Hadachek et. al. vs. The State of Oregon (Case No. 25CV128224), the first case of its kind, challenges the constitutionality of Oregon’s anti-female genital mutilation (FGM) laws. Plaintiffs claim the current anti-FGM laws violate the state’s Equal Protection Clause and Equal Rights Amendment by providing protection against forced genital cutting for female children, but not for male and intersex children. Plaintiffs believe ALL children should be protected equally, regardless of their sex.
Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Oregon’s current anti-FGM laws are unconstitutional. Their ultimate goal is to effectively expand the current state laws to protect ALL children from forced genital cutting. Notably, under Oregon’s ‘Offenses Against Persons Act,’ primarily codified in Chapter 163 of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), most sections are gender-neutral. ORS § 163.207 – Female Genital Mutilation – is one of the only sections that remains gender-specific.
On October 23, 2025, Multnomah County Circuit Judge Melvin Oden-Orr, after engaging in a meaningful analysis of both the facts and the law, denied the state’s motion to dismiss as it relates to two of the Plaintiffs. The Court found that Plaintiffs Dane Hadachek and Landon Moody, who were both circumcised at birth, suffered “injury in fact” and have proper standing to proceed in a court of law.
The positive ruling is one step in the right direction to changing how Oregon, and hopefully other states, treat their male and intersex children with respect to non-therapeutic genital cutting. It signals that the courts will no longer dismiss the serious questions raised about children’s (equal) rights and child bodily integrity. Equal protection under the law is a fundamental principle in the American justice system, and it appears Judge Oden-Orr fully appreciates the significance of the case before him.
Serendipitously, also on October 23, 2025, the preprint of Max Buckler’s article titled ‘As controversies mount, circumcision policies need a rethink’ was released online in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Buckler interviewed two former members of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2012 Circumcision Task Force: Douglas Diekema, MD, MPH, the task force’s bioethicist; and Andrew Freedman, MD, a pediatric urologist. Both have acknowledged their role in the AAP’s 2012 circumcision policy statement, and both have retracted their positions.
According to Buckler, the AAP’s 2012 circumcision policy statement caused considerable controversy because it claimed for the first time, against the prevailing consensus in other countries, that the [alleged] “health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks.” The policy automatically expired in 2017 without being renewed or reaffirmed. The AAP has not produced an official policy statement since.
Dr. Diekema told Buckler that if the Academy were to ask him today, he would advise that “When you look at all the data, I don’t think you can honestly say in a recommendation that the benefits outweigh the risks.” Dr. Diekema went on to say “…to the parent who is on the fence. To them I would say they are probably better off not doing the procedure.”
Dr. Freedman stated that “Maybe the AAP should get out of the [circumcision] business since it’s not really a medical practice. It’s only a ‘medical procedure’ in the sense that medical professionals are performing it.”
There are mixed reactions to the statements made by the AAP’s former task force members, set forth in Buckler’s article. John Adkinson, a long-time intact activist, posted the following: “It’s nice to see that these people who were very influential in the writing of the last policy statement are publicly setting the record straight. I just hope that the public gets to see it, and through someone more trustworthy than RFK Jr.” Others in the movement are not so forgiving. Ultimately, anyone taking responsibility for their actions, albeit fourteen years later, should be given credit for admitting they were wrong.
The fight for equal protection for ALL children against forced genital cutting continues. As the truth is revealed and the misinformation is dispelled, more and more intact activists are joining the cause. A worthy cause by any measure.
Deborah Eshaghian, Attorney at Law, is a member of the Board of Directors for Intact Global Inc., a non-profit organization.