Boldt v. Boldt: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 }}</ref>
-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.
+Thus ended in victory a five-year legal battle to save a boy's [[foreskin]]. The boy's legal, constitutional and human rights prevailed over the father's claimed religious right to excise a functional body part from his son's body.
 [[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]].