Here is part of a quote from a interesting article on this whole case:
"Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, which is filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support of James Boldt. “We have to win this case, and win it big, in my view” Stern said."http://www.forward.com/articles/11410/
(I am assuming "win it big" means forcing a teenager to be circumcised against his will, with court approval)
Later in the article, they make a good point:
"Since the 1950s, the Supreme Court, in the context of cases involving both contraception and abortion, has generally expanded the rights of teenagers when it comes to their own bodies. Harvard Law School professor Martha Minow, an expert in family law and in cases involving religious rights, would like to see that precedent extended in Oregon.
“If the child at issue is 12 years old, a court would rightly consider that individual’s own view — about religion and about the procedure at issue — perhaps not as the ultimate basis for the decision but as a vital input,” Minow wrote in an e-mail to the Forward. “Legally, morally, and practically, the view of an emerging adolescent would be highly germane here just as it would for a medical decision facing a pregnant teen.”"
If this was a 13 year old girl facing the need for an abortion, courts have at least given respect to her views, and her rights. Yet in this case, this boy, facing many of the same issues, and at the same age, is still being legally shoved around like he is just owned property.