I'm sorry, but those numbers make no sense to me. Perhaps the author of the article is just confusing numbers but in the first part it says:

[Circumcision rates fell from 56% in 2006 to 33% in 2009.

The review, which included more than 6.5 million U.S. newborn boys during the period, also showed that adverse event rates following newborn male circumcision were â€śextremely low,â€ť and that the most common adverse events were â€śmild and easily corrected,â€ť Charbel El Bcheraoui, Ph.D., said at the 18th International AIDS Conference. ]

So they looked at 6.5 million newborn boys to gather this data, right? But then it says:

[In this database, 6,571,500 newborn boys underwent circumcision during 2006-2009. ]

So even if that's just a journalistic error, I still can't understand the 33% thing. The last two years for which I've been able to find US birth data are 2006 (4,265,555 births) and 2007 (4,317,117 births).

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm and

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm
Assuming that 2008 and 2009 have approximate the same birth rate and that half of those babies are boys, you get 8,582,674 boys born from 2006-2009. So if 6,571,500 were cut, that's a 77% circ rate, right? Is there an error in my math here?

So where does the 33% come from?

Personally I don't believe the circ rate is 33% or 77%, but probably somewhere between 45% - 50%. So if the numbers are wonky (and someone correct me if any of my assumptions or math are in error), how accurate is the rest of the article?

## Follow Mothering