The New Times, a leading alternative newspaper in South Florida, this week has a fairly balanced article on infant circumcision by Deidre Funcheon, a writer who has an open mind to intactivist positions. It will come out in print this Thursday, but is available now online.
In the newspaper's blog, there is a companion piece about the new AAP statement on circumcision due out this spring. To be blunt, what is revealed is disturbing even in advance of the actual statement. Dr. Doug Diekema, who is on the Task Force on Circumcision, declares that the new statement will be more forceful, with the aim of getting state Medicaid programs and private insurance companies/HMOs to all fund infant circumcision. For the first time, the committee will declare that the health benefits of circumcision are not "potential"; it will claim that circumcision benefits everyone. While acknowledging that men are angry about having lost that part of their penis in infancy and that circumcision changes the sexual experience, Diekema says the committee will emphasize that it is parents -- and only parents -- that should make that call. He admits that most US circumcisions are driven by parents' feelings that a circumcised penis is more attractive, and says that's fine by him and the committee.
Both articles have comments sections. Be sure to read these thoroughly, as well, and add your voice.
The main article is here, or at http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2012-02-16/news/anti-circumcision-activists-say-trimming-a-bit-off-the-top-is-too-much/
The blog sidebar about the AAP is here, or at http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2012/02/american_academy_of_pediatrics_circumcision.php
hm, wonder if he has any intact sons. doubtful. so disturbing. 
Why is it a cultural NORM in our society to do this? If our boys were not meant to be intact, they wouldn't be born that way!!!
Follow Mothering