Boldt v. Boldt: Difference between revisions

Legal proceedings: Minor text editing for clarity.
Line 117: Line 117:
}}</ref>
}}</ref>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
The child’s proposed circumcision, at one point only hours away, remains judicially prohibited.<ref name="geisheker2010">{{REFjournal
The child’s proposed circumcision, at one point only hours away, remains judicially prohibited so the proposed circumcision was never carried out.<ref name="geisheker2010">{{REFjournal
  |last=Geisheker
  |last=Geisheker
  |first=John V.
  |first=John V.
Line 144: Line 144:
[[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]].
[[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]].


The case also set a legal precedent regarding the rights of the male child to legal protection of his person.
The case also set a legal precedent regarding the rights of the male child to judicial protection of his person.


==Commentary on Boldt v. Boldt==
==Commentary on Boldt v. Boldt==