Heather Hironimus has been in hiding for two months with her child. She has spent years trying to protect her son, Chase. It’s what good mothers do. She was arrested and booked into Broward County Jail for doing just that.
Unfortunately, a Palm Beach County judge and the boy’s father have other plans for the four-year-old child – they want him circumcised.
Chase was born in 2010 and parents Heather Hironimus and Dennis Nebus signed an agreement that said Nebus would be responsible for paying for and scheduling the circumcision. However, once Nebus got around to doing so, Hironimus had changed her mind and wouldn’t allow the toddler to undergo the elective procedure. The mother stands strong that circumcision is not medically necessary and the risks of general anesthesia are far too great. However, the boy’s father has won over the opinion of a judge and the circumcision has been court ordered.
Following that decision, Hironimus ran to a shelter for women, where she stayed with her son for two months in an attempt to avoid handing him over to have his genitals cut. Unfortunately, after her attorney was required to divulge her whereabouts in court documents, authorities showed up at the shelter to arrest the mother for contempt of court. They then handed Chase over to his father so the surgery can be carried out.
In April, a federal civil rights lawsuit was filed and claims Chase has expressed that he does not want circumcision and is afraid of being forced to have the procedure, however, the courts, nor his father, care about the child’s opinion.
While routine infant circumcision is still a cultural norm in the United States, it is hotly debated topic. The procedure carries little to no medical benefit and is mostly perpetrated through aesthetics and myths. However, this is not a debate about routine infant circumcision. This is about a court ordering a parent to permanently alter the body of a four and a half-year-old.
The fact is, this little boy has lived over four years with an intact foreskin. There is no medical indication for the procedure, making it elective and even considered cosmetic. At no other time would a court order force a parent to opt for such an elective procedure.
Can you imagine?
What if two parents disagreed on having their child tattooed or pierced? Would the court then side with the parent wishing to tattoo or pierce the child? Or perhaps even more persuasive, what if this was a mother who was sheltering her daughter from a father who wanted the girl’s genitals cut?
Well, we already know the answer to that – as it is against federal law to carry out such an act on a girl. (Which is a good thing.)
Why shouldn’t Chase receive equal protection?
Watch the report from Local10 below:
Featured image via Twitter