Colorado Public Radio reports that two Colorado men have filed a lawsuit challenging a state law that makes certain forms of medically unnecessary female genital cutting a crime, arguing Colorado violates its Equal Rights Amendment by protecting girls but not boys from non-medical circumcision. The lawsuit names Gov. Jared Polis and the state, seeks no money damages, and asks a judge either to extend protections to boys or declare the law unconstitutional for treating children differently based on sex.
This is Colorado getting dragged into court over one of the state’s favorite habits: declaring a moral principle in neon lights, then pretending nobody can read it when that principle gets inconvenient. The lawsuit is not asking anyone to pretend female genital cutting and male circumcision are identical in law, history, severity, or medical context. They are not. The pressure point is sharper than that: if Colorado’s stated principle is that children deserve protection from irreversible genital cutting without consent, why does that principle stop at the sex line?
The Bullet Point Brief
- The lawsuit argues every child has a right to bodily integrity and autonomy regardless of biological sex. That is not some obscure academic doodle. That is the exact kind of language Colorado lawmakers love, right up until it points somewhere uncomfortable.
- Colorado law criminalizes certain medically unnecessary female genital cutting, but the plaintiffs argue boys are left unprotected from non-medical circumcision. The state may have arguments for that distinction. Good. Make them out loud, under oath, without hiding behind bumper stickers.
- The plaintiffs, Tristan Huff of Fort Collins and Adam Schwartz of Denver, say they were circumcised shortly after birth in Colorado and suffered physical, emotional, and stigmatic harm. The suit does not seek damages from parents, doctors, or hospitals. It is aimed squarely at the state’s legal logic.
- The Colorado Attorney General’s Office declined to comment on pending litigation, and CPR reports no hearing date has been scheduled. So the legal fight is just getting started, which means the state still has time to decide whether “bodily autonomy” is a principle or just a campaign-season yard sign.
- This is the kind of issue every tribe wants to sprint past because it scrambles the usual scripts: parental authority, bodily autonomy, religion, medicine, sex equality, and child protection all show up in the same room and start moving the furniture.
My Bottom Line
The kid is the one with skin in the game, literally. That is why this case is uncomfortable in the productive way.
Parents have authority. Religious traditions matter. Medical context matters. The procedures are not the same. But none of that lets Colorado skip the central question: what can adults permanently do to a child’s body before that child can consent, and when does the government step in?
Colorado lawmakers love bodily autonomy speeches. They love equal-treatment language. They love moral certainty with a Capitol microphone. Fine. Then explain the line. If minors have bodily integrity worth protecting, say why the protection applies here but not there. If the distinction is legally sound, defend it plainly. If it is just political appetite dressed up as principle, then stop pretending the inconsistency is invisible.
This is not a lurid culture-war toy. It is a legal grenade wrapped in polite euphemisms. Colorado either believes bodily autonomy is real for children, or it believes bodily autonomy is a slogan deployed when politically convenient. The court is being asked to make the state answer. Good.
Source: Colorado Public Radio
Share your thoughts...