Oregon Supreme Court blocks circumcision! - Page 2

[Mommiska]

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]

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]

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]

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

And that little carefully-worded document is vomitingly ridiculous.

[phatchristy]

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]

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]

:

[Fellow Traveler]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by fruitful womb

Thank you for sharing this information.

No problem. Always happy to help when I can.

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.

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]

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

[Frankly Speaking]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[SaraFR]

I'm rethinking saying so much.