State governments looking to save a little money should not reduce funding for circumcisions, according to researchers at Johns Hopkins University. Currently, 18 states do not provide Medicaid funding for infant circumcision, and San Francisco has attempted to ban the procedure.
In an editorial to appear Wednesday (Oct. 5) in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Hopkins doctors Ronald Gray and Aaron Tobian said the increasing efforts to defund or outright ban infant male circumcision are unfounded, harmful and "ethically questionable."
Barbaric, genital mutilation. The non religious "reasons" for male genital mutilation also apply to females.. yet we don't see people lining up to genitally mutilate their daughters now do we?
ReplyDeleteIt's done for hygiene you idiot. Leftist Marxists like you want full control over people and their penis's.
ReplyDeleteif they are on Medicaid why are they having babies for the taxpayers to pay for?
ReplyDelete6:40
ReplyDeletepromoting good hygiene may be the reason it's done,but that same justification would apply to cutting off somebody's hands because one might not wash them often enough to be practicing good hygiene. Of course that doesn't make good sense. Soap and water is the accepted remedy to promote good hygiene for all bodily appendages.
Probably the real deal is that it adds a few hundred bucks to doctor, hospital, etc. when the baby is delivered.
Spare the scalpel!
Signed
Uncut
maybe they should use local anesthesia if the cuts HURT lol
ReplyDeleteWhy is Medicaid paying for an OPTIONAL procedure to begin with?
ReplyDeleteWhen our son was born, we were given the OPTION to circumsize or not.
It was a CHOICE. It was also an extra charge.
We decided not to have it done because it was not "medically necessary".
@6:41
ReplyDeleteIronically it is YOU that wants to steal away a persons rights. Don't you think that someone should have the right to decide what to do with their own body... and not be genitally mutilated before they have the opportunity to decide for themselves? Equally as ironic, your "hygiene" argument would apply to female circumcision as well, so you support female genital mutilation?