Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Supreme Dicta

Federal Judiciary

: Supreme Dicta

Oregon Supreme Court Rules on...Circumcision?!?

I know divorce is painful for children, but this is ridiculous.

The wishes of a 12-year-old boy should be considered in a dispute between his divorced parents about whether he should be circumcised, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled Friday. The father, James Boldt, converted to Judaism in 2004 and wants the boy to be circumcised as part of the faith. The mother, Lia Boldt, appealed to the high court, saying the operation could harm her son physically and psychologically.

The state Supreme Court ruled that earlier court decisions failed to determine whether the boy wanted the circumcision, as his father contended, or opposed it, as his mother alleged. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court to answer that question.

File this under "No Sh$%, Sherlock." If the right to privacy means anything, it means the autonomy to make basic decisions about what happens to your own body. A 12 year-old might not be an adult, but he should have a say in this matter. He's certainly old enough to have an opinion about whether he wants to...shall we say...habeas corpus...to a moyul.

The case has drawn attention from Jewish groups concerned that the Oregon court might restrict the practice. A group called Doctors Opposing Circumcision backs the mother. The courts have steered clear of religious or medical issues, focusing on the questions of custody and care of the child.

That's good. We wouldn't want to get distracted by other issues. A boy's wiener is on the line!

I feel bad for this kid. He has to get into a suit and tie, go to court, and talk to a judge about his feelings about circumcision. I feel awkward just writing about it. But that is certainly better than having someone else decide for him.

Full post as published by Supreme Dicta on January 29, 2008 (boomark / email).