A divorce dispute over whether to circumcise a 12-year-old boy will be decided Friday by the Oregon Supreme Court.
The nationally-watched case pits a father who converted to Judaism and wants his son to undergo the religious ritual, against his mother, an orthodox Christian who claims the boy doesn’t want to be circumcised.
I’ve written about this in many posts already. I’m curious to discover whether or not the Oregon Supreme Court understands the fallacy of the Circuit judge’s opinion that “the decision of whether or not a child has elective surgery, which this appears to be, is a call that should be made and is reserved to the custodial parent”. Elective surgery is a very large scope. It would certainly be legally strange to continue the irrational stance of applying one standard to the penis and another to the labia and clitoris. But then, Oregon already embraces gender discrimination in its law against the mutilation of a minor’s genitals.
I hope we get a broad precedent-setting ruling protecting males as females are already protected, but I’m not stupid. I am pessimistically cautious that we’ll get a ruling in favor of the mother’s argument. Hopefully the court will have the sense to at least go there, custodial parents “rights” be damned. More tomorrow, after the Court announces its ruling.
Update: My opinion is here.