I sent it through the intactamerica email, but I used my own words. Don't know if it will make a difference, but it feels good to be involved.
Recommending circumcision to reduce the risk of STDs is akin to recommending the withdrawal method to reduce pregnancy. The STD rate in the U.S. is already high. I don't think it would be wise to put the idea in people's minds that circumcision provides protection against disease.
1) What are the STD rates in the U.S.?
2) What is the circumcision rate in the U.S.?
3) What are the STD rates in the Western Europe?
4) What is the circumcision rate in Western Europe?
If the AAP wants to reduce the STD rate in America, it would appear the way to do it is through education and access to contraceptives, not through the cutting of normal genitals. If there is any choice of circumcision, it should be left up to that individual whose body will be permanently altered.
If an individual IS engaging in harmful sexual behavior, cutting off part of his penis should never be the first intervention in order to create safer sex- why would we have it be the first intervention after birth?