Boldt vs Boldt - Revision history

WikiAdmin: Replaced content with "#REDIRECT Boldt v. Boldt"

2020-04-19T16:44:57Z

Replaced content with "#REDIRECT Boldt v. Boldt"

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:44, 19 April 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	#REDIRECT [[Boldt v. Boldt]]		#REDIRECT [[Boldt v. Boldt]]
	A long-running legal case in the United States, finally resolved in 2009, when courts in the state of Oregon ruled that a parent could not compel a child over which he had custody to get circumcised against the boy's will. The case is of interest in its potential to limit the power of parents to impose circumcision and similar physical alterations on children and in its implicit recognition that children have their own rights – to physical integrity and freedom of conscience and religion – independently of their parents' belief.

	~~[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]] filed two amicus curiae briefs in this case and was successful in protecting the boy's [[foreskin]] from [[circumcision]].~~


	~~{{LINKS}}~~
	* http://www.circinfo.org/Boldt_case.html
	* http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/appeal.html
	* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19845198
	* http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/law/01/25/circumcision.case/index.html?iref=newssearch

	~~<!-- {{REF}} -->~~

	~~[[Category:Litigation]]~~
	~~[[Category:Litigation over circumcision]]~~
	~~[[Category:Under construction]]~~

	~~[[Category:From IntactWiki]]~~

WikiModEn2: Redirected page to Boldt v. Boldt

2020-04-19T14:23:39Z

Redirected page to Boldt v. Boldt

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:23, 19 April 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
			#REDIRECT [[Boldt v. Boldt]]
	A long-running legal case in the United States, finally resolved in 2009, when courts in the state of Oregon ruled that a parent could not compel a child over which he had custody to get circumcised against the boy's will. The case is of interest in its potential to limit the power of parents to impose circumcision and similar physical alterations on children and in its implicit recognition that children have their own rights – to physical integrity and freedom of conscience and religion – independently of their parents' belief.		A long-running legal case in the United States, finally resolved in 2009, when courts in the state of Oregon ruled that a parent could not compel a child over which he had custody to get circumcised against the boy's will. The case is of interest in its potential to limit the power of parents to impose circumcision and similar physical alterations on children and in its implicit recognition that children have their own rights – to physical integrity and freedom of conscience and religion – independently of their parents' belief.

WikiModEn2: add text and onsite links.

2019-11-27T03:45:27Z

add text and onsite links.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:45, 27 November 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A long-running legal case in the United States, finally resolved in 2009, when courts in the state of Oregon ruled that a parent could not compel a child over which he had custody to get circumcised against the boy's will. The case is of interest in its potential to limit the power of parents to impose circumcision and similar physical alterations on children and in its implicit recognition that children have their own rights – to physical integrity and freedom of conscience and religion – independently of their parents' belief.		A long-running legal case in the United States, finally resolved in 2009, when courts in the state of Oregon ruled that a parent could not compel a child over which he had custody to get circumcised against the boy's will. The case is of interest in its potential to limit the power of parents to impose circumcision and similar physical alterations on children and in its implicit recognition that children have their own rights – to physical integrity and freedom of conscience and religion – independently of their parents' belief.

	[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] filed an amicus curiae ~~brief~~ in this case and was successful in protecting the boy from [[circumcision]].		[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]] filed two amicus curiae briefs in this case and was successful in protecting the boy's [[foreskin]] from [[circumcision]].

WikiModEn2 at 03:40, 27 November 2019

2019-11-27T03:40:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:40, 27 November 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A long-running legal case in the United States, finally resolved in 2009, when courts in the state of Oregon ruled that a parent could not compel a child over which he had custody to get circumcised against the boy's will. The case is of interest in its potential to limit the power of parents to impose circumcision and similar physical alterations on children and in its implicit recognition that children have their own rights – to physical integrity and freedom of conscience and religion – independently of their parents' belief.		A long-running legal case in the United States, finally resolved in 2009, when courts in the state of Oregon ruled that a parent could not compel a child over which he had custody to get circumcised against the boy's will. The case is of interest in its potential to limit the power of parents to impose circumcision and similar physical alterations on children and in its implicit recognition that children have their own rights – to physical integrity and freedom of conscience and religion – independently of their parents' belief.

			[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] filed an amicus curiae brief in this case and was successful in protecting the boy from [[circumcision]].


	{{LINKS}}		{{LINKS}}

WikiAdmin: Created page with "A long-running legal case in the United States, finally resolved in 2009, when courts in the state of Oregon ruled that a parent could not compel a child over which he had cus..."

2019-09-04T08:18:40Z

Created page with "A long-running legal case in the United States, finally resolved in 2009, when courts in the state of Oregon ruled that a parent could not compel a child over which he had cus..."

New page

A long-running legal case in the United States, finally resolved in 2009, when courts in the state of Oregon ruled that a parent could not compel a child over which he had custody to get circumcised against the boy's will. The case is of interest in its potential to limit the power of parents to impose circumcision and similar physical alterations on children and in its implicit recognition that children have their own rights – to physical integrity and freedom of conscience and religion – independently of their parents' belief.

{{LINKS}}
* http://www.circinfo.org/Boldt_case.html
* http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/appeal.html
* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19845198
* http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/law/01/25/circumcision.case/index.html?iref=newssearch



[[Category:Litigation]]
[[Category:Litigation over circumcision]]
[[Category:Under construction]]

[[Category:From IntactWiki]]