Charges dropped against Boynton mom who fought son’s circumcision

Daphne Duret Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
3:50 p.m Monday, Feb. 20, 2017 Southern Palm Beach County

>The case of the Boynton Beach mother arrested after she took her son on the run rather than let his father have him circumcised is now officially over.

>Prosecutors dropped criminal charges against 32-year-old Heather Hironimus weeks ago after she completed an 18-month program to keep the state from pursuing the case that could have landed her in prison for up to five years.

>Hironimus became the subject of national attention after Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal upheld a ruling forcing Hironimus to go through with a 2012 agreement she had signed allowing the boy’s father, Dennis Nebus of Boca Raton, to have their son circumcised. When she later changed her mind about the agreement, Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Gillen ruled to enforce the agreement anyway.

>Hironimus took her then 4½-year-old son away in early 2015, a violation of a civil court order requiring her to turn him over to Nebus. Authorities reunited the boy with his father after Hironumus was arrested in May of that year.

>By then, Hironimus had won the praise of anti-circumcision groups around the country, who sparked a small protest outside Joe DiMaggio Children’s hospital after her arrest, when word leaked that Nebus may have taken the boy there to be circumcised. It is unclear when the boy was circumcised.

>In July 2015, defense attorney Richard Tendler worked out an agreement with prosecutors on Hironimus’ behalf for her to enter a pretrial intervention program that included a mental heath evaluation, a four-hour parenting course and other provisions.

>Assistant State Attorney Craig Williams filed a notice with Circuit Judge Glenn Kelley on Jan. 17 stating that Hironimus has successfully completed the program, so prosecutors would be dropping the single felony charge of interference with custody.

Other urls found in this thread:

baka.com.au/world/circumcision-fight-sees-mother-heather-hironimus-jailed-by-us-judge-20150520-gh68xp.html
huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/15/heather-hironimus-arrested-circumcision_n_7291014.html
sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-circumcision-parents-court-ruling-20151224-story.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27338602
washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/28/as-a-rabbi-i-want-to-know-why-a-florida-man-insists-on-circumcising-his-son/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation_in_the_United_States#History_of_FGM_in_the_United_States
muse.jhu.edu/article/44151
theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/02/fgm-happened-to-me-in-white-midwest-america
youtube.com/watch?v=pvX5J7lAv4g
noharmm.org/docswords.htm
psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage
legalmatch.com/law-library/article/circumcision-legalityconsent.html
youtube.com/watch?v=lmToXLVrZ7c
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1034.x/abstract
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Dennis Cukus

fucking misleading title

the charges against her were because she signed an agreement an didn't uphold it

For those unfamiliar with the case, here is some background info.

baka.com.au/world/circumcision-fight-sees-mother-heather-hironimus-jailed-by-us-judge-20150520-gh68xp.html

huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/15/heather-hironimus-arrested-circumcision_n_7291014.html

sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-circumcision-parents-court-ruling-20151224-story.html

>the jew defending circumsision

Did she fight her son's circumcision? Yes.

oy vey goyim you signed my contract did you forget?

I'm not exactly a proponent of circumcision, but she should be less retarded than to sign an agreement she doesn't agree with, and then flee a court order that says she needs to transfer custody.

my son is uncircumcised. what now belgfriend?

How old is your son?

should have signed the agreement. shouldnt have faced felony charges for freaking out. son, sadly, should have been circumsized as agreed. i wonder though what sort of a retarded state takes agreements on whether kids should be circumsized or not.

Doesn't matter cut or not cut a Jew is always a Jew

i meant shouldnt have signed the agreement

She didn't know what circumcision and the foreskin were at the time she signed the agreement. Nor do most people know, even many doctors.

American medical textbooks don't talk about the fact that the foreskin is the part of the penis with the most specialized innervation, or that circumcision removes primary erogenous tissue. They are misled into thinking that the glans is the most erogenous/sensual part (it's one of the least--almost all the nerve endings in it are unspecialized nerve endings that primarily serve to detect noxious stimuli) and the "foreskin" is an evil toxic part of the penis that is not erogenous and makes your penis rot off.

>son, sadly, should have been circumsized as agreed

Children aren't property. Male circumcision without consent is organ theft and is arguably illegal under the 14th Amendment.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27338602

aaaaaand thats why you shouldnt have a private institution which can say who can become a doctor and who cant, based on peer approval

Very interesting flag

Also true

...

i totally agree, though there was an agreement. the mother and the father have in written form consented to it. if she wasnt dumb enough to sign the papers...

>court case forcing a child to get circumcised
(((america)))

>you sign a contract so that you don't get ruined financially when you divorce

>lel i change my mind,

C'mon, retard, get that Chosen One out of ya head for a sec

I am 100% against Circumcision, but this shit is retarded. She shouldn't have signed that shit, instead of changing her mind in the last second and then having the state make these contracts even more worthless.

>Private institution

read a book

>the charges against her were because she signed an agreement an didn't uphold it

and yet judges throw out prenups all the time. These people need to make up their fucking minds on whether or not signed agreements mean anything.

You can't sign away the rights to other living people's organs.

If she'd signed a contract for him to have his hand cut off because she didn't understand what that actually meant, would you support his hand being cut off?

What about a girl's clitoris? Should parents have the right to sign away their daughters sex organs too?

The way you're willing to defend abstractions like "contracts" over human integrity is nuts.

Prenup agreements in the US can be voided if a judge feels like it.

This is for all you MGTOW morons

or signing an agreement saying all children would be aborted.

This is fucking ridiculous. You can't sign agreements about killing and mutilating people that aren't yourself. That is some cult-level shit.

>when you're the one who has to get a mental health check because you don't want to let the jews mutilate your kid's penis

Should have circumcised her massive forehead

The old texts say that Circumcision is done to emulate the gods.

They cut the foreskin off because the Anunnaki didnt have foreskin.

Maybe you dont know them as the Anunnaki, most jewish people call them the Elohim.

Others call them the Archons. IE the Lords of the Garden.

Hence why i don't like shit like this.

>he way you're willing to defend abstractions like "contracts" over human integrity is nuts.

If a kid doesn't want to go to school, should the parents not be allowed to make him go? Should a child be able to sue parents for braking the 14th amendment, if they force him to do anything he doesn't consent to?

>mental heath evaluation
Not wanting your son to be mutilated is a mental disease, oy vey

We're gonna actually start gassing you guys this time

Still a shame that you're so cucked you don't allow the fathers to check the parentage of their kids, because that'd disrupt the (((family peace)))

The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, regardless of race, sex, or class.

Females are protected from all forms of involuntary genital cutting, even non-mutilating, largely symbolic forms, like drawing a single drop of blood for ritualistic purposes.

Males are not protected from genital cutting--whether symbolic blood drawing, or even radical circumcisions. This is where the violation comes in.

That you would try to equate being made to go to school with being forced to have part of your penis cut off without a real medical reason is beyond bizarre.

This. Although it's stupid that she signed the agreement, there's a lot of things you can't do in an agreement, e.g. I can't sign an agreement for you to hack off my leg, if you honour that agreement you'd still go to jail for hacking off another man's leg. So because that somehow is different for a foreskin, that proves this is indeed a debate about circumcision

That is so sick... the amount of jew mind control to even have this kind of sadistic court case... first we GOTTA kill the muslims. Then we GOTTA gas de j00s

Based Malawi

This is fucking demented
washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/28/as-a-rabbi-i-want-to-know-why-a-florida-man-insists-on-circumcising-his-son/
Even LITERAL Jewish rabbis who snip dicks themselves are saying this guy is a fucked up demented child mutilator

>she didn't know what circumcision and the foreskin were at the time she signed the agreement
"nothing's wrong with our education system there's just a few racial issues" - hillary's campaign

>That you would try to equate being made to go to school with being forced to have part of your penis cut off without a real medical reason is beyond bizarre.

I also find it beyond bizzare that you equate circumcision to getting your hand cut off.

>Females are protected from all forms of involuntary genital cutting, even non-mutilating, largely symbolic forms, like drawing a single drop of blood for ritualistic purposes.

Males are not protected from genital cutting--whether symbolic blood drawing, or even radical circumcisions. This is where the violation comes in.

So if females are allowed to be circumcised, will it stop being a violation then?

And you know exactly why i made that school comment, you faggot. If we are going to argue that way, then any act by parents, that the kid didn't consent to, should be considered unethical. Like forcing any other human being to go to anywhere, without his consent.

Very few people worldwide are taught anything about sexual health. Up until recently almost nobody was, and the dominant view in many countries among medical professionals was that sexual pleasure was evil and unhealthy.

The foreskin particularly is an organ that has been vilified because there are strong cultural and religious and personal motivations have to annihilate this organ.

Information about the importance of the foreskin to male sexuality is absent from American medical textbooks. Doctors ignorantly tell parents it's a dangerous body part that has no function. Some of them may even know otherwise but lie.

I don't blame her for not knowing what she was agreeing to because probably 50% or more of people wouldn't know either. You have to look at this through an overarching cultural context.

Up until 1997, female circumcision (even clitoridectomy) was legal in the US. Parents would sometimes take their daughters to be circumcised in some form or another as punishment if they were caught masturbating.

Blue Cross Insurance even covered female circumcision up until 1977. A LOT of people here in the US (not JUST the US) are clueless about sexual anatomy or the importance of a full set of sex organs.

>took her son on the run
>4-year-old son Chase
Kek.

They fought to enforce it because it's not like a woman or girl was going to suffer, right?

>lol she signed an agreement goy who cares if the kid doesn't want his skin cut off he has no say in it filthy goy

>I also find it beyond bizzare that you equate circumcision to getting your hand cut off.

So, you admit that you think parents have the right to sign away some of their children's healthy body parts, but not others.

How do you draw the line, and why?

>mom who fought son’s circumcision
Can we switch mom's??

Circumcision shouldn't be performed on people until they are old enough to make the decision themselves.

On the bright side, maybe when he grows up he'll shoot his dad for doing that to him

i wonder if he ever asked his son if he wants his dick chopped?

Actually the ammount of nerves in the foreskin may be actually comparable to the ammount of nerves in the hand.

Cutting your hair. Your nails. Piercings. Do you think giving your child an ear ring should be unethical and illegal?

And going back to the school comment. If we follow the 14th amendment argument, then can a child argue (or his lawyer, i guess), that him being forced by his parents to go to school, or church, or day care, or any other regular child activity, that parents make their children do in the US, is a violation of his rights?

I mean, his mother suffered a lot. She was jailed, deprived of contact with her son, and treated like she was insane because she realized she made a mistake and didn't want her son to pay the price for something that wasn't in any way even slightly his fault.

>I also find it beyond bizzare that you equate circumcision to getting your hand cut off.

You're hacking off body parts. Does it matter which part it is? You're a sociopath if you condone it.

It'd be different if there was incurable infection and a limb needed to be amputated. But this? There is no reason for this. It's sheer ignorance and inability to move into the 21st century. Or 1st century, for that matter.

> she later changed her mind about the agreement

>Cutting your hair. Your nails.

Unlike the foreskin, those are dead tissues that grow back when cut. That I have to explain this to you is amazing.

>Piercings. Do you think giving your child an ear ring should be unethical and illegal?

Yes. But it's nowhere near as bad as cutting off your child's primary erogenous tissue.

>And going back to the school comment..

No, let's back up here. You're putting the foreskin on the level of hair and nails. That is absolutely sick and ignorant. It's living tissue that does not grow back when cut off. Cutting someone's hair does not permanently remove their primary erogenous tissue. Circumcision does.

The foreskin is not like hair or a fingernail and if you're operating on that premise then we need to fix that before we get deeper into anything.

Do you have a source for those last two paragraphs? I never heard about that. J.H. Kellog, the cornflake man, did an enormous deal to promote circumcision because he thought masturbating was the worst thing ever. He also promoted clitorises to be chemically (permanently) paralysed with phenol, but none of his plans for females ever got hold. This seems to contrast the idea of female circumcision being popular in the US, ever.

I do agree with you though, it's sad how little people know and how easily they are swayed by stupid arguments by people pretending to know better. Ignorance doesn't absolve people though. I feel bad for the woman, but nothing stopped her from doing a quick Google search. Sometimes people are almost willfully ignorant and what happens then is that you get played with kosher tricks like these by people who know more

>So if females are allowed to be circumcised, will it stop being a violation then?
Yes. That will never happen, though, and as such circumcision for everyone being illegal is the only option.
>I also find it beyond bizzare that you equate circumcision to getting your hand cut off.
I don't understand why. Both are body parts. Both have very important uses.

I am against circumcision.

>Yes. But it's nowhere near as bad as cutting off your child's primary erogenous tissue

So cutting ANY body part from your child is horrible and what not, except when "it's not as bad". But i am sick and ignorant, for saying that cutting your foreskin is not as bad as cutting your arm off? Wat?

>No, let's back up here.

No we won't. You are trying to avoid my question and resorting to SJW tactics and name calling.

I'll paste it again.

>If we follow the 14th amendment argument, then can a child argue (or his lawyer, i guess), that him being forced by his parents to go to school, or church, or day care, or any other regular child activity, that parents make their children do in the US, is a violation of his rights?

Tbf, it's a perfect system that prevents you from thinking differently than (((((they))))) want you to.

>Do you have a source for those last two paragraphs? I never heard about that.

>FGM was practiced in the U.S. as well as some of the other Western countries[8] as a medical procedure in form of clitoridectomy and female circumcision in the 1800s and all the way into late 1970s, as means to "cure" female masturbation, hysteria, nymphomania and excess sexual desire, lesbianism, lack of female orgasm during traditional intercourse, and a number of other conditions considered abnormal or immoral at the time. It was covered by the Blue Cross health insurance until 1977.[9][10]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation_in_the_United_States#History_of_FGM_in_the_United_States

muse.jhu.edu/article/44151

theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/02/fgm-happened-to-me-in-white-midwest-america

youtube.com/watch?v=pvX5J7lAv4g

>J.H. Kellog, the cornflake man, did an enormous deal to promote circumcision because he thought masturbating was the worst thing ever.

Kellogg was only one of many sex-negative doctors who advocating damaging the genitals of children and adults. You can read about more of them here.

noharmm.org/docswords.htm

>He also promoted clitorises to be chemically (permanently) paralysed with phenol, but none of his plans for females ever got hold. This seems to contrast the idea of female circumcision being popular in the US, ever.

It was not as popular as male circumcision (although there are no statistics on it that I know of, so the true extent seems unknowable), but it did occur and was considered legal and covered by insurance. There are many testimonies of American women circumcised during the 20th century who have come forward to talk about their experience.

>Oy vey the post.

Thank you, Moshe.

psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage

>So cutting ANY body part from your child is horrible and what not, except when "it's not as bad".

Cutting off foreskins is not like cutting hair or nails. If you draw the line between "okay to cut off" and "not okay to cut off" at hair and nails and the nearly-microscopic bits of blood and flesh that would be destroyed with an ear piercing, then foreskins fall on the other side of the line. Along with clitorises, and yes, hands.

>No we won't. You are trying to avoid my question and resorting to SJW tactics and name calling.

I didn't call you any names.

The issue with respect to the 14th Amendment isn't about parents taking their kids places. It's about one sex being protected from their parent's urges to mutilate them, and the other sex being allowed to be mutilated.

Thanks!

> she signed an agreement to mutilate her son
Hm...

BASED JAPAN
You're retarded, man. Holy fuck. You must be a somali immigrant who stopped halfway through his trip to germany.
She is based.

>no one will ever care this much about your dick

(((113649306)))

>The issue with respect to the 14th Amendment isn't about parents taking their kids places. It's about one sex being protected from their parent's urges to mutilate them, and the other sex being allowed to be mutilated.

So if tomorrow the Federal Government decided, that female genital mutilation is A-OK, it would become ethical all of the sudden? Why do these ethics depend on what the government says, if yes?

foresin is not like a clitoris at all, removing the clit woul dbe like cutting off the glans of a penis dumbass.

You're welcome, glad to have been given the opportunity to share some info.

>kEizP3pc
psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage Take a look at this retard. Circumcision should be illegal.

It's unbelievable that infant circumcision is still being performed in this day and age. Simply unbelievable. The strangest part is the simultaneous demonization of female circumcision, which is not more dangerous or intrusive than male circumcision when performed in a sterile environment and when WHO types I through III are performed. Sweden ought to use its progressive cuckoldry for good for once and immediately ban infant male circumcision.

>ethical
>Constitutional Amendment
Are you illiterate, too? He didn't say the fact that the mutilation of both genders isn't equally respected is unethical, he said it doesn't fit the 14th Amendment.

>So if tomorrow the Federal Government decided, that female genital mutilation is A-OK, it would become ethical all of the sudden?

It wouldn't be ethical, but it would at least no longer be a question of sex discrimination. However, that's not going to happen.

It would still be an issue of mayhem, battery, and theft of living tissue.

Boca Raton is the jew capital of the country. It also translates literally to a rats mouth in spanish. Coincidence?

You mean your wife's son, shekleberg

But that type of cuckoldry doesn't fit the jews agenda, pewdiepie

YOU CAN SUE THE DOCTOR THAT CIRCUMCISED YOU

Source?

Good mother, shit father.

legalmatch.com/law-library/article/circumcision-legalityconsent.html

1/2

>foresin is not like a clitoris at all

Actually it is, in many ways. They're both complex erogenous zones and living tissue.

However, the foreskin is estimated to contain about 20,000 nerve endings. The clitoris "only" has about 8,000. In terms of sensory tissue loss, removing the foreskin is arguably worse.

>removing the clit woul dbe like cutting off the glans of a penis

The clitoris and glans have very different patterns of innervation and functions. The glans is not innervated like a clitoris. The urethra is not routed through the clitoris. They are homologous but not identical structures.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken idea that the foreskin is just a covering for the "real" male erogenous zone, the glans. This is not true.

youtube.com/watch?v=lmToXLVrZ7c

It's the foreskin, not the glans, which is the most specially innervated and sensual part of the penis. The male glans is primarily innervated with unspecialized nociceptive nerve endings. The foreskin on the other hand has heavy innervation with specialized nerve endings meant to detect finer stimuli, not coarse/noxious stimuli.

(cont'd)

...

How can you know that you are wrong and irrational, and still carry on with it?

Religious people are truly mentally ill

> protect human unable of consent from harm
> gets sued
I love this world.

>Although the sensory and autonomic innervation of the penis and clitoris are similar, there is a remarkable difference in their encapsulated somatosensory receptors...

>The glans penis is primarily innervated by free nerve endings & has primarily protopathic sensitivity [43]. Protopathic sensitivity refers to cruder, poorly localized feelings (including pain, some temperature sensations and certain perceptions of mechanical contact) [44]. In the glans penis, encapsulated end-organs are sparse, and found mainly along the glans corona and the frenulum [43]. The only portion of the body with less fine-touch discrimination than the glans penis is the heel of the foot [45]. In contrast, the male prepuce ridged band (Fig. 7) at the mucocutaneous junction has a high concentration of encapsulated receptors [46]. The innervation difference between the protopathic sensitivity of the glans penis and the corpuscular receptor-rich ridged band of the prepuce is part of the normal complement of penile erogenous tissue.

>In females, the glans clitoris and the inner plate of the prepuce have corpuscular receptors on their oppositional surfaces [47]. The glans clitoris also has a much denser concentration of Vater-Pacinian corpuscles than either the glans penis or the male prepuce. The fused common epithelium of the clitoris and the inner plate of the prepuce are reported to have intraepithelial nerves [33]. Merkel cells mediate tactile sensations, and are found in glabrous skin ; they have been reported in the clitoris and can be identified in the male prepuce (Fig. 6) [49].

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1034.x/abstract

>The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847

I gotta agree with the kike on this one, cunt shouldn't have signed anything to begin with, kinda her own fault

>It is unclear when the boy was circumcised.
FUCK
I DIDNT READ IT ALL
I THOUGHT SHE ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING

Is this ASMR?

Whether you believe there's a grand Jewish agenda or not, the politicians of Sweden clearly do not. Pictured is Margot Wallström. She's the (actual) deputy prime minister of Sweden and foreign minister. She supports the immigration system in Sweden and socialist reforms, and is an obvious and influential part of the Swedish establishment. She is also one of the few world leaders who openly oppose the state of Israel, regularly accuses them of war crimes and, against the will of Israel and the Swedish people, recognized the state of Palestine. Israel saw this as an act of hostility and diplomatic ties between Sweden and Israel went south. She's also one of the few politicians who openly accuse Saudi Arabia of crimes against humanity and so on. If she is part of a grand Jewish agenda, she clearly doesn't know she is.

psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage THIS IS WHY ALL GENITAL MUTILATION SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. SUE THE DOCTOR WHO CIRCUMCISED YOU AND MAKE THEM PAY.

Like Yuri Bezmenov said, (not an exact quote) most americans (now europeans) are being indoctrinated by their own people. The jewish agenda reaches very far, even beyond its physical touch.

This.

Plus the kid didn't want the procedure.

According to this ruling I can force my child sex change against his will.

>The human interpretation of this cosmic being who created us and has never actually been seen didn't have a foreskin that means we need to cut our foreskin off

What the hell are you even trying to say?

> agreements involving someone else flesh

I see you're up to your usual self Soros

Although, on circumcision, she does sound like someone who could be convinced, but again, most female liberals don't care about sexism as long as it isn't against females.

This is sort of agreement should be illegal to begin with