her nine-year-old son, apparently to accommodate the comfort of her new spouse. The intact (not circumcised) gentile father, from non-circumcising Europe, interposed an objection. Weighing the evidence as too slight to require medical intervention, and declining to rule on the religious issue, Judge Kaplan enjoined the circumcision until the child reaches 18 and could choose for himself."


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Thanks for sharing that, but OMG wtf is wrong with that mother? She was seriously going to mutilate her 9 year old to make her new husband happy? Good thing that child had an active involved father to stand in a protect his son.







at the mom.


----------



## fruitful womb (Nov 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jwhispers* 
I think they are talking about the Schmidt vs. Niznik, Cook County Illinois, NO. 00 D 18272 (2006). From the DOC Amicus Brief for the Misha Case:

"A custodial mother, having remarried to a Jewish man, claimed an obviously trivial medical justification to support the circumcision of her nine-year-old son, apparently to accommodate the comfort of her new spouse. The intact (not circumcised) gentile father, from non-circumcising Europe, interposed an objection. Weighing the evidence as too slight to require medical intervention, and declining to rule on the religious issue, Judge Kaplan enjoined the circumcision until the child reaches 18 and could choose for himself."

Thank you for sharing this information. I wonder if perhaps a new Judge could be requested in the case. I'm not that knowledgeable about how the system works but I've heard of Lawyers pulling strings to replace jury members.

This Judge would be a good one to handle this case since he has dealt with this before. He is clearly in favor of genital integrity.


----------



## MoonJelly (Sep 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitful womb* 
Thank you for sharing this information. I wonder if perhaps a new Judge could be requested in the case. I'm not that knowledgeable about how the system works but I've heard of Lawyers pulling strings to replace jury members.

This Judge would be a good one to handle this case since he has dealt with this before. He is clearly in favor of genital integrity.

To be fair, it's not going to be that simple. You have certain elements to work with in each case.

And I think ruling that the boy's opinion matters _is_ a positive thing.


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitful womb* 
Thank you for sharing this information.

No problem. Always happy to help when I can.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitful womb* 
I wonder if perhaps a new Judge could be requested in the case. I'm not that knowledgeable about how the system works but I've heard of Lawyers pulling strings to replace jury members.

This Judge would be a good one to handle this case since he has dealt with this before. He is clearly in favor of genital integrity.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MoonJelly* 
To be fair, it's not going to be that simple. You have certain elements to work with in each case.

And I think ruling that the boy's opinion matters _is_ a positive thing.



You're right it isn't really that easy. Unfortunately, one was a trial judge in Illinois Misha is going through the Oregon court system so no amount of legal maneuvering is going to get that judge on Misha's case. Too bad to. However, it does make a good citation to try and establish how similar cases have fallen in the past. Unfortunately, the Oregon Supreme Court didn't go as far as the Judge in Illinois if I read the ruling correctly (and someone be sure to correct me if I am wrong) they asked the lower court to determine what the boy wants if he chooses to be circumcised they're done. If he chooses not to be they will have yet another hearing to determine if the custodial order should be amended to allow him to make that choice. So he isn't quite out of the woods yet.

ETA: Actually MoonJelly I think the cases are quite similar. In Illinois, the mother married a Jewish man and was then seeking a circumcision for the boy seemingly on medical grounds in Misha's case the father is the one seeking the circumcision. The biggest difference is that I think that the custody order in Illinois was joint anyway and there might even have been a clause to require consent of both parents for non-medically necessary issues. So while there are differences they are not too different.


----------



## Pumpkinheadmommy (Nov 6, 2007)

I'm wondering if the ACLU has taken a position on this. Don't they usually weigh in on cases involving religion?


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

This case is really positive for our cause. Sometimes it is not immediately obvious what has happened and what will happen and it takes some amount of reflection to come to conclusions.

The Supreme Court of Oregon has ruled that Misha's (the son) opinion is paramount in the issue. This indicates that any child who can object to the procedure (or rite) has a legitimate say in the matter and that makes forcible non-consensual circumcision of minors illegal if they can voice their objection. This is significant progress but does not eliminate circumcisions of infants.

The court deftly sidestepped the issue of infant circumcision but in their ruling, they did set significant legal precedence that can be used in future cases.

I suspect the court surmised the eventual outcome of the case. If Misha were fully on board with the circumcision, James Boldt, the father and custodial parent could have had Misha circumcised and Lia Boldt (the mother) would only have found out about it after the fact. The evidence suggests that James Boldt told Misha that he was going to circumcise him and Misha told Lia Boldt that he didn't want the circumcision and this prompted the court case to prevent it.

The lower court found for Lia Boldt and that is what prompted the appeals. James Boldt is a lawyer and filed the appeals and represented himself. My suspicion is that he believed that the appealate process would be financially devastating to Lia Boldt and she would not be able to finance the case. Fortunately for her, intactivist organizations stepped in and provided her with legal help that enabled her to go forward with the case to a conclusion.

Since this case is in Oregon, it does establish law in Oregon and legal precedence and legal precedence can be used in any state in the union and even in foriegn countries.

On the whole, this was very favorable for us. It just didn't go as far as we would wish. This issue is not one that will be finally settled in one fell swoop. It will be like cutting a tree down with an axe. Each blow of the axe brings us closer to felling the circumcision tree. We are working with amazing speed at bringing the tree down and it will fall eventually.

.


----------



## mamajake (Jul 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Phoenix Rising* 
This case is really positive for our cause. Sometimes it is not immediately obvious what has happened and what will happen and it takes some amount of reflection to come to conclusions.

The Supreme Court of Oregon has ruled that Misha's (the son) opinion is paramount in the issue. This indicates that any child who can object to the procedure (or rite) has a legitimate say in the matter and that makes forcible non-consensual circumcision of minors illegal if they can voice their objection. This is significant progress but does not eliminate circumcisions of infants.

The court deftly sidestepped the issue of infant circumcision but in their ruling, they did set significant legal precedence that can be used in future cases.

I suspect the court surmised the eventual outcome of the case. If Misha were fully on board with the circumcision, James Boldt, the father and custodial parent could have had Misha circumcised and Lia Boldt (the mother) would only have found out about it after the fact. The evidence suggests that James Boldt told Misha that he was going to circumcise him and Misha told Lia Boldt that he didn't want the circumcision and this prompted the court case to prevent it.

The lower court found for Lia Boldt and that is what prompted the appeals. James Boldt is a lawyer and filed the appeals and represented himself. My suspicion is that he believed that the appealate process would be financially devastating to Lia Boldt and she would not be able to finance the case. Fortunately for her, intactivist organizations stepped in and provided her with legal help that enabled her to go forward with the case to a conclusion.

Since this case is in Oregon, it does establish law in Oregon and legal precedence and legal precedence can be used in any state in the union and even in foriegn countries.

On the whole, this was very favorable for us. It just didn't go as far as we would wish. This issue is not one that will be finally settled in one fell swoop. It will be like cutting a tree down with an axe. Each blow of the axe brings us closer to felling the circumcision tree. We are working with amazing speed at bringing the tree down and it will fall eventually.

.

With all due respect, this is not an accurate description of what the Court has done. The lower court did not find for mom - it stayed the circumcision until appeals were exhausted but found _against_ mom on the child's right to decide, mom's right as non-custodial parent to interfere, and whether forcibly circumcision was reason to reconsider custody. While the Supreme Court reversed the lower court, it did so on only one point - whether there should have been a hearing to reconsider custody. The Supreme Court ordered that there be an evidentiary hearing concerning whether the boy consents and whether, if he does not consent, forcible circumcision would damage his relationship with his father such that there should be a change in custody. The Supreme Court was clear that minors do _not_ have the option to decide whether they will be forcibly circumcised in Oregon. If there had been no custody question here, Misha would have no way of preventing the circumcision. If the trial court now decides that forcible circumcision will not adversely affect his relationship with his father, or will not do so sufficiently to warrent giving custody to mom, this boy _will_ be forcibly circumcised.


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajake* 
With all due respect, this is not an accurate description of what the Court has done. The lower court did not find for mom - it stayed the circumcision until appeals were exhausted but found _against_ mom on the child's right to decide, mom's right as non-custodial parent to interfere, and whether forcibly circumcision was reason to reconsider custody. While the Supreme Court reversed the lower court, it did so on only one point - whether there should have been a hearing to reconsider custody. The Supreme Court ordered that there be an evidentiary hearing concerning whether the boy consents and whether, if he does not consent, forcible circumcision would damage his relationship with his father such that there should be a change in custody. The Supreme Court was clear that minors do _not_ have the option to decide whether they will be forcibly circumcised in Oregon. If there had been no custody question here, Misha would have no way of preventing the circumcision. If the trial court now decides that forcible circumcision will not adversely affect his relationship with his father, or will not do so sufficiently to warrent giving custody to mom, this boy _will_ be forcibly circumcised.

I agree with mamajake here, I am not really overjoyed by the outcome of this case, yet. All we really have is a bit of a "stay of execution" as it were. If I'm not mistaken they simply told the lower court to consider Misha's opinion if it is yes then he gets circumcised if it is no then there will be another hearing to determine if he can say no; what a crock.


----------



## Jimmers (Jan 28, 2008)

This is something I also disagree STRONGLY about. If they are talking about religion, than what happens to the boy's right to religious freedom? What if he wants nothing to do with his father's conversion. To say that one person's religious standing implies a right to force another person to have an unnecessary surgery DEFINITELY goes against the most basic of rights guaranteed to ALL Americans. This disgusts me.

I'm 19, circumcised, and seeking justice.


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

Sorry to serial post, but I have a small plea from the OP (me







):

can we not stray into territory that will get the thread closed? (taking my own advice as well







)


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Wow, just wow. I can't even say what I'm thinking here.


----------



## SaraFR (Dec 8, 2005)

I'm rethinking saying so much.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Well he has been fighting since the kid was 9 to be able to cut his son.







: Adding in flimsy medical excuses and the fact that he is having it done by a urologist.


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

Their brief:

http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/ab/B...rits%20(3).pdf

Quote:

Children who are circumcised must re-affirm their commitment to
being a Jew upon reaching the age of 13. The importance of circumcision is recognized
by the largest streams of Judaism in the United States. Orthodox, Conservative, and
Reform Judaism all require circumcision for male children born as Jews. Conservative
Judaism (which is the stream of Judaism at issue in this case) requires circumcision for
uncircumcised male converts. Jewish law does not allow forced conversions. The person
who conducts the circumcision is always a trained specialist who has studied all the
relevant laws and has also completed a prolonged, intensive apprenticeship. Often, these
individuals are also doctors and are licensed at hospitals.

Quote:

It ir the position of amici that routine male circumcision is precisely the type of religious and medical decision that is squarely within the rights of a custodial
parent and that discretion to make that decision has been granted by Oregon law and by
constitutional right to the custodial parent. Enabling the circumcision of a child, whether
as part of a religious conversion or for medical reasons, cannot as a matter of law indicate
any infirmity in a parent's ability to function as a parent.


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

Quote:

Moreover, and decision to
single out circumcision as a basis for questioning the fitness of the custddial parent would
violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion. Finally, there is no
analogy between male circumcision and female genital mutilation, eithetr in terms of the
type of conduct involved or the potential risks presented, to sustain an equal protection
claim.
I dunno why some of the spellings get mixed up when I cut and paste from adobe, sorry about that.


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

Quote:

Nor does it matter that the medical procedure in this case is elective.
Surely a parent has the same authority to have a child's vision corrected or a birthmark on
his face removed even if those procedures are also elective and even if the other parent
objects. All of these decisions fall within the custodial parent's right and duty to care for
his child, and they are not open to challenge by the non-custodial parent.
They argue that MIsha wants to be circumcised based on affadavits given by various people (none of which are the child himself, mind you). But then they argue that his opinion doesn't matter because it is the custodial parent that gets to decide:

Quote:

As explained above, without the showing of a substantial change in circumstances
in the capability of a parent, Oregon law does not require an evidentiary hearing to
determine the best interests of the child. In any event, it is not apparent phat a hearing
would have accomplished in developing the record that was not apparent from the
pleadings filed on both sides.
Again the errors in spelling are coming from my copy and paste from adobe.

And this bit is especially telling:

Quote:

If the Court decides that routine circumcision requires a hearing to determine
whether it is in the best interests of the child, it will open the door to endless litigation
about every medical or religious decision on which the divorced parents disagree.
Assigning a parent custody is intended to vest decision-making power in the person who
is most responsible for the child's upbringing.

I also recommend reading their take on how FGM and MGM are different and cannot be compared in any way.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

I also noticed reading that the father had a hatafat dam brit when he converted which means he was circ'd already. Which leaves me with further questions regarding his insistance that the boy be circ'd. That, combined with his 3 year fight to cut his son, his attempts to add an unproven medical reason to his supposed religious one seriously makes me question his true motivation in this suit.

Because if the child really does want to convert and be circ'd there is nothing stopping him in a few years when he is an adult.


----------



## SaraFR (Dec 8, 2005)

I'm rethinking saying so much.

I just hope the courts listen to Misha and respect his wishes.


----------



## SaraFR (Dec 8, 2005)

I'm rethinking saying so much.


----------



## SaraFR (Dec 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna* 
I also noticed reading that the father had a hatafat dam brit when he converted which means he was circ'd already. Which leaves me with further questions regarding his insistance that the boy be circ'd. That, combined with his 3 year fight to cut his son, his attempts to add an unproven medical reason to his supposed religious one seriously makes me question his true motivation in this suit.

Because if the child really does want to convert and be circ'd there is nothing stopping him in a few years when he is an adult.

I agree. There are many things that don't add up between what Mommy and Daddy are saying.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:

But they did also express a distinct wish that the boy not be heard as part of this case and that the statements of others about his wishes should suffice.
Yeah that is the part that was clearly self serving and totally squicked me out.


----------



## SaraFR (Dec 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carriebft* 
Don;t worry, you won't get yelled at by me







I agree with you that they tried to remove themselves from Boldt in some ways, yet they travel outside the realm of religious circumcision (talkijng about FGM, Misha's adhesions, HIV protection, etc)

I think it's an automatic thing these days that when defending any type of circ., even ritual, one adds medical benefits too. Perhaps that's because many people might not respect religion but they will respect doctors (irrelevant of the accuracy of the doctor's statements).

Quote:

But they did also express a distinct wish that the boy not be heard as part of this case and that the statements of others about his wishes should suffice.
I don't think I read that far in the letter but I'm not sure why they would say that.


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

The big reason is preservation. BY letting Misha speak, a court precedent may be created. Thus, others may get a say in their circumcision. So, the brief uses language like the following:

Quote:

As explained above, without the showing of a substantial change in circumstances
in the capability of a parent, Oregon law does not require an evidentiary hearing to
determine the best interests of the child. In any event, it is not apparent phat a hearing
would have accomplished in developing the record that was not apparent from the
pleadings filed on both sides.

Quote:

If the Court decides that routine circumcision requires a hearing to determine
whether it is in the best interests of the child, it will open the door to endless litigation
about every medical or religious decision on which the divorced parents disagree.
Assigning a parent custody is intended to vest decision-making power in the person who
is most responsible for the child's upbringing.


----------



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

Sara I did really appreciate reading your thoughts before they went *poof*.

What a messed up world we live in. This should not be a parenting decison, to alter a child's body against their will without clear medical indication. Every human being should have the right to an intact body guaranteed under law.

We protect girls, yet boys can have their genitals altered at their parent's whim...how obviously ridiculous.


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

I hope you didn't feel offended by our conversation. I think your opinion and take are very worthy to be discussed here. (i can edit my posts as well if you want me to, please let me know)


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carriebft* 
Their brief:

http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/ab/B...rits%20(3).pdf

And for those who are interested the Amicus brief from Doc can be found here and a second document, brief supporting the petition for review is here.


----------



## SaraFR (Dec 8, 2005)

I appreciate the kind words. It's always hard to understand how one's words are taken when using a medium such as the internet.


----------



## bluetoes (May 12, 2007)

Thanks for everyone for the great info and pespectives.

I wonder if more will come of this case as far as appeals and legal precedent? I mean if in this case the boy has the right to choose at his age then why wouldn't any child have the right to choose?

And I am sure I am not the only one who is sick of people saying 'oh by FGM is DIFFERENT!!' OK so how about it we have it done in a hospital with a bit of a numbing agent and just take the prepuce off? She'll only be a day or two old but won't remember. Even if we're comparing apples to apples it is still horrifying to think of so I don't get why people can't see that!


----------



## mamajake (Jul 20, 2002)

Quote:

Thanks for everyone for the great info and pespectives.

I wonder if more will come of this case as far as appeals and legal precedent? I mean if in this case the boy has the right to choose at his age then why wouldn't any child have the right to choose?

See http://www.mothering.com/sections/ne...eligiouschoice for some discussion of what happens now. Remember that the court decided that he did _not_ have the right to choose.


----------



## Ms. Mom (Nov 18, 2001)

I have removed a great deal of posts from this thread that discussed religious circumcision. Please remember our forum guidelines Religious Discussion in this Forum regarding religious discussion in this forum. If you have any further questions, please address your moderators via PM, not within this thread.

I have returned this thread because it's an important discussion. Please remember our user agreement and guidelines while continuing this discussion.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

Quote:

Moreover, and decision to
single out circumcision as a basis for questioning the fitness of the custddial parent would
violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion. Finally, there is no
analogy between male circumcision and female genital mutilation, eithetr in terms of the
type of conduct involved or the potential risks presented, to sustain an equal protection
claim.
I really got angered with this statement. They talk about protecting religious rights, but yet forget to mention the rights of the person (which in most situations in law, comes first). I am fine with parents making choices that effect me during my childhood, choices that NEED to be made. But parents should not have the right to forever take away rights of a future adult.

Also, if this was a court case where a father wanted to cover his sons body with tattoos, or piercings, maybe because of native religious rights, I seriously doubt this judge would be saying the same things, even though (legally) it would be the same situation.

I HATE that they said that FGM and MGM are nothing alike. Considering FGM is an umbrella term for anything as small as a pin prick on female genitals. So OBVIOUSLY there are areas where the two overlap, and where girls are being protected and boys are not.

What all these FGM people say about it being totally different, would be true, IF legally in the US the only protection girls had was from extreme FGM, because then (legally) the two terms would be completely different, but since they very much overlap, what the court said is completely untrue!


----------



## mamajake (Jul 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *perspective* 
I really got angered with this statement. They talk about protecting religious rights, but yet forget to mention the rights of the person (which in most situations in law, comes first). I am fine with parents making choices that effect me during my childhood, choices that NEED to be made. But parents should not have the right to forever take away rights of a future adult.

Also, if this was a court case where a father wanted to cover his sons body with tattoos, or piercings, maybe because of native religious rights, I seriously doubt this judge would be saying the same things, even though (legally) it would be the same situation.

I HATE that they said that FGM and MGM are nothing alike. Considering FGM is an umbrella term for anything as small as a pin prick on female genitals. So OBVIOUSLY there are areas where the two overlap, and where girls are being protected and boys are not.

What all these FGM people say about it being totally different, would be true, IF legally in the US the only protection girls had was from extreme FGM, because then (legally) the two terms would be completely different, but since they very much overlap, what the court said is completely untrue!

Sadly it is in large part the way Oregon law is written that this is possible. There is an Oregon state law setting the age of consent for medical procedures - I don't have it in front of me but I believe it is 15 or 16 - which allows parents to impose medical procedures, even unnecessary ones (including cosmetic surgery), on non-consenting children. Also the Oregon law against FGM says:

"163.207 Female Genital Mutilation

(1) A person commits the crime of female genital mutilation if the person:
(a) Knowingly circumcises, excises or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a child; or
(b) Is the parent, guardian or other person legally responsible for the care or custody of a child and knowingly allows the circumcision, excision or infibulation of the whole or any part of the child's labia majora, labia minora or clitoris.
(2) Female genital mutilation is a Class B felony.
(3)(a) A person who circumcises, excises or infibulates the whole or any part of a child's labia majora, labia minora or clitoris does not violate subsection (1) of this section if:
(A) The person is a physician, licensed to practice in this state; and
(B) The surgery is medically necessary for the physical well-being of the child.
(b) In determining medical necessity for purposes of paragraph (a)(B) of this subsection, a person may not consider the effect on the child of the child's belief that the surgery is required as a matter of custom or ritual. [1999 c.737 §1] "

If this law referred to the cutting of genitalia, without making specific reference to female genitalia, the equal protection argument would be much easier in _Boldt_. Though I think the argument (ignored by the Court) that it is unequal protection to pass a law protecting female genitalia without passing one protecting male genitalia, is a very good one. FGM and MGM don't have to be similar procedures (or arise from similar motivation) other than for both to involve surgical alteration of genitals for non-medical reasons. Addressed that way, one could challenge the constitutionality of the FGM law. The risk in that is that it could lead to a finding that states can't outlaw FGM unless they outlaw MGM - in practice a tough sell since who wants to effectively support keeping FGM legal.

Also keep in mind that the quote you posted about is not from the Court decision, it is from the amicus brief filed by the Jewish organizations. The Court does not discuss FGM at all.

The Court here had the opportunity, through deciding the constitutional issues, to find that minors have a constitutionally protected right to bodily integrity. The Court didn't do that. The case has not been decided based on anyone's religious rights. The Court's holding is that this is the parents' decision, regardless of the parents' motivation.


----------

