[intacto]

The following question was raised in another thread concerning male circumcision, "Can someone point out the justification for this subject on a political forum?" Discussing the appropriateness of Medicaid funding of routine or non-therapeutic infant male circumcisions is one justification. Should taxpayer’s hard earned money be spent on medically unnecessary surgery?

North Carolina now joins several other states which have ended Medicaid funding for non-therapeutic infant circumcision, including California, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Washington. No national professional medical organization in the world now recommends that infant boys should be circumcised because the medical benefits of the procedure do not far outweigh the medical risks and harms.

[Ratatoskr]

"Intacto"? Let me guess: one-issue boring zealot, are you?

[Rustynailww]

smegma.

[dbbeebs]

"Should taxpayer’s hard earned money be spent on medically unnecessary surgery? "

No.

[snopercod]

Uh-oh, it's the "helmets" versus the "anteaters".

[MaryFromMichigan]

I heard that there is an opening at the circumcision department at our local hospital.
The pay isn't so great, but you can keep the tips......
(groan)

[Cicero]

I don't trust this new medical theory that suddenly circumcision has no health benefits, although the benefits have always been well known. I think it represents a covert anti-religious bias, which in these times is pretty much par for the course in the AMA.

[Clara Lou]

the medical risks and harms
Exactly what are the risk and harms? I have 3 circumcised boys-- not a one had a problem of any sort. Please explain.

[kennyo]

There's no end to these pricks!

[FITZ]

I think they should just end Medicaid, the government shouldn't be making these kind of decisions for people.

[IronJack]

IRRELEVANCE ALERT! IRRELEVANCE ALERT!