Ending circumcision -- one more thing to help the infant mortality rate. Circumcision, like episeotomy during birth, was once promoted as "scientifically" based but now we know both to be terribly wrong -- physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
Will the lowered infant mortality rate (as a result of ending circumcision) be further touted by anti-natural and homebirth physicians as evidence that hospital birth is safest (and become grounds for further denying that babies are unaffected by trauma due to drugs and interventions?) Or will we, as a society of peace seeking people, look more closely at other standard care of babies and mothers that we are lead to believe are scientifically evidenced, safe, and trauma free? Will the consideration of body-mind-spirit and the impact on a human being begin to be considered even if something is known to be safely used for a lifesaving measure? Will it translate into "best practices" and how to use life saving technology with awareness and respect when only when medically necessary?
Posted by: "Gloria Lemay" firstname.lastname@example.org gloria_lemay Tue Jan 2, 2007 9:37 pm (PST)
Texas Joins 14 Other States in Dropping Circumcision from Medicaid Funding.
The second largest state in the union has joined California, Oregon, Washington, Florida and other states in saying "no" to circumcision.
In a move that will save taxpayers millions of dollars, Texas stopped paying for CPT code 54150 circumcisions in 2006.
There are about 194,000 boys born annually in Texas and 48% of the births in Texas are paid for by Medicaid.
That means that 93,000 boys will not be covered for circumcision.
This could mean a drop of 50,000 circumcisions per year.
This could drop America's overall circumcision rate by 3 percent.
Circumcision involves the removal of all or part of the foreskin of a penis. The removal of the foreskin is a reduction of 50% of the skin of the adult male erect penis. It is now even being questioned as a religious ritual in Judaism and Islam.
Anti circumcision groups have pushed for this change for years. Not only is the foreskin healthy functioning sexual tissue but there is a danger of death or serious injury when boys undergo unnecessary surgery. It is estimated that 200 American baby boys die each year from circumcision related complications.
"This is taxpayer money, and circumcision is a procedure with no medical benefit," said Ronald Goldman, executive director for the Circumcision Resource Center <http://www.circumci/ sion.org/>, a Boston-based anti-circumcision group.
"We wouldn't use taxpayer dollars to pay for other cosmetic surgery," Goldman said.
"It's understandable that they would want to cut this funding because the American Academy of Pediatrics <http://www.aap/. org/> has said for many years that circumcisions are cosmetic," said Catherine Lynch, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of South Florida <http://hsc.usf/. edu/medicine/>.
For Ed Rose, head of the Pensacola chapter of the Circumcision Resource Center <http://members/. aol.com/nocircnw fl/NOCIRC. html>, the issue is simple: "Being born male is not a disorder requiring surgical correction." Rose has been lobbying lawmakers for years to stop paying for circumcisions.
Pediatricians have been moving further and further away from the procedure as new information about the importance of the foreskin is published in scientific journals. The annual rate of circumcision in the United States is dropping as more parents and professionals are researching the benefits of leaving boys intact.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]