Monthly Archives: March 2015

Florida: Nebus tries to prohibit Hironimus from using funds

Why a mother has to hide in a domestic violence shelter to protect her son from an unnecessary genital surgery?

Why is a father so obsessed with the idea of circumcising his child?

Why is a judge so culturally biased that he fails to see the child as a human being?

Will the court prohibit the mother from using funds collected by those who want to help her protect her child?

To donate to Chase’s Guardians (funds to help the legal case to protect Chase), go to:


This is Dennis Nebus, a man who apparently has nothing else to do than to think how to get the foreskin of his child amputated.

nebusDennis, please think how your child feels hiding in a domestic violence shelter… because of you!

You may not realize it, but circumcision is act of violence. One that was committed on your body, and which you seem to think “it’s normal” to repeat on your child.

Dennis, there are far more important things to parenting than altering your child’s genitalia. All this time, all these emotions, all that money, could have been better used in bonding with your son, building a future for him.

There is still time to realize that this is a ridiculous fight over something that does not concern you. Over something that only concerns your child.

Man up! It’s not your body. Respect your child and respect his body.


James Badger/ Guy Cox contacted us

10 months ago we posted about Guy Cox/James Badger. We were surprised to find a comment from Mr. Cox himself on the comment queue, waiting for approval. Contrary to what Mr. Cox said, we were happy to hear from him and to approve his comment, and we added a few questions on facts that we still don’t understand completely.

So we invite our readers to read Mr. Cox’s comment, on our May of 2014 post, “Circumcision, Lies and Fetishism at the University of Sydney

How medical staff pushes unnecessary circumcisions

The AAP on its “technical report” on circumcision writes:

“Parents should weigh the health benefits and risks in light of their own religious, cultural, and personal preferences, as the medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families.”

While the purpose of this sentence is to indicate that some people may choose to circumcise for religious and cultural reasons, it also means that parents should be entitled to make a negative decision in the light of their own experience (cultural, religious, medical, preference or otherwise). Which is why it is disturbing when hospitals and medical staff blatantly ignore negative decisions and reiterate their request over and over, in what amounts to solicitation of an elective surgical procedure.

The following review was posted on Lexingon Medical Center’s facebook page on March 18th of 2015. (Name, profile picture and other details blurred for privacy).


According to the American Medical Association, AMA:

Physicians should not provide, prescribe, or seek compensation for medical services that they know are unnecessary

This compulsion to circumcise has sometimes resulted in “wrongful” circumcisions – circumcisions that were not consented by the parents, and which should amount to bodily harm.

One such “wrongful circumcision” occurred in 2010 in Miami. Another one in Indiana, 2003, had a jury find no harm to the boy, after a lawyer argued that “an award of (…) in damages to the boy would “open the courthouse door to every kid who’s been circumcised.””.

Imagine if it was any part other than the foreskin. You know your son does not need to have a finger amputated. You leave your child for a moment in the care of medical staff, and when they return the baby to you, the finger has been amputated. How do you react to that?

For people who are from non-circumcising cultures, or who oppose circumcision, it doesn’t matter if, as the Miami hospital said back then, “the procedure itself was performed following appropriate surgical guidelines“. What matters is that it was done or offered at all, that there was the intention or the fact of removing part of a child’s penis. It matters that the child now has a wound and is missing part of his normal anatomy.

A mother we recently talked with, was enraged that her ethical opposition to circumcision became reflected on her son’s medical history after she questioned a facility to find out if they performed circumcisions. See scan from the medical history:


The person who wrote this on the history would like to think that the CDC and the AAP “recommend” circumcision. These two organizations in fact argue for the benefits, but do not “recommend” the procedure as a routine, leaving the decision to the parents. A decision that activists argue does not belong to the parents because there is no medical urgency, most potential “benefits” can be obtained by less invasive ways without surgery, and the marks and scarring of circumcision last a lifetime regardless of the preference and feelings of the person who should really be concerned about it, the child, when he obtains the age and maturity to provide his own informed consent.

At circumcision protests, there is usually a blame game. Pediatricians argue that most circumcisions are performed by OB/Gyns, yet it was the AAP (pediatricians) who came with the 2012 policy statement on circumcision. OB/Gyns argue that they do it because the parents request it. But what we hear from parents is different. We see a picture where the medical establishment is interested in continuing to push the procedure. Whether this is done by the establishment per se, or by the staff as a result of their own personal bias, is not always clear. We will soon show some of the problems with circumcision consent forms. In the meantime, here’s an intactivist meme that clearly reflects this problem:


Judge Gillen says fears ‘irrelevant at this point’, but were they ever relevant?

According to Palm Beach Post

Heather Hironimus and her 4-year-old son have sought refuge at a domestic violence shelter in an undisclosed location, her attorney said. She fears for her son’s psychological well-being and wants an attorney appointed to represent him before he can have the operation the child’s father is pushing him to have, attorney Thomas Hunker said.

 Judge Jeffrey Gillen cut Hunker off, calling Hironimus’s fears and concerns irrelevant at this point.

Truth is, if you remember the beginning of the case, Judge Gillen has always considered Heather’s fears irrelevant. Let’s take a look at the ruling from last year, dated March 25th.

In this ruling it was said that Heather “asserted, in essence, that circumcision was not medically necessary and she did not want to have the parties’ son undergo requisite general anesthesia for fear of death. She expressed no other reason for now objecting to the procedure to which she’d already agreed in the parenting plan”


Following these paragraphs, there are some partially false and/or irrelevant arguments from the pediatrician acting as expert witness, Charles Flack, following which “the Court finds that there is no reason why the parties should not be held to the terms of their Agreed Parenting Plan”.


So, almost a year ago, Heather’s fears were summarily dismissed without response. And today, 350 days afterwards, the judge now says that her fears and concerns are “irrelevant at this point”.

Were they relevant a year ago Judge Gillen?

Is the life, well being and best interest of 4 year old Chase*, “irrelevant at this point”, Judge Gillen?

Did you forget that at the center of this controversy you don’t have a piece of property, nor a head of livestock, but a very alive and aware human being, Judge Gillen?

Would Judge Gillen say that no children have died during a circumcision due to the use of general anesthesia? It happened in Brooklyn just 4 years ago. Jamaal Coleson, 2 years old, died after a circumcision due to the improper use of anesthesia.

Circumcision can have negative psychological effects, and this is more noticeable in those circumcised as children or adolescents, as they can perceive the procedure as abuse, punishment, and loss of control over their own bodies. We also recommend reading the 1999 Preliminary Survey of men circumcised in infancy or childhood – originally published in the British Journal of Urology BJU.

Denial of harm caused by circumcision is a clear display of cultural bias for the procedure. Judge Gillen needs to reconsider his position on this topic.

* We will not stop using Chase’s name, as people need to remember that we are not talking about property but about a real human being whose human rights, preferences, body and health are at stake in the hands of Judge Gillen.


Nebus vs Hironimus: Arrest warrant

Judge Jeffrey Dana Gillen has entered an order of attachment (arrest warrant) in the case of Dennis Nebus vs. Heather Hironimus, in the dispute over the unnecessary circumcision of a 4 year old child.

The circumstances have changed considerably since the time when Hironimus signed the parental agreement, stating that Nebus would schedule and pay for the circumcision. At that time, Chase was about 1 year of age. Nebus then did nothing for a while, and by the time he wanted to do something, Hironimus had been educated on the subject, realizing that she was not properly informed of what a circumcision entailed when she signed the agreement, and stated that she had changed her mind and did not want her son to undergo the procedure with the additional risk of general anesthesia.

How far does a mother have to go in order to protect her son from an unnecessary amputation of normal healthy genital tissue?

Why is Dennis Nebus so adamant about submitting his son to an unnecessary surgery?


Why does Judge Gillen fail to see Chase as a human being?

Judge Gillen has stated incomplete facts about circumcision during this trial.

Judge Gillen

What should we call two men who conspire to wound the body of a child?

Where do you go when your own government fails to protect you?