Difference between revisions of "Intact Global"
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (→Comment by Shea Lita Bond) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (→Comment by Shea Lita Bond: Correct date.) |
||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
==Comment by Shea Lita Bond== | ==Comment by Shea Lita Bond== | ||
| − | Shea Lita Bond reviewed the issues presented in the 2025 Hadachek in her comment in The ''John Marshall Law Review''. She concluded as follows: | + | Shea Lita Bond reviewed the issues presented in the 2025 Hadachek in her comment in The ''John Marshall Law Review'' in 1999. She concluded as follows: |
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Both male and female circumcision are medically unnecessary procedures that can cause children to experience physical and psychological harm. State legislatures enacted FGM statutes to protect female minors from circumcision complications, but never extended the same protection to male children. This ''Comment'' does not suggest that female circumcision is less important than male circumcision or that it is not a serious human rights problem. However, here in the United States male minors face circumcision at a wider scale, yet they are not legally protected from this painful, medically unnecessary procedure. Laws criminalizing female circumcision are a step in the right direction toward protecting child welfare. However, all children are at risk of being circumcised and yet currently only half are protected under state laws. | Both male and female circumcision are medically unnecessary procedures that can cause children to experience physical and psychological harm. State legislatures enacted FGM statutes to protect female minors from circumcision complications, but never extended the same protection to male children. This ''Comment'' does not suggest that female circumcision is less important than male circumcision or that it is not a serious human rights problem. However, here in the United States male minors face circumcision at a wider scale, yet they are not legally protected from this painful, medically unnecessary procedure. Laws criminalizing female circumcision are a step in the right direction toward protecting child welfare. However, all children are at risk of being circumcised and yet currently only half are protected under state laws. | ||
| − | State FGM laws violate the constitutional guarantee that similarly situated males and females be treated equally before the law. Notwithstanding a state governments good intentions, and its legal prerogative to protect young girls from an injurious procedure, the state must extend the same legal protections to boys at risk for a similar procedure. Striking down unconstitutional FGM statutes and replacing them with gender neutral, generally applicatable laws will protect all children from harm and further the state's legitimate interest in protecting child welfare without discriminating on the basis of gender.<ref name=" | + | State FGM laws violate the constitutional guarantee that similarly situated males and females be treated equally before the law. Notwithstanding a state governments good intentions, and its legal prerogative to protect young girls from an injurious procedure, the state must extend the same legal protections to boys at risk for a similar procedure. Striking down unconstitutional FGM statutes and replacing them with gender neutral, generally applicatable laws will protect all children from harm and further the state's legitimate interest in protecting child welfare without discriminating on the basis of gender.<ref name="bond1999">{{REFjournal |
|last=Bond | |last=Bond | ||
|init=SL | |init=SL | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
|title=Female Circumcision Laws and the Equal Protection Clause | |title=Female Circumcision Laws and the Equal Protection Clause | ||
|journal=The John Marshall Law Review | |journal=The John Marshall Law Review | ||
| − | |date= | + | |date=1999-12 |
|volume=32 | |volume=32 | ||
|issue= | |issue= | ||
Revision as of 18:34, 18 October 2025
Intact Global is an American intactivist organization that seeks to advance the right to genital integrity in the judicial systems of the several States of the United States.
Eric Clopper is the founder and president of Intact Global.
Intact Global observes that the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1 states in part that States shall not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Contents
- 1 Inaugural conference
- 2 Popularity of circumcision in Oregon
- 3 Complaint
- 4 Oregon Defense
- 5 Comment by Shea Lita Bond
- 6 Video
- 6.1 Intact Global Launch - Collaboration with GALDEF and LIVE Viewer Q&A!
- 6.2 Daily Live No. 16! Get Your Tix for Intact Global’s March 29-31 Conference!
- 6.3 Intact Global 2025 Conference
- 6.4 Day 1 LIVESTREAM – Intact Global’s Conference (March 29)
- 6.5 Day 2 LIVESTREAM – Intact Global’s Legal Summit for Genital Autonomy (March 30)
- 6.6 Courageous Conversations: The Fight Against Newborn Genital Mutilation
- 7 See also
- 8 External links
- 9 References
Inaugural conference
Intact Global held its inaugural conference in Portland, Oregon on 29-30 March 2025 and followed it with a press conference on 31 March 2025. A suit has been filed on behalf of certain injured Oregonians.[1]
Popularity of circumcision in Oregon
Child circumcision is not popular in Oregon. Data Panda (2024) reports the incidence of circumcision of boys in Oregon in 2024 is 17 percent,[2] which means that 83 percent of younger boys in Oregon are intact. Oregon ranks fourth among the States in the unpopularity of child circumcision.
Complaint
Intact Global filed a 72-page complaint no. 25CV18224 on behalf of several circumcised male Oregonians and a female against the State of Oregon in the Multinomah County Circuit Court on 27 March 2025.[3]
Law Works, LLC serves as local counsel.
The plaintiffs are reported to be in negotiations with the Office of the Attorney-General of Oregon.
A hearing has been scheduled for 23 October 2025 in Portland, Oregon. The case number is 25CV18224.
The complaint has been amended.
Oregon Defense
It is expected that Oregon will be defended by the Oregon Department of Justice, which is headed by Attorney-General Dan Rayfield.
Comment by Shea Lita Bond
Shea Lita Bond reviewed the issues presented in the 2025 Hadachek in her comment in The John Marshall Law Review in 1999. She concluded as follows:
Both male and female circumcision are medically unnecessary procedures that can cause children to experience physical and psychological harm. State legislatures enacted FGM statutes to protect female minors from circumcision complications, but never extended the same protection to male children. This Comment does not suggest that female circumcision is less important than male circumcision or that it is not a serious human rights problem. However, here in the United States male minors face circumcision at a wider scale, yet they are not legally protected from this painful, medically unnecessary procedure. Laws criminalizing female circumcision are a step in the right direction toward protecting child welfare. However, all children are at risk of being circumcised and yet currently only half are protected under state laws.
State FGM laws violate the constitutional guarantee that similarly situated males and females be treated equally before the law. Notwithstanding a state governments good intentions, and its legal prerogative to protect young girls from an injurious procedure, the state must extend the same legal protections to boys at risk for a similar procedure. Striking down unconstitutional FGM statutes and replacing them with gender neutral, generally applicatable laws will protect all children from harm and further the state's legitimate interest in protecting child welfare without discriminating on the basis of gender.[4]
Video
Intact Global Launch - Collaboration with GALDEF and LIVE Viewer Q&A!
Daily Live No. 16! Get Your Tix for Intact Global’s March 29-31 Conference!
Intact Global 2025 Conference
Day 1 LIVESTREAM – Intact Global’s Conference (March 29)
Day 2 LIVESTREAM – Intact Global’s Legal Summit for Genital Autonomy (March 30)
Courageous Conversations: The Fight Against Newborn Genital Mutilation
See also
- Circumcision legal commentary
- Genital Autonomy Legal Defense and Education Fund
- United States of America
External links
Official website. Retrieved 16 August 2024-
Intact Global Reddit Discussion
, REDDIT. Retrieved 2 April 2025. 
Constitution of Oregon 
, State of Oregon. (2020). Retrieved 1 April 2025.
Povenmire R. Do Parents Have the Legal Authority to Consent to the Surgical Amputation of Normal, Healthy Tissue From Their Infant Children?: The Practice of Circumcision in the United States. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law. September 1998; 7: 87-123. Retrieved 4 May 2025.- Davis, Dena: Male and Female genital Alteration: A Collision Course with the Law? , Health Matrix: J Law-Med.. (2001). Retrieved 19 October 2025.
- Hill, George: Genital Integrity Policy Statement , Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.). (June 2008). Retrieved 3 April 2025.
- Day D (2014).
Circumcision and The United States Constitution: Forced Genital Cutting of Minors is Illegal
, Saving Our Sons. Retrieved 18 October 2025. 
Sparling, Zane (31 March 2025)."Lawyers say Oregon genital cutting law discriminates against boys; seek circumcision ban", The Oregonian. Retrieved 2 April 2025.-
Intact Global Youtube Channel
, Intact Global. Retrieved 30 May 2025. - Anonymous (25 July 2025).
Hadachek v. Oregon
, Genital Autonomy Collective. Retrieved 18 October 2025.
.svg){kind=icon}
References
- ↑ Clopper, Eric (2 February 2025).
2025- Intact Global Conference
, Intact Global. Retrieved 3 February 2025. - ↑ Anonymous (18 September 2024).
Circumcision Rate by State
, Data Panda. Retrieved 2 April 2025. - ↑ Clopper, Eric: Hadachek et al. v. Oregon Complaint , Intact Global. (27 March 2025). Retrieved 1 April 2025.
- ↑ Bond SL. Female Circumcision Laws and the Equal Protection Clause. The John Marshall Law Review. December 1999; 32: 353-80. Retrieved 18 October 2025.