Mass asks lawmakers to ban neonatal male circumcision.

[AnneCordelia]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...-circumcision/

It's a long shot, and I'm usually against gov't intervention into our lives anymore than they have to be. But, this seems like a way to protect America's sons from this outdated practice.

[KGB]

No Massachusetts lawmakers have signed on to support the measure.

That's not very promising.

[Arduinna]

I'm not surprised, but I am saddened.

[fruitful womb]

Originally Posted by AnneCordelia

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...-circumcision/

It's a long shot, and I'm usually against gov't intervention into our lives anymore than they have to be. But, this seems like a way to protect America's sons from this outdated practice.

Government stepped in to protect females from even the tiniest pin prick in their clitoral hood (female foreskin). They stepped in to protect children from being tattooed as well. I also believe boys deserve the same legal protection from genital cutting.

[japonica]

Originally Posted by fruitful womb

Government stepped in to protect females from even the tiniest pin prick in their clitoral hood (female foreskin). They stepped in to protect children from being tattooed as well. I also believe boys deserve the same legal protection from genital cutting.

No kidding. I have no idea why boys are expendable and don't deserve the same protection.

[laohaire]

They should have started by making it an uninsurable practice. That would have had a prayer of passing, would potentially save a few boys, and be the start of changing attitudes about it.

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by laohaire

They should have started by making it an uninsurable practice. That would have had a prayer of passing, would potentially save a few boys, and be the start of changing attitudes about it.

That effort is also underway in most states. So far 16 states have dropped circumcision from Medicaid.

[MommytoB]

Totally it would proably have better luck passing in the california area and possibly the nevada/arizona/mexico but other than that I doubt there would be any support on that bill .

I figure since circumcision was more at it's highest in the 50's to the mid 90's possible late 90's .

Our 20th century baby boys of mom's who are getting informed of circumcision & thinking of what it really is .

Also being informed about the normality of the foreskin and it's functions as in educating doctors who are old school.

So like in 12 yrs our boys will start being adults so that will make me in my 40's so anyways in another 12 years which would make it 24 which would makke me to be in my 50's hence I'm for sure some of the goverment may see future intact policitians .

So I say the only way to 'stop neonatal circumcision is to either have a intact politician as in more than one because right now there are many circumcised politician so they won't vote on something that they proably do to their son's or focus on the possiblity that something truly wrong did happen to them.

Plus, more intact males around will be able to talk about it on news broadcast because if a circ'ed male doesn't realize that circumicision is bad they will be uncomfortable talking about it and say the ban is ridicolous .

So possiblity in 24 yrs we may see more of a chance for the banning of infant male circ to work.

[QueenOfTheMeadow]

Just a reminder.

The discussion of or reference to religion is outside of the scope of this forum. Any posts which bring any aspect of religion into the discussion are not appropriate and will be removed. Respectful discussion of a religious nature regarding circumcision, alternatives, etc. may be hosted in the Spirituality forum. The Spirituality forum is a debate-free zone. Members maintain a list of helpful websites in a Web Resources thread for further information about religious issues.

[Picturesque]

Originally Posted by MommytoB

Totally it would proably have better luck passing in the california area and possibly the nevada/arizona/mexico but other than that I doubt there would be any support on that bill .

Bill proposals have been submitted to most states, as well as to the federal govt. See http://www.mgmbill.org/statemgmbills.htm

[Grace and Granola]

Originally Posted by Fellow Traveler

That effort is also underway in most states. So far 16 states have dropped circumcision from Medicaid.

Really? Interesting. But it seems like when a medicaid mom is asked if her son is going to be circ'd she isn't going to question if it's covered or not, she'll just say yes and then get a big bill sent to her, right? How will that work?

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by Heatherb917

Really? Interesting. But it seems like when a medicaid mom is asked if her son is going to be circ'd she isn't going to question if it's covered or not, she'll just say yes and then get a big bill sent to her, right? How will that work?

Yep really. In fact your state (according to what I see under your user name) Missouri, it is not paid for. Typically, in these states the doctors ask for payment upfront. So they don't get stuck with a bill.

[Grace and Granola]

Thanks for the info!

[laughingfox]

Despite plenty of online articles that seem to think otherwise, every mama I've known who has had Medicaid and given birth to a boy in Missouri in the past few years has had his circ paid for by Medicaid. None of them were billed for it later.
From what I was told by them, Medicaid covers it when you're in the hospital, as part of the bill for the birth, but Medicaid will not cover it if you want it done at another time.