Mother forced by court to sign consent of circumcision

[Askold]

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/heather-hironimus-intactivist-mom-who-took-son-into-hiding-to-save-his-foreskin-sobs-in-court-as-she-signs-consent-for-circumcision

TL;DR a court argument over whether or not a child would be circumcised escalated as the mother kidnapped her son when she was about to lose. Now the court told her that because the procedure cannot be done unless both the mother and the father give their approval, the court will keep her in jail indefinitely unless she signs a paper saying that she approves of the circumcision.

USA: What the hell are you doing? I understand arresting the mother after she took the kid into hiding but why the hell is she forced to sign a piece of paper where she gives consent? If the court for some reason (medical reason would be understandable unless USA has a law that makes religious circumcision enforceable even when parents disapprove of it) thinks that the circumcision is needed then why not simply ignore the mother and make a court order that says that the mother's approval isn't needed? Why force her (under the threat of keeping her in jail for years) to sign a paper? Also, if there is no law that requires circumcision in USA and if there is no medical requirement, then why is this court so hell bent on getting the kid's dick cut?

[RavynousHunter]

Also, if there is no law that requires circumcision in USA and if there is no medical requirement, then why is this court so hell bent on getting the kid's dick cut?

There isn't, or at least there wasn't back in '89.  My mom is convinced, to this day, that I was circumcised.  Both Sleeps and myself can emphatically confirm that I am, in fact, not.  My guess is that the doctor saw it wasn't necessary and didn't bother, or had an attack of conscience and quietly refused to do an unnecessary cosmetic surgery on an infant.  Either way, that shit ain't mandated.  Assuming this isn't some Onion-style satire, then this is ten billion flavours of fucked up.  While there are conditions that require the removal of the foreskin, they aren't terribly common, if I'm remembering right.  Its more likely that whatever cunt ordered this is either trying to enforce their religious bullshit on people...or is so gloriously fooled by the litany of complete, utter bullshit people spew about foreskin that they honestly think they're doing the right thing.

[Chaos Undivided]

My stance is simple: if a grown man (or maybe an older teen) wants to be circumcised, let him, but don't circumcise children (or worse yet, infants) unless it's medically necessary. And I don't give a shit about your religious justifications. Far as I'm concerned, mandatory infant circumcision should've gone the way of animal sacrifice a long time ago.

[dpareja]

My stance is simple: if a grown man (or maybe an older teen) wants to be circumcised, let him, but don't circumcise children (or worse yet, infants) unless it's medically necessary. And I don't give a shit about your religious justifications. Far as I'm concerned, mandatory infant circumcision should've gone the way of animal sacrifice a long time ago.

https://forward.com/news/world/395213/why-does-scandinavia-want-to-ban-circumcision-and-kosher-slaughter/

The US has generally held the position that mutilating your infant son's genitals is your religious right, dammit!

[niam2023]

And if you're not for that religious right, then you're just UN-CHRISTIAN!!!

[Sigmaleph]

If the court for some reason (medical reason would be understandable unless USA has a law that makes religious circumcision enforceable even when parents disapprove of it) thinks that the circumcision is needed then why not simply ignore the mother and make a court order that says that the mother's approval isn't needed? Why force her (under the threat of keeping her in jail for years) to sign a paper? Also, if there is no law that requires circumcision in USA and if there is no medical requirement, then why is this court so hell bent on getting the kid's dick cut?

It's not super clear, but from what I gather from articles on the subject I think the crux of the matter is that the mother signed some sort of parenting agreement saying she would provide consent, and then changed her mind. I think that's why the court is demanding she specifically sign the consent rather than saying her consent is unnecessary (afaict, the circumcision is not medically necessary nor are there religious reasons for it).

(I Am Not A Lawyer)

[RavynousHunter]

If the court for some reason (medical reason would be understandable unless USA has a law that makes religious circumcision enforceable even when parents disapprove of it) thinks that the circumcision is needed then why not simply ignore the mother and make a court order that says that the mother's approval isn't needed? Why force her (under the threat of keeping her in jail for years) to sign a paper? Also, if there is no law that requires circumcision in USA and if there is no medical requirement, then why is this court so hell bent on getting the kid's dick cut?

It's not super clear, but from what I gather from articles on the subject I think the crux of the matter is that the mother signed some sort of parenting agreement saying she would provide consent, and then changed her mind. I think that's why the court is demanding she specifically sign the consent rather than saying her consent is unnecessary (afaict, the circumcision is not medically necessary nor are there religious reasons for it).

(I Am Not A Lawyer)

Can you even do that, though?  That sounds like some real metalegal shenanigans, like you're agreeing to eventually agree to something. 

[Chaos Undivided]

And if you're not for that religious right, then you're just UN-CHRISTIAN!!!

Even though Paul, the man they use to justify so much of their bullshit, was no fan of circumcision.

[davedan]

If the court for some reason (medical reason would be understandable unless USA has a law that makes religious circumcision enforceable even when parents disapprove of it) thinks that the circumcision is needed then why not simply ignore the mother and make a court order that says that the mother's approval isn't needed? Why force her (under the threat of keeping her in jail for years) to sign a paper? Also, if there is no law that requires circumcision in USA and if there is no medical requirement, then why is this court so hell bent on getting the kid's dick cut?

It's not super clear, but from what I gather from articles on the subject I think the crux of the matter is that the mother signed some sort of parenting agreement saying she would provide consent, and then changed her mind. I think that's why the court is demanding she specifically sign the consent rather than saying her consent is unnecessary (afaict, the circumcision is not medically necessary nor are there religious reasons for it).

(I Am Not A Lawyer)

From my reading of the article that sounds about right. They signed a parenting agreement which consented to the circumcision. The father apparently just thinks its 'the normal thing to do', although I'm surprised in the circumstances that he has chosen that hill to die on. As in most things there's probably a lot more to this.