If the U.S. Supreme Court in the future were to take up a case challenging that the existing FGM law is unconstitutional because it doesn't protect the sexes equally and declare it such, I was wondering how would Congress likely react? Would they be more likely to extend protection to males, or would they go backwards and re-legalize FGM? WDYT?
I'm not American, and the culture around circ is different here. But, from what I've seen online, in terms of people's views on this topic, I'd bet that they'll re-legalize FGM, before they'll extend protection to males. I do think intactivism is gaining ground, and things may shift over the next few years, but if it happened right now, I think FGM would be legal again.
This country is just not going to outlaw MGM anytime soon, as much as I wish that we would. In fact I think they would just sacrifice girls rather than make a law giving equal protection.
Congress only passed one FGM law. I don't think Congress would do anything if the US Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. They'd just leave the FGM law in place, even though it was now moot, rather than bring it up for a vote.
They're not going to ban RIC. Besides, culturally, Americans aren't ready for that. They'd still get it done anyway. Rather than a ban, or a SC decision, we need to shift cultural attitudes about circumcision. I think the best way to do that is be honest (For instance, don't quote false stats...the circumcision rate is around 55-65%, not 39%), try to be calm and not dramatic (I found using the word mutilation does so much more to turn people off than to get them to listen) and accept that you can't change everyone's mind. I think if intactivists didn't have such a poor reputation with the general population, the message would be exponentially more effective.
They're not going to ban RIC. Besides, culturally, Americans aren't ready for that. They'd still get it done anyway. Rather than a ban, or a SC decision, we need to shift cultural attitudes about circumcision. I think the best way to do that is be honest (For instance, don't quote false stats...the circumcision rate is around 55-65%, not 39%), try to be calm and not dramatic (I found using the word mutilation does so much more to turn people off than to get them to listen) and accept that you can't change everyone's mind. I think if intactivists didn't have such a poor reputation with the general population, the message would be exponentially more effective.
I think its true that the rates are higher than the 30-something% rate often quoted. Those numbers I think are coming from hospital reporting the circ rate of newborns prior to discharge. Most people I know who have circed in recent years did so as an outpatient procedure a week or 2 after birth. Around where I live (Seattle) I don't think its even offered at birth in the hospital, and parents must make an appt. We do have a lower circ rate out here though. 30something% might just be a good accurate number for the region. But I don't think thats the nationwide average, unfortunately
Why would I need to come here to 'gather intell' for some other site? This website is public, anyone who wanted to could come on here. That's rather paranoid. I don't have a problem with holding a view against RIC, but I've been attacked many times with intactivists for not following 'the party line'. My question to you is...how's the party line working out for you? The people who aren't circumcising (35-45% of the population in the US) are people that are already inclined in that direction. It's the people who aren't inclined that you have to convince, and using false statistics, dicey information and scare tactics (along with being very very pushy) are.not.working. Think of how you approached me, because I'm not saying what everyone else is?
I don't circumcise my kids, but I don't spread the message the way you like, and so I'm to be viewed with distrust and suspicion. Why on earth should I support quoting lies and misrepresenting information to 'win' a debate or attempt to sway someone to my opinion? It doesn't work and it makes intactivists look bad. I don't know if you're unaware with intactivists reputation among the general public, but it's not good. Instead of shooting the messenger, maybe you should examine the message. Just a thought.
Here, philomom. I found this right here, on this forum.
http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1326620/circumcision-rates-in-the-u-s
I'm not telling anyone how to talk to others. I'm simply speaking on what I've seen dissuade others from listening to them. Culturally, FGM and RIC are not the same to Americans, no matter how comparable the anatomy and procedure are (sometimes it's comparable, other times, not really). So when you call something that's acceptable and normal 'mutilation', all I've ever seen it accomplish is for parents who were considering it to go on the defensive. I linked in a prior post where I got the rates from, and if you want to continue posting false statistics to bolster your argument, it seems pretty obvious that your argument is weak. Circumcising parents are still very much in the majority. I'm not attacking you, personally, I'm saying that because your desire to see circumcision disappear, you're not looking at the information objectively, or trying to find the best information possible.
I'm very against RIC. That doesn't mean that I'm going to present any information that 'supports' my side. When people figure out that it's inaccurate, it completely destroys my credibility.
You can do the math yourself. Take the birth rate in 2009, divide it in half and check the numbers.
http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb118.jsp
| Table 3. Most common all-listed procedures received by children in U.S. hospitals, 2009* | ||
| All-listed procedure | Number of procedures | Rate of discharges per 10,000 population† |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Prophylactic vaccinations | 1,329,600 | 1,783.5 |
| 2. Circumcision | 1,147,700 | 1,539.5 |
| 3. Respiratory intubation and mechanical ventilation | 226,700 | 304.1 |
| 4. Enteral and parenteral nutrition | 165,100 | 221.5 |
| 5. Blood transfusion | 109,400 | 146.8 |
| 6. Appendectomy | 89,800 | 120.5 |
| 7. Repair of obstetric laceration | 54,600 | 73.2 |
| 8. Cancer chemotherapy | 47,900 | 64.3 |
| 9. Artificial rupture of membranes to assist in delivery | 35,700 | 47.9 |
| 10. Incision and drainage of skin and subcutaneous tissue | 35,600 | 47.8 |
| * Excludes diagnostic testing. † Calculated using resident population for July 2009 from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, accessed on February 28, 2011. From: http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2009-sa.html. Source: AHRQ, Center for Delivery, Organization, and Markets, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Kids' Inpatient Database (KID), 2009 |
||
Even the MGMbill.org (which is very anti-RIC) does not support a circumcision rate of 32%. It's inaccurate.
You can do the math yourself. Take the birth rate in 2009, divide it in half and check the numbers.
http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb118.jsp
| Table 3. Most common all-listed procedures received by children in U.S. hospitals, 2009* | ||
| All-listed procedure | Number of procedures | Rate of discharges per 10,000 population† |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Prophylactic vaccinations | 1,329,600 | 1,783.5 |
| 2. Circumcision | 1,147,700 | 1,539.5 |
| 3. Respiratory intubation and mechanical ventilation | 226,700 | 304.1 |
| 4. Enteral and parenteral nutrition | 165,100 | 221.5 |
| 5. Blood transfusion | 109,400 | 146.8 |
| 6. Appendectomy | 89,800 | 120.5 |
| 7. Repair of obstetric laceration | 54,600 | 73.2 |
| 8. Cancer chemotherapy | 47,900 | 64.3 |
| 9. Artificial rupture of membranes to assist in delivery | 35,700 | 47.9 |
| 10. Incision and drainage of skin and subcutaneous tissue | 35,600 | 47.8 |
| * Excludes diagnostic testing. † Calculated using resident population for July 2009 from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, accessed on February 28, 2011. From: http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2009-sa.html. Source: AHRQ, Center for Delivery, Organization, and Markets, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Kids' Inpatient Database (KID), 2009 |
||
Even the MGMbill.org (which is very anti-RIC) does not support a circumcision rate of 32%. It's inaccurate.
That table shows a circumcision rate of right over 30% assuming 50/50 gender. It shows 1540/10,000 which would be 1540/5000 males which is 154/500 which is 30.8/100, or 30.8%.
What "math" are you seeing to support your assertion?
No. The number of procedures is 1,147,700. The birth rate in 2009 in the US was 4,136,000. Divide that in half. 2,068,000. Divide 1,147,700 by 2,068,000. That is 55.5% circumcision rate. That's not counting circumcisions done in an office or ritual setting.
Edited to add further link, with percentages hanging around the 55% point:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w
For the period 1999--2010, the weighted analysis yielded 11,789,000 (59.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 59.1%--59.2%) of 19,933,000 and 12,347,096 (57.8%; CI = 57.8%--57.8%) of 21,359,690 newborn males circumcised in the United States from NHDS and NIS, respectively. Of 2,339,760 newborn males recorded in CDM, 1,306,466 (55.8%; CI = 55.7%--55.9%) were circumcised.
Incidence of NMC decreased from 62.5% in 1999 to 56.9% in 2008 in NHDS (AAPC = -1.4%; p<0.001), from 63.5% in 1999 to 56.3% in 2008 in NIS (AAPC = -1.2%; p<0.001), and from 58.4% in 2001 to 54.7% in 2010 in CDM (AAPC = -0.75%; p<0.001) (Figure).
When compared using the trends homogeneity test, the decreases in incidence were statistically different (p<0.01) for the 8 years of commonly available data (2001--2008); however, the maximum difference in absolute incidence did not exceed 5.9 percentage points for any given year.
Besides, even the NYT article stated those were only insurance-covered circumcisions done before discharge in the hospital. That's leaving out quite a few circumcisions, regardless. Even if the math were somehow flawed from the numbers presented, there's no chance at all that a 32% circumcision rate is even remotely close to accurate, as another member posted previously in this thread.
No. The number of procedures is 1,147,700. The birth rate in 2009 in the US was 4,136,000. Divide that in half. 2,068,000. Divide 1,147,700 by 2,068,000. That is 55.5% circumcision rate. That's not counting circumcisions done in an office or ritual setting.
Then there is something wrong with the table's calculation of x/10,000. Because I totally understand how you are coming to your number, but the I am also calculating it correctly (that I see) based on the informaton in the table. Where is the disconnect?
You're calculations are based on the discharges, mine are based on the procedures :)
Then there is something wrong with the table's calculation of x/10,000. Because I totally understand how you are coming to your number, but the I am also calculating it correctly (that I see) based on the informaton in the table. Where is the disconnect?
Ahem, if accurate statistics are the issue, then these estimates should be using the proper sex ratio. The sex ratio for the U.S. in the past few decades has been 51.15% male according to the U.S. Census.
Also, the sample size for the AHRQ should be reported. It is not uncommon for such reports to only sample a small number of hospitals, a few from each state. I've seen rates from 5% to 30%, but never more than that.
You're right, it should be 51.5%, which does nothing statistically relevant to the %.
Further, the 'sample size' is the number of procedures performed, which is given as a hard number. If that is only 5-30%, then presumably there's even more circumcisions, which would increase the % of parents circumcising, not decrease it.
Ahem, if accurate statistics are the issue, then these estimates should be using the proper sex ratio. The sex ratio for the U.S. in the past few decades has been 51.15% male according to the U.S. Census.
Also, the sample size for the AHRQ should be reported. It is not uncommon for such reports to only sample a small number of hospitals, a few from each state. I've seen rates from 5% to 30%, but never more than that.
Follow Mothering