US: Florida boy's circumcision spurs lengthy legal battle, protests

[webfact]

Fla. boy's circumcision spurs lengthy legal battle, protests
By MATT SEDENSKY

BOYNTON BEACH, Fla. (AP) — An estranged Florida couple's fight over whether to circumcise their son has become a rallying cry for those who denounce the procedure as barbaric.

The dispute between Heather Hironimus, the mother opposing circumcision, and Dennis Nebus, the father favoring it, has sparked a prolonged court battle, protests and the rapt attention of a movement of self-proclaimed "intactivists."

Judges have ruled in favor of the father, meaning the surgery is likely to happen, but the possible closure of the legal chapter has done little to mute the case's most passionate followers. Though many still choose to remove their sons' foreskins at the suggestion of a doctor, for religious or cultural reasons, or out of habit, opponents have been bolstered by the overall waning popularity of circumcision, and the fact this fight has gone on so long the boy at its center is now 4 years old.

"I couldn't speak when I was cut, but I can speak now," said Thomas Frederiksen, a 39-year-old machinist who traveled from Orlando to protest, wearing a red beret and "I (Heart) My Foreskin" T-shirt and speaking breathlessly about the issue.

Volumes of court filings tell the story: Hironimus and Nebus had a six-month relationship that resulted in a pregnancy, the birth of a boy named Chase, and a fight over nearly everything since. Nebus sued to prove his paternity and to get partial custody of the boy and the couple whittled out a parenting plan outlining everything from his surname to his legal address, to whom he calls mommy or daddy and, notably, what becomes of his penis.

In that document, the circumcision of the child was agreed to by both parents. When it came time to schedule the procedure, though, the mother resisted, having researched the subject further. The matter wound its way through circuit court, which ruled in Nebus' favor, then to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which refused to overturn the lower court's ruling. Hironimus could ask for a rehearing in the appellate court, but has made no further legal filings.

"Just the normal thing to do," the father said of circumcision, according to the court files. "To me, it's not worth it to put my son's life at risk for a cosmetic procedure," the mother said.

The parents entered an agreement on Dec. 24 to not talk to the press and to avoid any other campaigns or actions that might exploit the child. There is no indication in the court documents the circumcision is being done for religious reasons. The attorney that had represented the mother, who lives in Boynton Beach, is no longer being retained and has not been replaced, the lawyer's office said. The attorney for the father, who lives in Boca Raton, did not respond to requests for comment.

Though circumcision rates have fallen in the U.S., a majority of boys still undergo the removal of their foreskin. A 2013 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found 58.3 percent of newborn boys were circumcised in 2010, down from 64.5 percent in 1979. (The data excluded babies who were circumcised after leaving the hospital — many Jewish boys have the procedure during a ceremony called a bris, eight days after birth.) Meantime, a bubbling anti-circumcision movement has grown.

They have made the boy at the center of this case their cause celebre, as evidenced by one of several small sidewalk protests here featuring signs including "Let Chase Keep His Foreskin," ''Don't Cut Chase's Penis," ''Don't You Dare Circumcise Chase!" and "Ethics 101: No Disease, No Consent, No Circumcision." Some passing motorists honked or gave gestures of support; some looked puzzled or shouted "Who's Chase?"

Jonathan Friedman, 27, who organized the demonstration as part of his "Saving Chase" campaign, traveled from Chicago for the event and makes anti-circumcision advocacy the focus of his life. He wore a "Children Never Forget Trauma" T-shirt and said he became vocal on the issue when he realized the harm of his own circumcision, which he blames for bleeding, chafing and painful erections.

What has driven supporters to his side, Friedman says, is the age of the boy in this case.

"People are not OK with a 4-year-old boy being circumcised — a conscious, articulate boy. That's just not OK," Friedman said. "Not everyone is against circumcisions, but I think everyone is against a 4-year-old's circumcision."

Last month, the CDC released a draft of long-awaited federal guidelines on circumcision, stopping short of telling parents they should choose the procedure, but saying medical evidence shows benefits clearly outweigh risks. It can lower a male's risk of sexually transmitted diseases, penile cancer and even urinary tract infections, the CDC said, potential benefits of which the protesters expressed serious doubt.

Gathered quietly near the office of a pediatric urologist who examined the boy and who may be chosen for the surgery, they said the circumcision should be put off until adulthood, when the patient could decide for himself. To those who view the procedure as minor, they gave a list of reasons they believe shows it is not — from loss of sensation to unseen psychological damage.

"They think it's just a little snip and it's not," said Jennifer Blanchard, 34, of Miami. "It's a big deal."


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-01-20

[HeijoshinCool]

He wore a "Children Never Forget Trauma" T-shirt ….

Don't remember a thing.

(And the wife says it's really cute this way).

[Donnie Brasco]

Keep it.

Wash it.

Keep it clean.

Same rules of hygiene apply to both men and women.

[klauskunkel]

Idiots. Both of them. Too much money and time and nothing better to do than keeping their private little jihad going full steam.

Let the boy grow up and he can decide as an adult if wants his foreskin removed, or not. And then he should take it and slap his parents in the face with it. Idiots.

[ggold]

"I couldn't speak when I was cut, but I can speak now," said Thomas Frederiksen, a 39-year-old machinist who traveled from Orlando to protest, wearing a red beret and "I (Heart) My Foreskin" T-shirt and speaking breathlessly about the issue.

I'm betting he's Gay!

[KhnomKhnom]

A four year old will be psychologically hurt for his whole life.

Probably already is in a different way.

I say, if you like circumcision, you will love clitoris hood peals........ Cut cut cut, idiots.

[Jingthing]

Well, I think it's a good procedure and mostly beneficial to those that get it, and now is recommended by the WHO in many countries for heterosexual HIV prevention ... BUT, that the boy is now four, I think they shouldn't do it and the guy can decide for himself when he's an adult. Of course he'll decide not to do it. That's fine too.

[Jingthing]

A four year old will be psychologically hurt for his whole life.

Probably already is in a different way.

I say, if you like circumcision, you will love clitoris hood peals........ Cut cut cut, idiots.

Males and females are different. Just spreading the news. One can be in favor of male procedures and oppose female procedures quite logically with zero hypocrisy.

[ggold]

A four year old will be psychologically hurt for his whole life.

Probably already is in a different way.

I say, if you like circumcision, you will love clitoris hood peals........ Cut cut cut, idiots.

Males and females are different. Just spreading the news. One can be in favor of male procedures and oppose female procedures quite logically with zero hypocrisy.

Female circumcision is barbaric, it is only done to stop the woman from feeling any sexual gratification in the belief it would stop her from being unfaithful.

[James Yayo]

Beyond cruel. Not for the trauma now, but for irreversably robbing them of a full and proper sex life. Cutting off the most sensitive part of the body, without their consent. Sounds like something ISIS would do to captured infidels.

Well, I think it's a good procedure and mostly beneficial to those that get it, and now is recommended by the WHO in many countries for heterosexual HIV prevention ... BUT, that the boy is now four, I think they shouldn't do it and the guy can decide for himself when he's an adult. Of course he'll decide not to do it. That's fine too.

This should always be the case, unless there is a medical issue. Doing it as an infant is just as cruel for their future life as doing when they are four.

Educate them when they are coming of age, let them decide.

[ggold]

Beyond cruel. Not for the trauma now, but for irreversably robbing them of a full and proper sex life. Cutting off the most sensitive part of the body, without their consent. Sounds like something ISIS would do to captured infidels.

Well, I think it's a good procedure and mostly beneficial to those that get it, and now is recommended by the WHO in many countries for heterosexual HIV prevention ... BUT, that the boy is now four, I think they shouldn't do it and the guy can decide for himself when he's an adult. Of course he'll decide not to do it. That's fine too.

This should always be the case, unless there is a medical issue. Doing it as an infant is just as cruel for their future life as doing when they are four.

Educate them when they are coming of age, let them decide.

It is not cruel to circumcise a boy within a few days of birth. There is no trauma then or in the future for having it done. I would say though that in this case if the boy has it done, it will be painful through the healing process. It's just the wrong time to do it.

Edited January 20, 2015 by ggold

[Ulysses G.]

Beyond cruel. Not for the trauma now, but for irreversably robbing them of a full and proper sex life.

I don't know how my sex life could be any more full and proper than it is now with no foreskin. It certainly seems that it is more healthy to remove it, but I agree that no one would do it as an adult. I even have a hard time making myself get blood drawn or filling a tooth, but I force myself.

[NeverSure]

"I couldn't speak when I was cut, but I can speak now," said Thomas Frederiksen, a 39-year-old machinist who traveled from Orlando to protest, wearing a red beret and "I (Heart) My Foreskin" T-shirt and speaking breathlessly about the issue.

I'm betting he's Gay!

I usually like your posts but that's pretty off the wall. ??

Donnie got it right. Good hygiene is all it takes.

I wouldn't have a 4 year old cut.

[ggold]

"I couldn't speak when I was cut, but I can speak now," said Thomas Frederiksen, a 39-year-old machinist who traveled from Orlando to protest, wearing a red beret and "I (Heart) My Foreskin" T-shirt and speaking breathlessly about the issue.

I'm betting he's Gay!

I usually like your posts but that's pretty off the wall. ??

Donnie got it right. Good hygiene is all it takes.

I wouldn't have a 4 year old cut.

Is it off the wall? Does a man really protest circumcision wearing a red beret and a I heart my foreskin T shirt and speaks breathlessly on the issue! Just an observation no offence meant towards happy people.

[ggold]

I am curious, which do ladies prefer. Cut or uncut?

[James Yayo]

I would actually lobby for it to be made illegal without a medicle issue. Religous issues also not allowed to be a factor, people are not born a certain religion, no matter how much their fanatical parents believe so.

I would also lobby for education about it to be made part of the school health curiculum and allow for boys to choose for themselves at age 16, and offer it free of charge at government hospitals to those who decide to do it.

[Scott]

I knew a guy who chose to be circumcised as an adult. I have no idea why, but there was no medical reason for it. As an adult, it was quite an ordeal and he was laid up for quite a while.

I also worked with a guy in Iraq who was circumcised when he was around 5 years old. He was Muslim and for one reason or another it hadn't been done when he was an infant. His description sounded pretty traumatic.

[ggold]

I would actually lobby for it to be made illegal without a medicle issue. Religous issues also not allowed to be a factor, people are not born a certain religion, no matter how much their fanatical parents believe so.

I would also lobby for education about it to be made part of the school health curiculum and allow for boys to choose for themselves at age 16, and offer it free of charge at government hospitals to those who decide to do it.

Why? how can you miss something you didn't know you had in the first place. If nothing else there are Medical reasons for having it done regardless of faith. It hygienic and reduces the risks of sexually transmitted diseases. Again why would you concider doing it other than as a baby. I would say the pain would be enough to stop someone from going through with it at a later stage in their life. regardless of any educational value, which would go against your idea anyway!

[Jingthing]

I would actually lobby for it to be made illegal without a medicle issue. Religous issues also not allowed to be a factor, people are not born a certain religion, no matter how much their fanatical parents believe so.

I would also lobby for education about it to be made part of the school health curiculum and allow for boys to choose for themselves at age 16, and offer it free of charge at government hospitals to those who decide to do it.

I support your right to "lobby" for whatever you want. But it seems to me your POV is simply anti-religion. Personally I am for freedom of religion and also freedom of NO religion. If you are going to ban religious groups from doing procedures on babies that are legal for adults where do you draw the line? Perhaps it should be illegal to take kids to church until they're adults.

[James Yayo]

I am curious, which do ladies prefer. Cut or uncut?

Uncut, which of course they are obviously evolved to derive more pleasure from, offers stimulation and lubrication to the female partner.

Then of course for the male, he still has the most sensitive part of his body being stimulated, and also the main head has not been numbed, and offers stimulation as nature intended.

Robbing a man of this, without their consent, should be a human right's abuse.

[Donnie Brasco]

I am curious, which do ladies prefer. Cut or uncut?

"A good solid erection is one of your first achievements as a couple.

When the veins and arteries of a strong healthy erect penis are standing out like the ribs of a starved dog I like to feel we've both had some input. . . . .and freshening up? Well its just good manners, isn't it?

"Except in pictures and biology books, I can't say I've ever really noticed a foreskin.

Not for long anyway, if you know what I mean."

Helen Fox

Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx High School

Cheerleader of the Year

19x9

[James Yayo]

Beyond cruel. Not for the trauma now, but for irreversably robbing them of a full and proper sex life.

I don't know how my sex life could be any more full and proper than it is now with no foreskin.

Imagine your fingers with your finger tips removed.

The sensors in your finger tips are the same sensors as in a male's foreskin.

You could still pick things up, and enjoy picking them up, but the sensation has been robbed and diminished forever (in two different places with circumcision- the most sensitive part of the body has been removed, and the sensation from likely the second, has been numbed forever)

If the operation leaves a small trace of foreskin, this is where circumcised men say they get the most stimulation and sensation from.

[ggold]

I am curious, which do ladies prefer. Cut or uncut?

Uncut, which of course they are obviously evolved to derive more pleasure from, offers stimulation and lubrication to the female partner.

Then of course for the male, he still has the most sensitive part of his body being stimulated, and also the main head has not been numbed, and offers stimulation as nature intended.

Robbing a man of this, without their consent, should be a human right's abuse.

Well you would say that, wouldn't you. But that is odd my experience has been the opposite.

[Jingthing]

I am curious, which do ladies prefer. Cut or uncut?

Uncut, which of course they are obviously evolved to derive more pleasure from, offers stimulation and lubrication to the female partner.

Then of course for the male, he still has the most sensitive part of his body being stimulated, and also the main head has not been numbed, and offers stimulation as nature intended.

Robbing a man of this, without their consent, should be a human right's abuse.

Do a poll of men who were cut as babies and determine the percentage who feel they were abused. I can assure you very, very few will say that and most will say they are HAPPY the procedure was done.

[James Yayo]

I would actually lobby for it to be made illegal without a medicle issue. Religous issues also not allowed to be a factor, people are not born a certain religion, no matter how much their fanatical parents believe so.

I would also lobby for education about it to be made part of the school health curiculum and allow for boys to choose for themselves at age 16, and offer it free of charge at government hospitals to those who decide to do it.

I support your right to "lobby" for whatever you want. But it seems to me your POV is simply anti-religion. Personally I am for freedom of religion and also freedom of NO religion. If you are going to ban religious groups from doing procedures on babies that are legal for adults where do you draw the line? Perhaps it should be illegal to take kids to church until they're adults.

Only until they pass the Age of Reason, around age 8. But that's a different thread and discussion.

I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti brain washing, conditioning and indoctrinating young childern before they can reason with what they are being told is correct, I am also anti- cutting off parts of their body that will later rob them (and their partners) of the full enjoyment of sex, and would rather them to be educated about it as young adults and then be offered a free service if they wish to irreversably mutilate themselves.

[ggold]

Beyond cruel. Not for the trauma now, but for irreversably robbing them of a full and proper sex life.

I don't know how my sex life could be any more full and proper than it is now with no foreskin.

Imagine your fingers with your finger tips removed.

The sensors in your finger tips are the same sensors as in a male's foreskin.

You could still pick things up, and enjoy picking them up, but the sensation has been robbed and diminished forever (in two different places with circumcision- the most sensitive part of the body has been removed, and the sensation from likely the second, has been numbed forever)

If the operation leaves a small trace of foreskin, this is where circumcised men say they get the most stimulation and sensation from.

Maybe it is more about being in control of you're ejaculation, and pleasuring you're partner than coming too soon!

Edited January 20, 2015 by ggold

[James Yayo]

Beyond cruel. Not for the trauma now, but for irreversably robbing them of a full and proper sex life.

I don't know how my sex life could be any more full and proper than it is now with no foreskin.

Imagine your fingers with your finger tips removed.

The sensors in your finger tips are the same sensors as in a male's foreskin.

You could still pick things up, and enjoy picking them up, but the sensation has been robbed and diminished forever (in two different places with circumcision- the most sensitive part of the body has been removed, and the sensation from likely the second, has been numbed forever)

If the operation leaves a small trace of foreskin, this is where circumcised men say they get the most stimulation and sensation from.

Maybe it is more about being in control of you're ejaculation, and pleasuring you're partner than coming too soon!

You don't actually know much about the topic at hand (so to speak).

Perhaps it's time to stop posting on it.

[Jonmarleesco]

A Jewish doctor in a time when parents didn't question doctors, ended with my being circumcised. Neither here nor there. But my view is: unless health is a factor, it's unnecessary.

[Jingthing]

A Jewish doctor in a time when parents didn't question doctors, ended with my being circumcised. Neither here nor there. But my view is: unless health is a factor, it's unnecessary.

If it's neither here nor there, why did you mention the ethnicity of the doctor?

What nationality are you and how old?

In my generation of American males, the vast majority of babies were circumcised.

In hospitals.

Nothing to do with Judaism or Islam.

I have no idea about the ethnic background of the hospital doctor that did my procedure.

I never asked and I don't even know if my parents would have remembered.

In recent years, I think in the U.S. it's about 50 50.

The American medical establishment currently is supportive of EITHER CHOICE (for parents). Yes, for their BABIES because doing it while a baby is the best time to do it.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

I would actually lobby for it to be made illegal without a medicle issue. Religous issues also not allowed to be a factor, people are not born a certain religion, no matter how much their fanatical parents believe so.

I would also lobby for education about it to be made part of the school health curiculum and allow for boys to choose for themselves at age 16, and offer it free of charge at government hospitals to those who decide to do it.

I support your right to "lobby" for whatever you want. But it seems to me your POV is simply anti-religion. Personally I am for freedom of religion and also freedom of NO religion. If you are going to ban religious groups from doing procedures on babies that are legal for adults where do you draw the line? Perhaps it should be illegal to take kids to church until they're adults.

Only until they pass the Age of Reason, around age 8. But that's a different thread and discussion.

I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti brain washing, conditioning and indoctrinating young childern before they can reason with what they are being told is correct, I am also anti- cutting off parts of their body that will later rob them (and their partners) of the full enjoyment of sex, and would rather them to be educated about it as young adults and then be offered a free service if they wish to irreversably mutilate themselves.

Foul. That's just loaded rhetoric -- calling male circumcision mutilation. Actually, it's a legitimate medical procedure. Do you think the WHO would promote mutilation?