Former U.S. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is continuing to challenge the lawsuit brought by the wife of her former security guard and lover, Matthew Ammel. Sinema has admitted to having an affair with Ammel while she was the Democratic senator from Arizona. Heather Ammel’s lawsuit alleges the tort of alienation of affection, an action many may find outdated in our more open or indulgent culture. I start teaching my torts class this week, and the alienation tort remains a controversy at the intersection of tort and constitutional law.
There was a time when most states had morality crimes that punished adultery or homosexuality. They have been largely scrubbed from our books due to constitutional challenges and changing social mores. However, a spouse can still sue civilly over a third party ruining a marriage through adultery.
Such “heart balm” actions go back to the earliest days of tort liability. However, the tort has been abolished in 42 states, leaving Hawaii, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah as the exceptions.
Early tort cases spoke of two violative acts: enticement and seduction. The tort of enticement “involved assisting or inducing a wife to leave her husband by means of fraud, violence, or persuasion.” Seduction was more straightforward and only required “an adulterous relationship between the plaintiff’s spouse and the defendant.”‘
Critics have long charged that this tort is based in early concepts of the wife being the property of the husband and that there are lingering constitutional questions over holding individuals liable for consensual sexual relationships.
That proprietary element echoes in some of the earliest English cases, such as Winsmore v. Greenback (1745). In that case, a man was sued for “maliciously and wickedly intending to injure the plaintiff … and to alienate the affection of the wife from the plaintiff.” The Court found that the paramour had “persuaded procured and enticed the said wife” and thereby denied the husband of his “exclusive and legally enforceable right to his wife’s service.” Winsmore v. Greenbank, Willes 577. 125 Eng. Repts. 1330 (1745)); see also Michele Crissman, Alienation of Affection: An Ancient Tort – But Still Alive in South Dakota, 48 S.D. L. Rev. 518, 519 (2003); Jamie Heard, The National Trend of Abolishing Actions for the Alienation of a Spouse’s Affection and Mississippi’s Refusal to Follow Suit, 28 Miss. C. L. Rev. 313 (2008-2009).
State courts have found the action to be outmoded and abused:
“The public ha[s] come to look upon ‘heart balm’ suits as devices for extracting large sums of money without proper justification. They [a]re a fruitful source of coercion, extortion and blackmail. Manufactured suits, with their always present threat of publicity, [a]re often used to force a settlement . . . [T]here is good reason to believe that even genuine actions [a]re ‘brought more frequently than not, with purely mercenary or vindictive motives; that it is impossible to compensate for such damage with what has derisively been called ‘heart balm’ . . . and that no preventative purpose is served, since such torts seldom are committed with deliberate plan.'”
Magierowski v. Buckley, 121 A.2d 749, 756 (N.J. Super. 1956).
North Carolina is one of the holdouts. Sinema’s counsel moved the case to federal court and then sought to dismiss it on the jurisdictional grounds that none of the sex occurred in North Carolina.
In depositions, Sinema confirmed sexual encounters beginning in California at the home of her friends Penny and Grant Croissant: “We were staying at an Airbnb in Napa, California. We were outside. Matt kissed me. We went inside and had sex.”
She also detailed having sex with Ammel at the wedding of CNN anchor Jessica Dean in New York City as well as at her Washington, D.C. apartment, in Arizona, and in Colorado.
The jurisdictional question is whether the denial of sex in North Carolina means that the courts there lack jurisdiction, as opposed to the claim that the shattered marriage (and injury) still rests in North Carolina.
The parties do not contest the underlying violation of the marriage. The case is rife with photos, including one sent by Sinema of herself in a towel, and such messages as “Putting my hand on your heart. I’ll see you soon. I miss you.”
The wife eventually uncovered the affair after Ammel allegedly came home intoxicated and she found a message on his phone from Sinema reading “I hope your day was okay. Thinking of you. I am with you. I keep waking up during my sleep and reaching over for your arms to hold me.”
Heather Ammel would write to her husband to encourage him to break off the affair, calling Sinema “insidious” and “a woman who is willing to break up a family.”
After separating on November 1, 2024, the couple divorced in March 2026. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for Aug. 19th.
While the Supreme Court struck down the criminalization of same sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges and consensual sex between adults is viewed as protected, it has never found alienation torts to be unconstitutional.
The tort liability presents a novel and different question. Unlike the criminalization of consensual sexual relationships, this tort addresses the harm of conduct to a third person. Heather Ammel had a marriage contract and relied on it as the foundation for her home and family with multiple children.
Many today would argue that her husband and his deceit caused the harm, not the third party. If a spouse violates their solemn oath of matrimony, the loss of affection was likely due to a breakdown in the marriage, not the third party. The action still has a proprietary element: the “other man” or “other woman” poached a partner who legally belongs to you.
However, the question is whether such “heart balm” injuries remain within the right of states to recognize and allow citizens to recover for. It is technically not a punishment for adultery with the other person but alienation or harm to the spouse.
Ironically, the case, and any challenges, could represent one of the most lasting legacies from Sinema’s career. The question is not whether her actions were “wicked and malicious” under the common law, but whether you can be sued today for such conduct.
Other torts have changed in light of evolving social values, such as defamation actions that were once based on statements that a woman is “unchaste.”
While courts have struck down or eliminated morality laws on constitutional grounds, alienation of affection remains a lingering morality tort with strong religious underpinnings. In Proverbs 11:18, the Bible states, “The wicked man does deceptive work, but righteousness brings a sure reward.” The question is whether a “righteous” litigant can still recover for the “wickedness” of others.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” He teaches torts and constitutional law at George Washington University.
Sexual studies are hard to confirm because few Americans tell the truth or participate in these type studies.
Sexologist Emily Morse (Sex With Emily podcast) basically said there was some strong evidence that some (not all) women lose sexual desire for their husbands or partners after about 2 years.
After about 2 years some of these married women basically are thinking about the grocery list while having sex. They have sex but not really in to it.
Then the sex is maybe once a years or once every few years. Which can lead to cheating (the non-ethical type) and then divorce.
Like any poll, it’s impossible to be 100% accurate but we do know the modern marriage model has an unacceptable failure rate. The current model is severely broken.
So maybe movies like “The Invite” or series “Masters of Sex” are at least worthy of debate?
“The current model is severely broken.”
Or some individuals are.
But you keep pushing for orgies-on-demand.
If the citizen is superior to the State, then the State has no valid interest in, or just power over, what the citizens do with their genitals.
–Shannon
If you are a young person that likes sex, never get married unless you have kids.
The sex stops after marriage unless you have an Ethical Non-Monogamy marriage with rules, guidelines and good communication.
Today there are record low numbers of young people marrying and now they have tort lawsuits to fear.
Only get married if you have kids!
If the ENM marriage model were more mainstream, Sinema would have dated the wife first.
Everybody’s happy and no lawsuits!
I only know one Swedish joke. A Swede is hunting in the woods and meets a woman. He asks, “Are you game?” She says yes, so he shoots her.
Something about this story reminds me of Swalwell. Can’t Sinema & Swalwell get together and have hella good times spending campaign funds together? No date rape drugs required. No more marriages broken.
These borderline tort cases should be decided by juries, not by elites in the judicial system. Each case has its own specifics, and our system allows juries to take into account those specifics. By comparison, a Apellate Judge or Legislator seeks to clarify policy from 30,000 ft., where policy remains aloof to the details of each case (which will differ).
I believe we have arrived at a moral plateau where a jury would be just as capable of finding a woman vs. a man a “homewrecker”. That levels the playing field, correcting the outmoded concept of the wife being the husband’s property.
If you wanted to create the most successful longterm marriage model – which is the root of this issue – you would essentially combine the 2026 movie “The Invite” with the old movie “Same Time Next Year”.
The lowest divorce rate marriage model would be a swap-lite model on occasion out of town a few times per year. A low risk model for most couples.
Essentially a “Couples Hall Pass” a few times per year led, organized and driven by women (wife or girlfriend).
It’s called “Ethical-Non Monogamy” and since it’s consensual amongst adults, it’s the opposite of cheating (Non-Ethical Non-Monogamy).
Americans should remember that ultra-conservative Old Testament marriage allowed “Ethical-Non Monogamy” for men only, but was designed to control women. Women were the property of the husband.
Modern marriage with women’s rights is less than 80 years old here in the USA.
In the true life television series “Masters of Sex” about 1950’s Doctors Masters & Johnson what was most shocking was that Sigmund Freud got it completely wrong about women’s anatomy and sexual pleasure.
If the modern marriage model were a product with a 50% failure rate that destroys children, families and wealth. Congress would convene a hearing and jail the CEO and Board of Directors.
The modern marriage model is broke and needs fixing!
Do you have any evidence for the success of this marriage model? My gut says that marriages where both partners have the impulse control to deflect from temptations are going to do better than ones where they openly pander to those temptations. That’s why I ask for data.
I don’t have any studies, but I was a divorce/ family law lawyer for 32 years. The advice given by Annon, supra, kept me gainfully employed taking apart marriages as described by Annon. His advice is a divorce lawyers dream. Keep it up Annon. People who think like you kept me very busy for 32 years, and financially secure.
I’ve been married 55 years. They have been the best years of my life. Everything he said/advocated is a recipe for a disastrous marriage.
“It’s called ‘Ethical-Non Monogamy’”
In other words: “Commitment-ish.”
Oh ya! You must not be married. But, don’t let that stop you from doing what you have advised others to do. I’ve made a very good living representing one side or the other in a divorce because one spouse thought what you prescribed was a good idea. Keep advocating this model. You’re good for business!
Major, how would you have represented the CSA that sought a divorce from “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, who, incidentally, was so deranged that he refused to obey the laws, specifically the laws that legalized reprehensible slavery, the unprohibited right to secession, and the right to powers per the 10th Amendment, if nowhere else?
People should consider the fact that if the person seeking your vote cheats and betrays the person that they swore a covenant before God with, they will most assuredly cheat on you.
Are rates of extra-marital screwing significantly different between couples who swear such a covenant and those who don’t? It’d be pretty hard to figure out, but I’d be surprised if they are. Humans gonna human.
–Shannon
Not necessarily. Many regard promises made to the death but refuse life sentences as marriages can be that. Mr. Ammal should have left the marriage or dissolved the contract first. Most pitiful with children…tragic
Jonathan, I’m so glad you brought the subject of tort of alienation of affection up.
For me, you’re gone all day long, the kids have left, and Leslie and I tend to the backyard and household duties (like it gets totally boring).
You never take me along to these fabulous trips to places I can only dream of. This past year you went to Wyoming where it’s a Dog’s Daydream to run in open fields where the Buffalo roam. Or even to the Appalachian foothills so close by for a all day hike.
I’m very tempted to commit the violative acts of enticement and seduction and steal Leslie away and go off and live in the Blue Ridge or Catskill Mountains for good!
Granted this situation may end up a Supreme Court first of Inter-species “heart balm” injuries. The question is not whether your actions of alienation by making me your latchkey pet are “wicked and malicious” under the common law, but whether you can be sued today for such conduct.
All I ask for is a few more hours of ‘quality time’ for walks and play, with a week long Holiday trip to the cottage … really Jonathan sometimes you bring out the Wolf in me! 🐺
🐕🐾🐾 Luna
Luna,
Sounds like you need an Attorney.
YOU NEED A BULLDOG!
these Bulldogs will make sure people pay
-Call Now-
🐶W00F🐶
Who defines a loving marriage and all that goes with it? There are plenty of open marriages, so those things are quite subjective and should be resolved with the divorce decree. Marriages do not create property.
You’re wrong, marriages do create joint property….real-estate, bank accounts, investment accounts, small businesses, etc. Maybe you are just referring to the archaic wife-as-husband’s-property?
” Maybe you are just referring to the archaic wife-as-husband’s-property?”
@ anonymous: Didn’t I say: “Marriages do not create property”?
“You’re wrong, marriages do create joint property….real-estate, bank accounts, investment accounts”
Are you reading what is said and what you say, or just making things up? In this thread, I didn’t refer to economic assets.
You should start quoting what others say when you inject your opinion so everyone, including you, knows what you are talking about. You should also try to understand the context of the remarks.
Presently, your response sounds like an ignorant and ill-formed gotcha.
^^ This is Estovir ^^
S. Meyer is one of his many sock puppets.
Are you the drunk?
I don’t get why you’re so snappish. Since you’re referring to legal marriage, “property” does mean “economic assets.” I guess you meant to distinguish some sort of property interest in the person, like slavery, but it’s hard to know. Your retort seems “ill-formed”, at least.
“why you’re so snappish”
@ Creeken: Because Anonymous is talking out of his a$$.
“Since you’re referring to legal marriage, “property” does mean “economic assets.””
So what? My comment to Anonymous said, “Marriages do not create property.” They don’t. Anonymous chose to lie, which is usual for anonymous critters, by adding a word to my response, “joint” property. Marriages may not create property, but they do create joint property that didn’t exist before. Do you wish to be confused by an Anonymous liar? I hope not.
Creekan
Unfortunately, this is the classic modus operandi of S. Meyer.
He typically makes a vague, imprecise comment that is open to interpretation. When someone challenges him with an interpretation of that comment that he does not like, then he goes into attack mode with boorish insults. When he makes these vague, imprecise comments he presumes that his meaning is obvious, when clearly it is not. In fact his meaning is rarely obvious, and others frequently challenge him.
A normal response from a rational person would be to acknowledge that the meaning of the original comment is not clear, and then simply explain more clearly what was meant. But S. Meyer is incapable of such a response. He simply goes on the attack. He accuses the person who challenges him of deliberately distorting his comment, and being incapable of reading and comprehending what he really meant. He then ends with a petty, boorish, personal insult.
“This is the classic modus operandi.”
You are a liar, but we already know that. You are also quite simple, which is why you must rewrite clearly written words just to manufacture an argument. There is nothing more needed to expose your ignoble character.
Sigmund the Fraud, are you now going to run away as you usually do?
Final Grade: Illogical Illiterate, Lying Loon, and Babbling Baffoon.
those are your 3 standard comments
1. you are ignorant
2. you are liar
3. you are drunk
Those are your 3 standard comments 1. you are ignorant 2. you are liar 3. you are drunk
You fit the bill for at least 2 out of three. But more than that, you are a cowardly anonymous.
Final Grade: Ignorant Coward and Liar.
What’s with this “Final Grade” crap?
I don’t get it.
“marriages do create joint property”
If you are referring to community property laws (it seems that you may be, but I am not convinced that you have sufficient intelligence to know what you are specifically referring to), there are only 9 states where that is mandatory: Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. There are 5 additional states where the marriage partners may opt in to a blanket community property contract. Otherwise, “joint property is not “created by marriage”, it is entirely opted into by the partners on a voluntary basis for each individual shared asset. For the most part, you could as easily have joint property with your neighbor or your brother as with your spouse.
“marriages do create joint property”
If you are referring to community property laws (it seems that you may be, but I am not convinced that you have sufficient intelligence to know what you are specifically referring to), there are only 9 states where that is mandatory: Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. There are 5 additional states where the marriage partners may opt in to a blanket community property contract. Otherwise, “joint property is not “created by marriage”, it is entirely opted into by the partners on a voluntary basis for each individual shared asset. For the most part, you could as easily have joint property with your neighbor or your brother as with your spouse.
Her complaint was filed on Sept 30, 2025 and she is demanding a jury trial. She is not concerned for his well being but her legal arguments hinge on his lack of well being. These are allegedly due to his military experience: Due to the stress and responsibilities associated with his job in the military, Mr. Ammel suffers from substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain injuries. It is a familiar story in America with a minority number of vets: they claim they are victims due to military service in spite of millions upon millions of Americans having served in the military and went on to become productive, successful spouses / parents/ professionals without becoming creeps. This was especially true of the Vietnam War where a percentage of Vietnam vets became CEOs and executives of global corporations. That he was arrested on November 20, 2025 for hitting a physician and trying to strangle him doesn’t help her case in using his mental problems to help her
legalmental problems.One of life’s most important skill sets is the ability to create and sustain intimate personal relationships. When the majority of people within a civilization lack this skill set, the fabric of society disintegrates. She and her 3 children (ages 15, 13 and 11) would profit from walking away, healing and going forward, but especially not demanding a jury trial.
from the court documents:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINE
COUNTY OF MOORE
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
FILE NO. 25CV001930-620
HEATHER AMMEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
KYRSTEN SINEMA,
Defendant.
(Jury Trial Demanded)
7. During the Marriage, Plaintiff and Mr. Ammel had three children: C.A., born 4 October 2011; LA., born 3 January 2013; and J.A., born 29 September 2015 (hereinafter “the Children”).
8. Mr. Ammel was a member of the United States Anny. Prior to moving to Moore County in 2014, Plaintiff and Mr. Ammel lived in Raeford, North Carolina Over the course of four years, Mr. Ammel deployed on four separate occasions to Afghanistan and to the Middle East.
14. Prior to Defendant’s intentional and malicious interference, Plaintiff and Mr. Ammel had a good and loving marriage, and genuine love and affection existed between them.
15. Due to the stress and responsibilities associated with his job in the military, Mr. Arnmel suffers from substance abuse, post-trawnatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain injuries (TBI). Plruntiff ensured Mr. Ammel received proper treatment and care, including taking him to substance-abuse appointments and facilitating his enrollment in various treatment programs.
16. In 2020, Mr. Ammel separated from the Army. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Ammel and his friend, Mike De Vault, started a tree removal company based in Tennessee. Plaintiff and Mr. Ammel made plans to move to Nashville, Tennessee, but in 2021, Mr. Ammel stopped taking his prescription medications, began to rely heavily on marijuana, and was emotionally unstable. As a result, Plaintiff and Mr. Ammel decided to stay in North Carolina for the time being.
17. In 2022, Mr. Ammel officially retired from the Anny. Plaintiff and Mr. Ammel initially experienced difficulty obtaining Mr. Arnmel’s retirement pay and went through an extensive process to secure his retirement.
https://www.theassemblync.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/gov.uscourts.ncmd_.103845.2.0.pdf
His mugshot
https://moorenc.mugshots.zone/ammel-matthew-joseph-mugshot-11-20-2025/
Estovir,
How stupid. Not every experience in the military is identical.
Millions of people safely drive cars – does that mean that no one dies in car crashes?
“does that mean that no one dies in car crashes?”
Regarding death in a car crash, the presumption is that one of the drivers caused the accident through some kind of carelessness or neglect, not that the primary cause was the driver, or drivers, merely participating in the process of highway driving. If some aspect of that highway environment contributed substantially to the accident, there must be some clear evidence to support that claim. Likewise, serving in the military cannot be assumed to be the root cause of the mental, emotional, and/or physical problems of a veteran in the absence of specific evidence of cause and effect. A predisposition of the veteran to those kinds of issues also must be considered and eliminated.
We recognize tortious interference with contract. Why are we putting this in a different category?
Salaciousness.
As a Senator, I had a degree of respect for Synema. I disagreed with almost all of her politics and policies, but she stood up to her party on a couple of key issues (elimination of the Senate filibuster being one) that cost her dearly. To see this sad, sordid tale unfold, all occurring while she was a Senator, puts the last nail in her political coffin. There are definitely other pols who engage in this behavior regularly – she had the misfortune of alienating a NC wife and Mom who, apparently, is a real fighter (and good for that NC fighter!)
“There are definitely other pols who engage in this behavior regularly”
Such as the President of the United States who has done so within every of his marriages. Unfortunately it was not the last nail in Trump’s political coffin and, as such, should see Sinema become a Republican front runner.
Sinema said “Matt kissed me”.
To me Matt was the one who instigated the affair, yet the suit is against Sinema. Will the court and public opinion see who the aggressor was? Or will society continue to blame the victim who gave in? Kind of like blaming the rape victim instead of the rapist, although that is an extreme comparison. What happened to the “Me To” movement where the man was always to blame?
When you sign a contract, swear to it before a congregation of people as witnesses….then break the contract with express intent….then yes…being sued for that breach is fair, earned, and legitimate.
Had the Husband any integrity at all he would have honored that contract and informed the Other Woman he was a married Man.
He thought with the wrong head and deserves to pay the price.
The Other Woman also rightly deserves to face legal repercussions for her own misconduct….and trust me folks….she offered incentive to the Husband to violate the terms of his legal and moral contract to the Wife and Children.
If you cannot live up to your obligations to your own Wife and Children….and society not expect and demand you do….then society itself is going to fail.
Tell me those children are not harmed by this. You are wasting your time if you try.
What kind of Man…a Father….intentionally harms his children by his sorry conduct for some casual sexual gratification?
What kind of Woman abets such conduct?
Ralph writes, “The Other Woman also rightly deserves to face legal repercussions for her own misconduct…”
I get your point, but I’m not a lawyer. Pennzoil v. Texaco was a well-known tortious interference case. If businesses can sue for inducing a breach of contract, why not spouses?
Diogenes, do you believe the contract of marriage is the same as that of a company, where economic assets and liabilities are clearly defined? When a business dissolves, it settles economic claims. Economic claims in a broken marriage are settled during divorce. If you wish to compare it to tortious interference in Pennzoil v. Texaco, one major difference is that the marriage contract had already been executed.
True, Pennzoil v. Texaco was before the merger, not after. This is one of those occasions in which I don’t trust my own limited, legal judgement.
Diogenes, don’t sell yourself short. Your limited legal judgment is far superior to that of many lawyers. You use logic.
But as Professor Turley pointed out, many courts claim tortious interference has been abused in divorce cases; however, lawfare is a well-known and much tolerated abuse, which suggests to me that the courts just don’t want to invite the additional and heavy load of tortious interference cases in divorce.
Ask Melania.
Where was the divorce settlement. I assume NC but that is not said. Seems that all of the alienation took place outside of NC. It would seem to me that this should have been a part of the original divorce settlement and this civil tort is just piling on.
This is just going to prolong the pain and not get people past it and on to their lives.
Affairs of the heart are wonderful when they go right and totally awful with years of hate and warfare between the parties with the children in the middle as pawns.
Did a lot of counseling in my practice of people going through divorces or dealing with the wreckage afterwords. With only rare occasions were they clean and short. This is going to be a long drawn out affair over years and the minor children are going to be dealing with a lot of hate and malevolence. It will leave lots of scars, even among adult children, as sides are taken and recriminations go on for years to decades. Victory is hollow and seldom clear. Best to part now and move on.
Society has never been the same ever since they did away with the law against being a common scold.
Constitutionally, it has always been ridiculous for the judiciary to say what state laws can be dismissed unless it is based on some federal constitutional principle like procedural due process. They do it anyway. The problem is really the cowardice of legislatures to do away with archaic sex crimes which really have no place in modern society. Individual legislators don’t want to put their name on a bill that might be used against them in an election.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of removal to federal court. Removal does not override state law. State law can still be adjudicated in fed court. The basis for removal is that the litigants are citizens of different states. Removal exists to allow citizens of different states to seek a forum where one party does not have a “home field advantage” .
To me, this is a matter of respect versus disrespect. Through their affair, Ammel and Sinema disrespected his wife and their children without regard for the consequences. Should there be a penalty for disrespect? Considering how ubiquitous disrespect is these days – toward institutions, statues, the Constitution, human life, and more – this matter seems minor. But it is not minor to this family. Sinema has been punished in part by her forced separation from politics, and Ammel by his support payments. Both have lost much over their affair. Is it enough? And should the courts now heap on even more?
Interesting case. One does not need to consider the idea of a spouse being property to understand the basis for this lawsuit. Marriage forms a special bond that goes beyond contract law. This is why to dissolve a marriage, one must go to law and not simply declare the contract void. If a person seduces someone and urges a breaking of the bonds of matrimony, that does cause harm to the spouse. It is sad that our society no longer recognizes the great harm that adultery can cause.
“Righteous”? “Wickedness”? Who gets to say? Mother Teresa or Hamas?
To not understand the difference or gulf between Mother Theresa and Hamas is basically not taking a side as a way to avoid showing that there are moral rights and wrongs.
The Democrat Socialists of America agree with you about taking sides … and unity for the side they take.
I would think that a free and pluralistic society can reach reasonable judgments as to what is righteous and what is not.
garyesq2k2,
Is the surgical removal of genitalia from legally-incompetent minors (too young to vote, smoke, or drink alcohol) righteous or not?