17,122
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Afterword: Revise and relocate text.
The decision of the trial judge was not appealed to a higher court so the decision of the trial court stands.
[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision ]] {2006} commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" />Doctors Opposing Circumcision, cited this case 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 case of ''[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007.
Jonathon Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right 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. [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]], cited this case 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 case of ''[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007. Jonathon Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis.<ref name="bernaerts2014" />
{{REF}}