Are Too Few Baby Boys Being Circumcised?

According to new research, the number of baby boys being circumcised in the U.S. is dropping. While critics of circumcision may think this is a good thing, the reason behind the drop may not be.

Circumcision rates have decreased significantly since the 1980s, partially due to the fact that many people find the procedure cruel and unnecessary, but in part the drop can be attributed to the fact that 16 states do not currently cover the cost of a circumcision in their Medicad programs. According to some, this is taking the choice away from the poor.

Robert C. Bailey, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, thinks that "It's another way in which our health system is increasing inequality across the population. People who can't afford good health care are essentially being discriminated against by this policy."

The states that don't cover circumcision are: Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah and Washington and circumcision rates are "significantly lower" in those states, according to the research.

[US News & World Report: Circumcision Rates Too Low]

Related:

Comments ( 10 )

Circumcision is bad, ok? How about we cut something off a woman when she's born? I suggest it should be the woman's tongue. They talk too damn much.

Anonymous commented on Dec 24 08 at 12:13 am

You know Max, buddy, here's the way it works. When you say something offensive with some verbal style and wit, they pay you and call you a comedian. When you say something offensive and it falls flat, you're just an asshole.

Anonymous commented on Dec 24 08 at 12:22 am

Circumcision for females used to be covered by insurance companies as late as the 1970s. Its important that one keeps in mind that as we learn more about health medical care changes. Circumcision is a harmful medical procedure that is akin to a cosmetic surgery on an infant. It has no proven medical benefits and thus should not be covered by an insurance provider. This is also not about taking choices away from the poor its about giving the choice to our sons. They should be allowed to choose the way the most intimate and personal part of their bodies look.

Anonymous commented on Dec 24 08 at 3:06 am

Is this really a debate worth getting excited about? Male circumcision should not be mentioned in the same sentence as female circumcision, OK? I'm circumcised. healthy, love sex, etc. Where's the downside? I might have a little more sensitivity at the tip of my penis?! Who cares?!! On the other hand, there's probably no reason to do it other than religion. So parents - circumcise your kid if you want. If you don't, then don't. Can we all stop freaking out about it? (Especially you guys who are carrying on about being 'robbed' of some sensation... your penis is not the source of your problems.)

Anonymous commented on Dec 24 08 at 7:44 am

It is a totally unnecessary and undeniably cruel procedure (the apparent calm of some circumcised babies has been found to be simple freezing in shock and terror). As such, it shouldn't be covered by medicare. No Western nation other than the US has had such a long love affair with the procedure, which was originally popularized as it was believed to stop masturbation (no really). While not as drastic a mutilation as FGM it's still a mutilation. Circumcision is a long running scam by the for-profit medical community and it should be ended.

Anonymous commented on Dec 24 08 at 2:02 pm

we don't tattoo our infants - we don't cut their arms off - we don't give them 1" septum plugs - we don't cut of clitorises anymore... any permanent modification, especially irreversible removal of a functioning body part, should be up to the person on whom it's performed. End. Of. Story.

Anonymous commented on Dec 25 08 at 11:26 pm

and actually, matt, you probably have LESS sensitivity, bud. due to your stuff rubbing against clothing for years and thusly becoming less sensitized. gotta mention, that whole lovely slip of extra skin make slube almost...redundant. doit

Anonymous commented on Dec 25 08 at 11:28 pm

i agree with what Megan said:

Anonymous commented on Dec 29 08 at 6:03 am

Actually they found that circumcision decreases the likelihood to contract AIDS by up to 60%. So there's more to it than nice aesthetics and families should have the choice, especially considering contraction rates are higher in poorer communities. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/133561.php

Anonymous commented on Dec 29 08 at 9:53 am

Well, if for whatever reason the boy is not going to be circumcised, at least tell him just as as soon as it will retract, if he wants to keep his foreskin he'd better learn to keep it retracted at all times. Then he can still get circumcised if he needs or wants, when he's old enough to make a reasonably informed decision for himself, say around age of reason or about puberty.

Charles II commented on Aug 04 10 at 3:18 pm

Are Too Few Baby Boys Being Circumcised?

Reversing That Circumcision Even Scarier Than You Thought

You're Circumcised? Well, That Explains It...

Baby Born With Extra Penis, Parents Have it Removed Why?

Comments ( 10 )

Leave a Comment