This is yet another case where someone has some rather unusual ideas about the law.
In Oregon, there's a case of a man who wants his 13-year-old son circumcised, against the wishes of his former wife, who is the boy's mother. The man had converted to Judaism several years ago, thus the planned circumcision.
The man went to court, arguing that he has a right under the Constitution's protection of freedom of religion to force the boy to undergo this procedure. But if that's what the man thinks, he sure has some strange ideas about what the Constitution says. I'm a progressive populist, and I don't have anything against any particular religion. But his views on constitutional law are way off-base.
The Oregon Supreme Court correctly ruled that the circumcision should happen only if the boy wants it. He's 13, and if he doesn't want to be circumcised, he's old enough to make that decision.
But now the father is appealing this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If he actually wins this case, that would set a miserable precedent that would gut 200 years of law. I don't think he has a case, especially considering the boy's age and the objections of his mother. But with today's Supreme Court, you never know.
I know the man is going to claim he's within his rights as a parent, but even that has limits. Public laws have to be interpreted reasonably. I have been told that in some states, there are statutes that say your parents can force you to change your name even if you're 17. But if a 17-year-old who did not want to change their name challenged this law, I would rule in the teen's favor, based on common law. Without hesitation.
I think the Oregon court was trying to balance the rights of all parties involved. It was the reasonable thing to do.
(Source: http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/05/dad_appeals_teen_sons_circumci.html)
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Circumcision case appealed
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I'm an intactivist so have been tracking this from the moment the mother hired a lawyer. US law says one parent (both parents don't have to agree and is not required)can forcibly circumcise their son. The father won three court decisions. If the mother with pro bono genital integrity rights lawyer didn't fight it all the way to the supreme court, Misha would have been cut at age 9 and probably without any pain relief. The Oregon Supreme court would have upheld the decision of the three lower courts if Misha was younger than 12 when at this age the child is allowed to voice his opinion through his court appointed representative or court judge alone in chambers. Even so Misha's wishes have no veto power, just a consideration. From the start, the mother gambled that if the courts moved slow enough and she could keep on fighting having no assets to proceed, Misha would be old enough to have input in court. The overbearing father and lawyer knew this and hoped to brow beat the mother into hopeless submission. Still credit to the courts for proceeding exceptionally slow , any faster and it would be 1 year too soon. Will Misha fight a lifetime of his domineering circumcising father and keep his valuable prize or loose whatever skins dad/friend mohel doctor wish to harvest. It's a toss as long as he lives with his dad. Circumcision is nothing new in this country, so it would be a mistake to think forced parental/guardian circumcisions are not happening. I first hand know two. And Blue Cross stopped paying for female circumcisions in 1976. Males should have the same rights as females. Let's have some equality here. Please support mgmbill.org.
ReplyDelete