*************************************
Howard M. Friedman
Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus
University of Toledo College of Law
Toledo, OH 43606-3390
Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*************************************
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Gene Summerlin
Sent: Mon 8/29/2005 8:42 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: "Bloodsucking circumcision"
In response to Eugene's question, wouldn't a law banning oral
suction be
subject to the compelling interest test as a hybrid rights case
under
Smith? That is, such a law would implicate the parent's free
exercise
rights as well as their parental rights to direct the care and
nurture
of their children. My recollection is that footnote one in the
Smith
opinion specifically points to free exercise plus parental rights as
an
example of a hybrid claim, and the Troxel court identifies "the
liberty
interest . . . of parents in the care, custody, and control of
their
children [as] perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty
interests
recognized by [the] Court." Even assuming the State had a
compelling
interest in banning oral suction, a complete ban - as opposed to,
say,
testing of Rabbis to insure they didn't have Herpes 1 - would appear
to
fail the narrowly tailored requirement.
Gene
Summerlin
Ogborn, Summerlin & Ogborn, P.C.
210 Windsor Place
330
South Tenth Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
(402) 434-8040
(402)
434-8044 (facsimile)
(402) 730-5344
(mobile)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.osolaw.com
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
