Intact Global

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 14^th 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

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.

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, 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.

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.

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)

News on Intact Global lawsuit

The counsel for the Defendant had filed a petition to dismiss the Intact Global lawsuit. A hearing was held in Portland before Judge Melvin Oden-Orr on 23 October 2025. The Court rejected the claims of the Defendant and dismissed the petition. Apparently the way is now clear to adjudicate the case on its merits.

---

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
• Kruseman, Arie Nieuwenhuijzen: Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors , Royal Dutch Medical Association. (27 May 2010). Retrieved 26 April 2023.
• 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 G. The case against circumcision . Journal of Men's Health and Gender. 2007; 4(3): 318-23. Retrieved 20 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.