In what may later be the bane of a Florida child’s existence, a legal battle has sprung up between his biological parents over whether or not he should undergo a circumcision. The child named Chase has become the unwitting flag bearer of a movement to prevent child circumcision, featured in signs such as “Let Chase Keep His Foreskin” and ”Don’t Cut Chase’s Penis.”
The 4-year old has been the center of almost all disagreements (a lot of them) between his estranged parents, and this current wrinkle has fed the fodder of the cause some refer to as “intactivism.” Intactivists are those that are vigorously opposed to the practice of circumcision, considering it “barbaric” with healthy risks inadequately offset by possible benefits.
Circumcision is a relatively simple outpatient procedure in which the foreskin of the penis is removed, and in many cases the male is an infant or a child. The practice is common in some religions, and some have it done in the belief that it is more hygienic, to which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concurs. It is also necessary for some medical conditions. The CDC reports that in 2013 about 58% of all newborn males in the US were circumcised, but that there is a downward trend in the practice.
The parents had a previous agreement in which circumcision would be performed on the child, but the mother balked when the time came for the procedure to be performed, hence the legal battle. The courts have so far favored the father’s side, and no further filings have been made after the Court of Appeals refused to overturn the lower court’s ruling to let the circumcision be performed.