A lawsuit to end male infant circumcision has been just been filed. On June 15, 2026, Eric Clopper, Founder & President of Intact Global, stood at the Colorado State Capitol to announce the launch of Huff v. Colorado—Intact Global’s newest constitutional challenge in the fight for equal protection under the law.Colorado law protects girls from non-therapeutic genital cutting, but does not extend the same protection to boys. Huff v. Colorado asks a fundamental constitutional question: If Colorado protects girls from genital cutting, must it extend that same protection to boys?In his remarks, Clopper explains the constitutional principles behind the lawsuit, challenges the continued acceptance of non-therapeutic childhood circumcision, and places Huff v. Colorado within a growing movement for bodily autonomy and children’s rights. His message is simple: every child deserves equal protection under the law.Intact Global previously brought a similar constitutional challenge in Hadachek v. Oregon. With Huff v. Colorado, the effort to establish equal legal protection for children continues in Colorado.>BUT IT WILL NEVER WORK!!!This is the second lawsuit filed. The other lawsuit was filed in another state and is ongoing, so far the pro baby cutter’s motion to dismiss was denied by the judge.
>>541574480Video of anti circumcision lawyer giving press conference after filing this lawsuit https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Swk2v7nc3lI Video from courtroom of previously filed and also currently ongoing lawsuit that the judge denied the pro baby cutting states motion to dismiss https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=orKH4b8VDlk
>>541574480It's up to the parents to make the decision
>>541574480>BUT IT WILL NEVER WORK!!!Of course the kike courts will never rule against circumcision. "Working" here should probably mean exposing to even the most dumb NPC normalfag that the whole zog is kiked beyond a political solution.
>>541574480imagine thinking about little boys' dicks this hard
>>541574641Female genital circumcision is not up to the parents. And the parents get prosecuted by the federal government if they perform it even in a foreign country.
>>541574753They already kind of have because the judge could have granted the pro baby cutting state’s motion to dismiss but he instead denied their motion to dismiss.
>>541574877Imagine thinking it's okay to take a blade to infant's genitals.
>>541574888>>541574641FGM is federally illegal in usa and illegal in many other countries. Also 41 usa states have laws against female cuttingIf a baby girl is cut she can sue her parents, doctors, hospital, nurses, etc and get millions of dollars. She could choose to just sue the doctor and hospital if she wanted to and get a few million dollars.
Men and boys are explicitly discriminated against because they are not protected from mgm and also have no real recourse if it is done to them. men literally should be able to sue the doctors and nurses responsible for cutting them as a baby just as fgm victims can.The federal laws and almost all state laws in the United States treat baby girls being circumcised very differently than baby boys being circumcised. It’s probably one of the clearest examples of misandry https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/circumcision-oregon-lawsuit-male-genital-b2725383.htmlSeveral men circumcised at birth are suing the state of Oregon for allegedly “stealing” their bodily autonomy while also arguing that a current genital mutilation law discriminates against boysCalifornia-based attorney Eric Clopper filed the lawsuit last week on behalf of Cecil Mininger and his teenage son, as well as brothers Carter and Landon Moody, in Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland. The plaintiffs all had their foreskins surgically removed as infants within the state, according to the filingThe 76-page document alleges that boys have been neglected by the state and asks for equal protection under a law that bans female genital mutilation. The current law, it says, which only protects women from genital cutting, is a violation of the state constitution’s Equal Rights Amendment and Equal Protection Clause.The suit urges the court to either ban genital cutting procedures for children of any gender or overturn the statute entirely.However, the suit argues that victims of male genital cutting could sue their circumcisers. It claimed that the procedure has become “medicalized” in the U.S. but provides few health benefits and inhibits healthy sexual function.
>>541575104“This lawsuit is about one simple, urgent principle: equal protection under the law,” Clopper, who founded Intact Global, a non-profit that says it stands against non-religious genital mutilation that is funding the suit, wrote in a statement on the organization’s website Friday.“If Oregon protects girls from non-consensual genital cutting, it must protect boys and intersex children too. Anything less is unconstitutional.”https://equalitynow.org/what-we-do/womens-rights-around-the-world/womens-rights-in-north-america/us_laws_against_fgm_state_by_state/Almost every state in the USA has laws against female circumcision of minors and many states have had laws making it illegal (and a felony) to circumcise a female minor for DECADESFemale circumcision is already illegal and girls who are cut as babies can already sue for what was done to them when they become an adult, just apply the law equally to men too . She already has the legal ability to seek out compensation for that, I just want the law applied equally . So that men also have the ability to get restitution and have legal recourse. Why pay taxes and follow the social contract if police will protect baby girls from being cut but not baby boys? They’ll protect doctors who cut baby boys. women who are circumcised as girls can get literally millions of dollars and in their 20s and then retire very comfortably with her multi million dollar settlement and live comfortably off the backs of hard working broke men who were circumcised as babies and have no legal ability to get reparations or sue their doctors or hospitals.S 130.85 Female genital mutilation.
>>5415751571. A person is guilty of female genital mutilation when: (a) a person knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not reached eighteen years of age; or (b) being a parent, guardian or other person legally responsible and charged with the care or custody of a child less than eighteen years old, he or she knowingly consents to the circumcision, excision or infibulation of whole or part of such child`s labia majora or labia minora or clitoris.2. Such circumcision, excision, or infibulation is not a violation of this section if such act is: (a) necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place of its performance as a medical practitioner; or (b) performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth and is performed for medical purposes connected with that labor or birth by a person licensed in the place it is performed as a medical practitioner, midwife, or person in training to become such a practitioner or midwife.3. For the purposes of paragraph (a) of subdivision two of this section, no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom such procedure is to be performed of any belief on the part of that or any other person that such procedure is required as a matter of custom or ritual. Female genital mutilation is a class E felony.
>>541575206New York N.Y. Penal Law § 130.85 Effective 11/1/1997Who can women sue if circumcised as baby girl and how much money would they get in USA? What if it was done by doctor with nurses?Women can primarily sue the medical providers (doctor, nurses, hospital/clinic) who performed the procedure via medical malpractice, battery, or related tort claims. FGM (female genital mutilation/circumcision) on a minor is illegal under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 116, as amended) and in 41+ states, treated as child abuse with no cultural/religious/parental consent defense in most jurisdictions.https://equalitynow.org/what-we-do/womens-rights-around-the-world/womens-rights-in-north-america/us_laws_against_fgm_state_by_state/this is important because routine male infant circumcision is a battery. many lawyers have argued this and they are right.The doctor and assisting nurses/hospital are the Primary targets for civil liability. Performing non-medically necessary FGM on an infant deviates from the standard of care and constitutes negligence or intentional tort (e.g., battery). Many states explicitly allow civil damages in their FGM statutes (e.g., Arizona provides a civil remedy). obviously this applies to mgm tooParents/guardians: Potentially liable for facilitating or consenting, but suing one's own parents is rare, complex (family dynamics, statutes of limitations), and often not the focus. Criminal liability for parents exists in many states.it’s possible to civilly go after doctor nurses and hospital that performed the surgery but not go after your parents. there’s already cases of this with fgm
>>541575254Statute of limitations: Many states extend this for FGM/child abuse victims until years after turning 18 (e.g., 3–10 years post-18 in states like Arizona, Arkansas). Hospitals often carry large insurance policies, increasing settlement potential. Successful suits could include punitive damages if egregious.Done by doctor with nurses: Strongest case medical malpractice plus battery. Hospitals can be vicariously liable. Informed consent was impossible for an infant, and FGM isn't medically necessary (exceptions exist only for true health needs, like certain surgeries, not ritual "circumcision").again it should be very obvious how this applies to mgm too.In ny in 2019 would a woman who was circumcised as a baby in 1999 be able to sue?Yes, in 2019 in New York, a woman who was subjected to female genital mutilation ("circumcision") as a baby in 1999 could likely sue under the Child Victims Act (CVA), which took effect that year.https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S2440Key ReasonsNew York Penal Law § 130.85 criminalizes FGM (knowingly circumcising, excising, or infibulating the labia majora/minora or clitoris of a person under 18, or a parent/guardian knowingly consenting to it). It is a class E felony and explicitly falls under Article 130 of the Penal Law (sexual offenses).https://criminaldefense.1800nynylaw.com/new-york-penal-code/new-york-penal-code-130-85-genital-mutilation/CPLR § 214-g (the civil revival provision of the CVA, signed into law in February 2019) revived previously time-barred civil claims for conduct that would constitute a sexual offense under Article 130 (including § 130.85) committed against a child under 18. It allowed suits for physical, psychological, or other injuries from such acts. https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/cvp/article-2/214-g/
>>541574480Gay. Waste. Of. Time. Very womanly action.
>>541575280The CVA created a one-time lookback window (roughly August 2019 to August 2021) for filing revived claims, regardless of the victim's age or how long ago the act occurred. A woman ~20 years old in 2019 would have fallen squarely within this window for events from 1999. https://hermanlaw.com/new-york/child-victims-act/Standard medical malpractice SOL (2.5 years under CPLR 214-a) or battery (1 year) would have long expired by 2019, but the CVA overrode that for qualifying sexual offenses like FGM. https://www.lanierlawfirm.com/new-york/civil-statute-of-limitations/Could she take home 5 million dollars? If the doctor hospital nurses were in on it and it’s extremely well documented that it happened and was premeditated with lots of papers signed by them and proof the hospital admins knew it was going to happen and allowed it to happenYes, in a strong case with the facts you describe, a multimillion-dollar recovery including potentially $5 million or more net to the plaintiff is realistically possible in New York under the 2019 Child Victims Act framework. https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/new-york-sex-abuse-settlements.htmlWhy This Scenario Strengthens the CasePremeditation, documentation, and institutional knowledge: Signed papers, hospital admin awareness/approval, and involvement of doctor/nurses/hospital create powerful evidence of battery, lack of informed consent (impossible for an infant), negligence, and potentially punitive damages for egregious conduct. This goes beyond standard malpractice into intentional or reckless institutional wrongdoing.CVA applicability: FGM qualifies as a sexual offense under NY Penal Law § 130.85, reviving the claim in the 2019 lookback window. Courts treat it as child sexual abuse for civil purposes. https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/cvp/article-2/214-g/
>>541574480Based. Ban all forced male genital mutilation
>>541575308Realistic Compensation Ranges in NY CVA/Malpractice CasesNY juries and settlements in strong Child Victims Act cases (especially with documented institutional enabling) have produced:Single-plaintiff verdicts: $5M to $30M+ (e.g., $30M CVA verdict with $15M compensatory + $15M punitive; $13.3M; $5M affirmed on appeal). https://www.blockotoole.com/verdicts-settlements/30-million-ny-child-victims-act-verdict/Hospital/medical cases: Multi-million averages per plaintiff in mass settlements (e.g., Columbia/NewYork-Presbyterian paid ~$1.3M average per survivor in a large OB-GYN abuse case, with total payouts over $1B across resolutions). https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/new-york-sex-abuse-settlements.htmlMedical malpractice analogs (severe lifelong harm from procedures on infants): Often tens of millions total, with pain-and-suffering components in the millions https://porterprotects.com/largest-birth-injury-settlements-new-york-history/$5 million net to her is plausible in an exceptional case with clear lifelong harms (physical scarring, sexual dysfunction, psychological trauma, PTSD, etc.), strong experts, and sympathetic facts. Higher amounts are possible with proven egregious conduct and high damages (economic + non-economic + punitives). Many cases settle confidentially for substantial sums to avoid trial risk. https://jtnylaw.com/2026/02/survivors-act-5-million-verdict-childhood-sexual-abuse-ny/In the ongoing Hadacheck v. State of Oregon case, Multnomah County Circuit Judge Melvin Oden-Orr denied the state’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the circumcised male plaintiffs had suffered a legitimate "injury in fact" and possessed proper standing to sue. https://bioethicstoday.org/blog/the-case-for-equal-protection-for-all-children-against-forced-genital-cutting-is-moving-forward-full-speed-ahead/#:~:text=The%20Court%20found%20that%20Plaintiffs,in%20a%20court%20of%20law.
>>541575285>t. Kvetching jew
>>541575330By legally acknowledging that infant circumcision constitutes an "injury in fact," the court has already moved the needle past a mere medical disagreement. If a court recognizes a lifelong injury inflicted on a non-consenting minor based on their sex, the logical, constitutional conclusion is that those victims should have a path to restitution. Part A: Expanding the Law & Opening the Door to Lawsuits"Additionally, were the Court to adopt a saving construction of ORS 163.207 and 431A.600 that expanded the statutes’ protections to all non-medically necessary child genital cutting, Plaintiffs could vindicate their rights practically by suing their circumcisers under a statutory torts legal theory that is currently available only to female victims of child genital cutting."Key Terms Broken DownSaving Construction: When a law is challenged as unconstitutional, a court can sometimes "save" it by interpreting it in a new, broader, or narrower way rather than striking it down entirely. Here, the plaintiffs want the court to "save" the law by stretching it to cover all children, not just females.ORS 163.207 and 431A.600: These are Oregon’s specific criminal and public health statutes that explicitly ban Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).Statutory Tort: A "tort" is a civil wrong that allows you to sue someone for money damages. A statutory tort means the right to sue is baked directly into a written law. Because FGM is illegal by statute, female victims have a clear, direct path to sue their cutters in civil court.In Plain EnglishThe plaintiffs are saying: "If the court agrees to rewrite or interpret Oregon's anti-FGM laws so that they protect allchildren instead of just girls, it will change the game. It means men who were circumcised as babies would suddenly gain the legal right to turn around and sue the doctors or practitioners who circumcised them for financial damages—a right that currently only women have under Oregon law."
>>541574480Based, good thread.>>541575285Abrahamic cultist afraid of losing his genital mutilation ritual. Fuck out of here, kike.
>>541575350Here’s the 72 page lawsuit https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66119b8c4d0c10f1951590fc/67e6d9785f82dc54c6513cb7_2025-03-28%20-%20Hadachek%20v.%20Oregon%20-%20Amended%20Complaint%20(Conformed).pdftldr if the law was not literally sexist and was just applied equally and impartially most men alive today (in 2026) who are under the age of about 28 or so and live in / were born in a hospital in at least a handful of states in the United States of America would easily be entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars or even a few million dollars each for what was done to them as a baby. I am not being hyperbolic. obviously if let’s conservatively say theres 3 million men in ny who are under the age of 27 and if 60 percent of them were born in and circumcised in a hospital in ny Thats 1.8 million men who are each entitled to a few million dollars each, 3 million dollars each times 1.8 million young ny cut men equals 5.4 TRILLION DOLLARS with a T . that’s like 1/7 of the entire usa national debt.>>541575351Thank you >>541575317Yes. Read this ^
>>541574480>Clopper>>>/mlp/
>>541575285Kill yourself, kike nigger.
>>541575404>>541575285Do you have any idea how many dozens of hours of work it requires to file a 72 page lawsuit and reread it over? I don’t see you playing Minecraft PvP on the same server as people who circumcise infants
>>541574908>They already kind of have because the judge could have granted the pro baby cutting state’s motion to dismiss but he instead denied their motion to dismiss.It's strategic. You can't just dismiss it outright, the optics are bad. Need to give the appearance of considering it, then find a way to quash it with a "but it's not my fault, I had no other option than to quash it" excuse. Likely, he will find that the plaintiff has no standing, or that the court doesn't truly have jurisdiction. Something like that.
>>541574480They should also add that genital mutilation is a violation of the victim's first amendment rights. Mutilation advocates argue the opposite. That it has to remain legal for religious reasons. But it is forcing the victim to undergo an irreversible religious ritual without their consent.
Eric clopper go fund me colorado 26%$12,934 raised of $50KEric clopper gofundme Oregon 93%$55,760 raised of $60K
>>541575521It's illegal to commit bodily harm against someone already, 1st doesn't allow this just cause a religion says so.
>>541575973>>541575519>>541575404>>541574753Here’s the 72 page lawsuit https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66119b8c4d0c10f1951590fc/67e6d9785f82dc54c6513cb7_2025-03-28%20-%20Hadachek%20v.%20Oregon%20-%20Amended%20Complaint%20(Conformed).pdfthe amended complaint actually lays this out in detail, and the court's October 2025 ruling already resolved a chunk of it.Standing. Pages 12–16 of the complaint anticipate exactly this argument and build a two-track justiciability case: (1) under Oregon's Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, arguing plaintiffs Dane Hadachek and Landon Moody satisfy the three-prong test from Morgan v. Sisters School District — a legally recognized interest (equal protection under the law), a real (not speculative) injury, and a judgment that would have practical effect — because they were already circumcised and are currently excluded from a statute (ORS 163.207/431A.600) that protects only female minors; and (2) in the alternative under ORS 14.175 for policies "capable of repetition" that "evade judicial review." This isn't just a paper argument anymore — reporting on the October 24, 2025 ruling states the court expressly found that Hadachek and Moody, having been circumcised at birth, suffered "injury in fact" and have proper standing to proceed. So standing has already been tested and survived at the motion-to-dismiss stage, on the theory that already-circumcised plaintiffs have concrete past injury, not a hypothetical future one.
I hear most jews don't circumcise until the guy is 12 or 14 or so and consents. For jews, it's a way to signal loyalty. For us, it's just nonconsensual organ harvesting so oprah winfrey can be a little bit smoother than the other childless old women.
>>541576179>>541575519Jurisdiction. This one is comparatively low-risk in the first place — the complaint invokes ORS 14.030, which is the general grant of Oregon circuit court jurisdiction over any cause of action arising within the state, and venue in Multnomah County under ORS 14.080 because the plaintiffs were cut in Portland. This is a routine, well-established basis for a Multnomah County Circuit Court to hear an Oregon-law claim about conduct that happened in Oregon — it's not the kind of contested, close-call jurisdictional theory (like personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, or federal subject-matter jurisdiction) that tends to produce late surprises.None of that guarantees the state can't raise standing again in a narrower form at summary judgment (e.g., disputing whether a judgment would practically change anything for these particular plaintiffs) — that's normal in ongoing litigation — but the premise that standing or jurisdiction are weak points the court is quietly holding in reserve doesn't match what's in the record: the court already looked at standing specifically and ruled for the plaintiffs on it, and the jurisdictional basis was never the kind of theory prone to a late reversal.
>>541575157>non-religiousAlright so it's still dead on arrival.
>>541575903I know. But that argument is still used to successfully shut down attempts at ending genital mutilation. So pulling that out from under them and turning it against them is prudent.
>>541576199Nah, jews pretty famously give their infants herpes by having a rabbi suck the bleeding penis afterwards.
>>541576382Almost all infant circumcision in USA is non religious. Eric clopper discussed why this is on his jimmy dore show interview, legally it is much easier to ban non religious infant cutting then all infant cutting. This is a good first step. Banning non religious infant cutting will make it easier to ban all infant cutting including religious infant cutting
>>541576179To illustrate the gruesomeness of the practice, the following is an account of a“moderate” case of FGC imposed on a five-year-old girl, one performed by a doctor, in ahospital, under local anesthesia:“They told us we were going somewhere like to a party orsomewhere like that, and we ended up at the hospital,” says thedaughter. “They grabbed me from all sides—my mother, my auntand my grandmother and two or three nurses—pinned me downon the table, then they gave me an anesthesia . . . .”“I was really so scared, and I remember the guy, whateverhe cut off, which I didn’t feel, but I was screaming my head off,and he held it right over top of my mouth, and he said if you don’tshut up I’m going to put this in your mouth. I will never forgetthat for the rest of my life.”37.The Court may be shocked to learn that practically everything quoted in the aboveaccount would be legal in Oregon if the victim were a boy. In fact, it would still be legal evenif no anesthesia were used.3 Mary Ann French, Tragedy or Tradition?, OREGONIAN (Dec. 13, 1992). This story was attached to writtentestimony given in support of the bill that became ORS 163.207. Relating to Female Genital Mutilation:Hearing on H.B. 3608 Before the Senate Judiciary Comm., 1999 Leg., 70th Sess. (May 19, 1999) (statement ofLynn D. Partin, Women’s Rights Coalition) (“I am attaching to the written version of my testimony a copy ofan article entitled ‘Tragedy or Tradition?’ that appeared in The Oregonian on December 13, 1992 on thistopic.”).
>>541574480>Clopper>Penis focused lawsuitThe brony fandom strikes again
>>541576496It won't be banned at all until the religious exemption is banned too. If it is legal for a parent to flay their son's penis for religious reasons then it's hard to argue it shouldn't be legal for the fake pseudoscientific "health" reasons claimed by our own government. It needs to be legally defined as a criminal, sexual assault in all cases.
>>541574480They should rename it "stolen foreskin reparations" so that brown people can understand what it is (and support it).If the juice still want to do it, they can do it when they turn 18. I bet it would instantly die out as every juice would have a few years of "activity" before and after 18 to compare any effects on their sexual function.Moloch ("the body part eater") will be very displeased.
>>541576719But that’s not true. For example in the USA it’s legal to not hire a priest because he is gay but it’s not legal to refuse to hire a janitor because he is gay. So not hiring someone because they are gay has a religious exemption for churches not hiring gay priests. And theres not openly gay catholic priests in the usa. But gay people can and do sue companies for not hiring them for non priest positions where there is no religious exemption. In my ideal world it’d be legal to refuse to hire a gay person even without a religious reason. But the fact that you can only refuse to hire gays if it’s for being a priest does prevent discrimination. So laws that ban something (not hiring someone because they are gay) with only a small religious exception are effective at changing people’s behavior
>>541577006Can I not hire someone because they ACT gay? (Maybe I run a mortuary and I want someone with ZERO flamboyance to interact with the mourners.)
>>541577006You're not getting what I'm saying. Any ban on male genital mutilation will get immediately challenged and thrown out if a religious exemption is allowed. Peeling off part of a screaming infant's penis is not on the same level as hiring someone. Either it's a legitimate medical procedure, or it is horrific sado-sexual child abuse, with no in between. So if it is allowed at all, it will be legal in all cases.There is also a jewish lobbying motive. The reason jews are so defensive about genital mutilation even among non-jews is so that it isn't seen as a uniquely jewish practice. Both so that it can't be used to identify them, and so that it doesn't make them look like abonimable demons for mutilating their sons while no one else is. So they fight every bit as hard to stop a non-religious ban. There is no benefit to trying to compromise on this. All it does is implicitly minimize the stated harm of genital muliation by saying it's OK to do it sometimes.
>>541574641But that's literally the same excuse lib parents use to transition their kids
Bump
>>541577600This is just baseless speculation. If banning non religious baby boy cutting wasn’t such a big win then why did USA fight to stop it happening in Europe?
>>541574641One of the most important functions of the government is to protect the rights of its citizens. If a parent and a doctor conspire to violate a child's rights, that's of interest to the government.
>>541574480Good, I hope he wins even though he probably won't. I remember his play from years ago that got him kicked out of Harvard
>>541574641No. It's up the the ADULT when they are 18 to make that decision.>But Healt~ Obesity is 25000x worse, why are people being allowed that?If you agree to this, you might as well also allow people to transition and have sex surgery before 18.
>>541579465>baseless speculation>proves my pointMutilators already use everything at their disposal to fight bans with religious exemptions. It has been proven that you gain nothing by compromising with them. Except give mutilators an extra argument against the ban. In contrast, attacking them directly on religious grounds strips them of the only argument they still have that carries any weight. Point out the obvious fact that it violates the religious freedom of the boy subjected to it and they have nowhere to run.
>>541574888If FGM is illegal, then MGM must be illegal as well. Doesn't matter that hypocritical foids, male zioslut conservacucks and hysterical sadistic jews disagree.
>>541574480Antisemite
>>541581716Yes
>>541582071Debeaking is the next thing to ban
>>541574888Male genial mutilation should not be up to the parents either.
