|
Subscribe
now for
the member newsletter.
Click on the link here:
|
New Anti-Circumcision Tactic—Target
the Poor
The high rate of newborn circumcision
in the United States (U.S.) continues in spite of the
dominance of activist anti-circumcision groups in the
media and on the Internet over the past 25 years. Clinical
research indicates that about 80% of middle class American
males are circumcised. Among this group percentages vary
from 76% in San Francisco to 92% in a Wisconsin city,
and include those circumcised as newborns as well as
later in life. Statements from the American Academy of
Pediatrics discouraging newborn circumcision seem to
have had no effect on the public. A published survey
from Southern California showed parents choosing circumcision
were later more satisfied by their decision than those
who left their infants uncircumcised. Low circumcision
rates from certain parts of the country, particularly
in California, reflect the large number of immigrants,
particularly Hispanics, in these areas. Most immigrants
to the U.S., particularly Hispanics and Asians, come
from cultures where circumcision is not performed. More
than half of newborns in California are now Hispanics,
so it is apparent that even if 100% of non-immigrant
boys were circumcised the State rate would be under 50%.
Since the anti-circumcision groups have been unsuccessful
in decreasing circumcision among the middle class in
the U.S. (in mid-Western states the newborn circumcision
rate has actually increased to over 80% over the past
20 years), they have turned their attention to the most
vulnerable and defenseless population group – poor
children. Parents on welfare have no political or economic
power, and are at the mercy of State beaurocracies and
legislatures for decisions on the medical care of their
children. Knowing this, 22 anti-circumcision groups have
banded together and formed a lobbying organization – the
International Coalition of Genital Integrity (ICGI) – which
has been pressuring State legislatures to eliminate newborn
circumcision coverage for Medicaid recipients. The argument
that eliminating payment for newborn circumcision would
save money has resonated with legislative bodies faced
with increasing budgetary deficits. Over the past few
years this callous, insensitive activism has been successful,
and 13 states now refuse to pay for newborn circumcision
for welfare recipients regardless of the parents wishes.
These include Arizona, California, Florida, Maine, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Oregon, Utah and Washington.
With the great majority of mainstream, middle class boys
in the U.S. being circumcised, an uncircumcised boy in
this country is marked as either an immigrant, a son
of recent immigrants or a child of poverty (with the
exception of a few middle class followers of the anti-circ
movement) . To cope with this social disadvantage of
the foreskin, some poor parents, sadly and courageously,
have scraped together enough money to pay for newborn
circumcision from their meager assets, in order to give
their sons the appearance of mainstream American boys.
The anti-circumcision groups argue that by agreeing to
have their newborn sons circumcised parents are robbing
the infants of their human rights. In a brazen example
of hypocrisy they apparently feel that newborns themselves
should have the right to choose or refuse circumcision,
but poor parents should not.
|
