Changes

Ms. Schmidt remarriedto a Jewish man. <ref name="bernaerts2014">{{REFdocument |title=The Cologne Judgment: a curiosity or the start sign for condemning circumcision of male children without their consent as a human rights violation? |url=https://repository.gchumanrights.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11825/161/Bernaerts_2012%EF%80%A213.pdf |last=Bernaerts |first=Jonathan Alfons J |publisher=[https://ec.europa.eu/info/index_en European Commission] |format=PDF |date=2014 |accessdate=2020-05-04}}</ref> Her new husband thought that his step-son should be circumcised so that he would match his circumcised step-brother. The 31-year-old Slovakian-born mother,<ref name="johnson2006peres0217">{{REFnews |title=Judge takes father's side in circumcision feudCircumcision decision delayed by court |url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagosun-times2006chicagotribune2006-1002-2417/ |last=JohnsonPeres |first=CarlaJudy

|publisher=Chicago Sun-TimesTribune

|date=2006-1002-2417 |accessdate=2020-055-0407

|last=Svoboda |first=J. Steven

|title=Appendix OneRespondent’s Closing Argument

Mr. Niznik retained renowned circumcision lawyer [[David J. Llewellyn]] of Atlanta, Georgia to represent him and they went to court filed suit in the [http://www.cookcountycourt.org/ Circuit Court of Cook County], Illinois. Mr. Llewellyn was supported by local counsel Lake, Toback & D'Arco. The Polish-born father, a 49-year-old building manager from Arlington Heights, immediately asked Judge Jordan Kaplan to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the circumcision of his son, pending a trial, which was granted.<ref name="peres0217" /><ref name="arcnews2006" />

Drs. [[Robert S. Van Howe| Van Howe]] and Gibbon served as expert witnesses for the father, while Drs. Hatch and Goldstein served as expert witnesses for the mother, a 31-year-old homemaker from Northbrook, represented by [http://tracyrizzo.com/ Tracy Rizzo].<ref name="arcnews2006" /> <ref name="appendixone" /> <ref name="peres2006">{{REFnews

She claimed that the boy had [[balanitis]] which she alleged would make his [[circumcision]] a necessary medical treatment, however it was shown that the boy had been swimming in heavily clorinated swimming pools, which caused the irritation. The boy did not have balanitis, so he did not need a circumcision. Even if he did have balanitis, there is more conservative treatment available than radical, destructive circumcision, it was shown.<ref name="appendixone" />

Dr. [[Robert S. Van Howe |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" />

It was brought out that circumcision risks serious psychological damage.<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 injunction to block the procedure and to protect the boy from circumcision until he turns 18 and can decide for himself.<ref name="johnson2006" >{{REFnews |title=Judge takes father's side in circumcision feud |url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagosun-times2006-10-24/ |last=Johnson |first=Carla |coauthors= |publisher=Chicago Sun-Times |website= |date=2006-10-24 |accessdate=2020-05-04 |quote=}}</ref><ref name="reuters2006">{{REFnews

Doctors Opposing Circumcision commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" /> =Afterword=Summation== The decision of the trial judge was not appealed to a higher court so the decision of the trial court stands.<ref name="peres1024" />

''Schmidt v[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C. Niznik'' )]] (2006) is believed to be commented that the ruling protected the first American boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006"/> [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]], later cited this case to recognize as a precedent in an [https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBrief.pdf| ''amicus curiae'' brief] filed with the Oregon Supreme Count in the right case of a male child to genital autonomy — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007.

[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]], cited Jonathan Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case as a precedent in an [https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBriefon page 83 of his thesis.pdf| ''amicus curiaeSchmidt v. Niznik'' brief] filed with (2006) is believed to be the Oregon Supreme Count in first American legal case to recognize the case right of a male child to [[Boldt v. Boldtgenital autonomy]] in 2007— the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014"/>

[[Category:USALitigation over circumcision]]