Abstract:
“We want our daughter circumcised,” said the parents to their pediatrician. When asked why, the parents expressed sincere religious beliefs. Constitutionally, should the parents be granted a religious exemption from the law passed by the US Congress in 1996 that forbids female circumcision? If so, on what grounds? If not, why not? Would the same answers be applicable if the parents were religiously motivated to have their son circumcised?

In this survey of legal exemptions of religious rites, I will present 27 types of genital-altering religious rituals used to conduct irreversible physical surgeries on female and male children. I will then focus on the contemporary attempts to regulate ritual circumcision on males and counter attempts to legally exempt the rite. I will also examine the political rhetoric of “mutilation” versus “circumcision” when comparing the incongruence in laws that protect female children but not male children.

I begin by exploring a sampling of cases in the United States that have justified legal restrictions on religious practices, such as polygamy, child preaching, and parents using faith-based reasons for refusing medical interventions for their children. I will use these cases to articulate eight legal and ethical principles: child welfare, no harm to others, substantial harm, direct consent, self-determination, no preference in religion, peace or safety, and equal protection. I use these principles to develop what I call the God told me so doctrine and then apply it to the current politics of ritual circumcision. The primary question that drives my analysis is whether religious accommodations should be granted if the religious practice in question infringes on the rights of children. Put simply, if God tells me to circumcise my child, will the state stop me?