Routine Infant Male Circumcision

Examining the Human Rights and Constitutional Issues
  • J. Steven Svoboda
Chapter

Abstract

Human rights agreements—applicable either through ratification or through customary law—forbid circumcision based on such important principles as the rights of the child, the right to freedom of religion, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, and the right to protection against torture. Cultural blindness facilitates the perpetuation of many barbaric and/or egregiously discriminatory practices and conditions. The many laws against female sexual mutilation, and the discriminatory failure to outlaw and vilify male sexual mutilation, violate equal protection under both international human rights law and American legal doctrines.

Keywords

Male Circumcision Female Genital Mutilation Civil Code Criminal Code Equal Protection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Convention on the Rights of the Child. UN GA resolution 44/25, November 20, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Declaration of the Rights of the Child. UN GA resolution 1386 [XIV], November 20, 1959, Principle 9.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dwyer J. Parent’s religion and children’s welfare: debunking the doctrine of parent’s rights. California Law Review 1994; 82: 1371–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. UN GA resolution 2200 A [XXI]. December 16, 1966.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dwyer J. Parent’s religion and children’s welfare: debunking the doctrine of parent’s rights. California Law Review 1994; 82: 1371–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment. UN GA resolution 39/46, December 10, 1984, Article 1.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. UN GA resolution 3452 [XXX], December 9, 1975, Articles 1.2 and 2.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ecumenics International. News Release: Ad Hoc Working Group of International Experts on Violations of Genital Mutilation. Sloatsburg, New York: Ecumenics International July I, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kimbrell A. The Masculine Mystique. New York: Ballantine Books, 1995: 145–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    United States Code §§ 116, I, 3571 (b) (3)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    th Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives Bill 2202.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    th Congress, 2nd Session, House of Representatives Bill 3019 (e) (1).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    California Penal Code §273.4Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Delaware Code Title 11, §§ 1113, 4205 (b) (3) (date of enactment July 3, 1996).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Minnesota Statutes §§ 609.2245, 609.02.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    California Health and Safety Code § 124170; Minnesota Criminal Code § 144.3872.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    North Dakota Criminal Code §§ 12.1–36–01, 12.1–32–01.4.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rhode Island General Laws § 11–5–2 (date of enactment July 3, 1996).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tennessee Code Annotated §§39–13–857, 40–35–111 (b) (4).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wisconsin Act 365 (date of enactment May 28, 1996).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Australia Family Law Council. Female Genital Mutilation: A Report to the Attorney-General Prepared by the Family Law Council. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia, June 1994: 70.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Australia Family Law Council. Female Genital Mutilation: A Report to the Attorney-General Prepared by the Family Law Council. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia, June 1994: 70.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crimes Act 1961, as amended 1995, 204a and 204b.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Australia Family Law Council. Female Genital Mutilation: A Report to the Attorney-General Prepared by the Family Law Council. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia, June 1994: 70.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Act 316 of 1982 Prohibiting the Circumcision of Women.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    The Children Act 1989.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Crimes (female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Act 1994 (effective May 1, 1995).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    . 1991, Chapter 64 (Bill 125), Civil Code of Quebec, Article 1 I.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chapter 64 (Bill 125), Civil Code of Quebec, Article 12.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chapter 64 (Bill 125), Civil Code of Quebec, Article 19.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Criminal Code Section 273.3.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bill C-235, reintroduced on March 12, 1996, and originally introduced as Bill C-277 on September 29, 1994.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Illinois 1995–96 Sessions, House Bill 3572, introduced on February 9, 1996, would create 720 Illinois Compiled Statues 5/12–34.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Illinois Compiled Statutes § 5/5–8–1 (3)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Illinois Compiled Statutes §5/5–9–1 (a) (I)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Colorado 1996 Sessions, Senate Bill 96–31.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    New York 1995–96 Sessions, Senate Bills 510 and 597, and Assembly Bills 690 and 788.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    South Carolina Sessions, House Bill 4710.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Texas Sessions, House Bill 2442.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    California Penal Code § 667.83.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Idaho Criminal Code § 18–1506A (b).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Illinois Compiled Statutes §,§5/12–32 and 5/12–33(2).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Delaware Code § I703(e)(4).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Minnesota Statute § 147.09(10).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Montana Code § 37–3–103(h).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wisconsin Statute § 448.03(g).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    . Ecumenics International. News Release: Ad Hoc Working Group of International Experts on Violations of Genital Mutilation. Sloatsburg, New York: Ecumenics International July I, 1995.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    United States v. Virginia, 116 S.Ct. 2264, 2275 (1996).Google Scholar
  50. United States v. Virginia, supra, 116 S.Ct. at 2274, 2275, quoting Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 724 (1982) (O’ Connor, J.). Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    United States v. Virginia, supra, 116 S.Ct. at 2275, quoting Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, supra, 458 U.S. at 724.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Spring P. Suit claims N.D. genital mutilation law biased. The Forum. June 7, 1996.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    . Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialised mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. British Journal of Urology 1996; 77: 291–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Steven Svoboda

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations