Judge Grants Mom an Emergency Order to Protect 3-Year-Old's Foreskin

Heather Hironimus and Dennis Nebus had a son, Chase, in 2010. In 2012, they signed a parenting agreement which said, among other things, that the father would be responsible for scheduling and paying for Chase's circumcision.

Fast forward to this past Wednesday, when a Florida appeals court granted Hironimus, who has changed her mind about circumcision, an emergency order to stop the removal of her son's foreskin. A lower court had ordered the circumcision could go ahead after hearing testimony from a pediatric urologist.

Judge Jeffrey Gillen last week ruled that enforcing the parenting agreement would be in the best interest of Chase, now 3, although the urologist testified he wouldn't recommend it at Chase's age.

However, the doctor also pointed out (according to Judge Gillen) that circumcised men don't get penile cancer and that circumcision lowers the risk of AIDS—both debatable claims, but not entirely inaccurate—which convinced the judge the circumcision was the right choice for the boy.

The case became a rallying point for anti-circumcision activists, who feel boys are being robbed of their foreskins with no say and no medical benefit.

Chase's mom, a self-described "intactivist," appealed the ruling with her attorney, as "neither of us believe it should be a decision left to anyone other than Chase, who is 3 1/2 and fully aware."

She also started an online fundraiser to "help me save my son, his foreskin, his rights and hopefully other children from allowing the 'system' to make these decisions," and a group called Intact Florida was reportedly planning a protest to support her.

Nebus, the father, hasn't publicly commented on either the initial ruling or the appeal.

[H/T Daily Mail]