I'm not saying that this particular instance is one that necessarily requires regulation. I mean, granted if it were up to me genital mutilation would just be banned outright, but since the mutilation of infant boys is tolerated due to barbaric custom, I dunno if there's any much reason to worry about the methods beyond that. Now, if there was a legitimate health risk, such as alleged here, then maybe. If they do establish that the circumcision led to the baby's death, then I wouldn't have a problem if the state required that they find a less revolting method of carrying out their barbarism than sucking the boy's penis.
Your comments bely that you posses little to no knowledge of what circumcision is. Not only is it a safe procedure, it has proven health benefits. It has been done for years by both Coptic Christians and Jews on the 8'th day. In all probability Jesus also had the procedure. I wouldn't call the procedure barbaric, by any stretch of the word.
How 'antiguv' can you be if you are talking about using state power on a topic that doesn't affect yourself?