The problem with this article is that they add, circumcision in infancy is economical!!!!!!!!! YIKES! Imagine saying that is is not economical to circ adults b/c it costs more and it's not easy to get the men into the clinic, but babies are easier targets cuz they can't get away or complain, and it's less expensive. How shameful!!!!!
The end of the article says it all (emphasis mine):
"The World Bank and the U.S. State Department support a major push for adult male circumcision. But the economists estimated the cost-benefit ratio for such circumcisions at 23:1[...] Preventing mother-to-child transmission by treating HIV-positive pregnant women with medication and improving the blood supply had a cost-benefit ratios of 95:1 and 393:1, respectively.
"Making blood transfusions safe costs almost nothing, but we're not doing it," Lomborg said."
So in short - helping mothers would be 4 times as cost-effective as cutting off foreskins, and protecting the blood supply 15 times as cost-effective. But who is ever interested in helping mothers or in doing things that make sense, if they don't push their agenda?