,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
In the famous Cruzan Supreme Ct. ruling, which emphasizes bodily integrity as fundamental legal right, Rehnquist cites an earlier case holding that “a child, in common with an adult, has a substantial liberty interest in not being restrained unnecessarily for medical treatment.” 
I wonder if this counts ...
The previous tweet shows a child strapped into a so-called “circumstraint” (“restrained”) so that he will be immobilized while undergoing a genital surgery that is not only “unnecessary medical treatment,” but that is not even treatment (he is healthy).
