[User23]

Would a state law banning infant male circumcision as genital mutilation without consent stand?

How about a state law against branding or tattooing infants or any other irreversible body modification?

Clearly these are both rhetorical questions with obvious answers. Whether or not those obvious answers are morally correct is another matter.

[adrianba]

I'm not sure what point you are making here. Presumably your obvious answer is "yes"? For example, there are indeed some states that outlaw tattooing minors (although many states do permit it with parental consent).

[jay_kyburz]

I think he is pointing out that you could never ban circumcisions, but that it's scaring children for life, which is otherwise banned (tattoos). (and morally objectionable)

[arcticbull]

I'm not sure there isn't a path to banning circumcisions. After all the first amendment really only applies to the exercise of religious beliefs that affect your own personal autonomy. You can't claim a first amendment right to murder your enemies highlander style.

Ergo, while traditional, the fact that you are requesting the modification of another human (not yourself), I could see this not surviving a challenge down the line.

After all, female genital mutilation (which is obviously far worse) represents a similar request for modification of a living human - not yourself - for religious purposes, and it is outright banned in the overwhelming majority of the United States. While a Federal ban was struck down, it was not struck down on First Amendment grounds but rather due to same being outside the scope of enumerated powers of the federal government and not covered by the commerce clause. [1]

This leaves the state laws in force in all but 9 states.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation_in_t...

[adrianba]

Agreed. I think it's very likely that a ban would be upheld against a Free Exercise challenge (even though at least one lower court did strike such a proposal down on this ground).

Some people think it would not survive a Due Process challenge, though, because there isn't a strong enough basis to overcome a parent's fundamental right to make decisions about their child. I could see that being a close question.

[arcticbull]

I agree, and I think the prevailing climate would have to change first. However I don't see anything that would make such a law fundamentally and obviously unconstitutional.

The case I could make is that it may prevent the child's right to future free exercise of a religion in which the, uh, package should be, err, OEM.

[arcticbull]

btw, IMO, I don't think parents should be in a position to make any irrevocable physical modifications to their children for religious or aesthetic purposes.

Once you turn 18, by all means, feel free to take a little off the top.