15,770
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add text.
Mr. Niznick and Ms. Schmidt were formerly married. They had a son. They divorced and the former Mrs. Niznick received custody of the boy. The divorce agreement required her to consult with Mr. Niznick regarding any non-emergency health care services for the child.
Ms. Schmidt remarried. Her new husband thought that his step-son should be circumcisedso that he would match his circumcised step-brother. The 31-year-old Slovakian-born mother,<ref name="johnson2006">{{REFnews
|title=Judge takes father's side in circumcision feud
|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagosun-times2006-10-24/
Dr. Van Howe testified the boy the boy had a "normal, non-diseased foreskin" and Dr. Hatch also affirmed the boy had a "normal non-diseased foreskin".<ref name="appendixone" />
Judge Kaplan ruled on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 that the now nine-year-old boy should not be circumcised. In his ruling, he described circumcision as "''an extraordinary medical procedure as it relates to a nine-year-old child''". He issued an order injunction to block the procedure and to protect the boy from circumcision until he turns 18 and can decide for himself.<ref name="johnson2006" /><ref name="reuters2006">{{REFnews |title=Judge rules 9-year-old need not get circumcised. |url=http://www.cirp.org/news/reuters2006-10-25/ |last= |first= |coauthors= |publisher=Reuters |website= |date=2006-10-25 |accessdate=2020-10-25 |quote=}}</ref> Doctors Opposing Circumcision commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" />
==Summation==