Mothering Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Actually, I'm sure that's not entirely uncommon, but I remember Ohio and Michigan having the two highest rates in the nation.<br><br>
<a href="http://www.mgmbill.org/statistics.htm" target="_blank">www.mgmbill.org/statistics.htm</a><br><br>
Now, it seems like there's a few more in the 80% range than previously...or am I imagining things?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,789 Posts
<p>I don't know.  I did a quick search and found this site that has information only through 1999:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/USA" target="_blank">http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/USA</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>It says the *average* percent circumcised in the midwest in both 1997 and 1999 was over 80%. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here is another chart from 97-04 showing several states over 80%:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/staterates2004/" target="_blank">http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/staterates2004/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Looking back over time, it does appear that the circumcision rate jumps around much more than I would have predicted.</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,239 Posts
Here is the latest stats that I am aware of from 2009-2010 <a href="http://mgmbill.org/statistics.htm" target="_blank">http://mgmbill.org/statistics.htm</a> it shows % by state in the map down the page. There are several states still over 80%<br><br>
It does however claim a overall US rate of 33% for 2009 which if true is a huge difference from 2006 when it was 63%
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>bugmenot</strong> <a href="/community/t/1352444/i-think-some-states-have-increased-rates#post_16970426"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Actually, I'm sure that's not entirely uncommon, but I remember Ohio and Michigan having the two highest rates in the nation.<br>
<a href="http://www.mgmbill.org/statistics.htm" target="_blank">www.mgmbill.org/statistics.htm</a><br>
Now, it seems like there's a few more in the 80% range than previously...or am I imagining things?</div>
</div>
<p>I don't think you are imagining anything but I suspect those rates are far from accurate.  The reported national rate from The CDC in 2009 was 32.5%.  For those numbers to be true, there would have to be quite a few states with single digit circumcision rates and I don't think that is happening yet either.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Given the public face of this issue, I sincerely doubt any state has an 80% rate any more.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Consider that when states have ended Medicaid funding for circumcision, the rates in those states has fallen around 20% in the same or following year.  There have been 17 states to defund the procedure.  That's almost 40% of the states!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It is also important to remember that the internet has had a tremendous influence on the circumcision rate and the different states are coming closer together, not further apart as the map would tend to indicate.  Also, there is a perception that some states have a much higher rate than others.  I'm in the south where the perception is that the rate is high.  From my experience working a baby fair several years ago, the rate is very low in actuality.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Frank</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>TiredX2</strong> <a href="/community/t/1352444/i-think-some-states-have-increased-rates#post_16972396"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><p>I don't know.  I did a quick search and found this site that has information only through 1999:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/USA" target="_blank">http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/USA</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255);">You have to be very careful about your resources.  circs.org is owned by a rabid pro-circumcision advocate in Great Britian who only includes information that supports circumcision.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>It says the *average* percent circumcised in the midwest in both 1997 and 1999 was over 80%.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255);">Yes, as fits his agenda.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here is another chart from 97-04 showing several states over 80%:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/staterates2004/" target="_blank">http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/staterates2004/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255);">1997 was near the height of the circumcision craze.  The rates fell rapidly after 2000.  To get a realistic picture during this period, you have to look at single years or 2-3 years combined.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Looking back over time, it does appear that the circumcision rate jumps around much more than I would have predicted.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255);">Starting about 2005, the rates fell rather drastically after that year.  I suspect they will continue to fall significantly each year for at least several more years.  Circumcision was a fad that has run it's time (and then some).  Like all fads, when the rats start jumping ship, they can't wait to get off.  Holding on to a fad past it's time is likely to engender ridicule.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255);">I can remember the "leisure suit" fad of the late 1970's.  That fad literally went out in a month and after that, no one wore them any longer.  In the early 1980's, I saw a man wearing one in a fashionable bar in my area.  Everyone was talking about him.  It turned out that he was from a neighboring state that has a reputation of being far behind the times.  I'm sure when he went into that bar, he thought he was well dressed but felt quite out of place once inside and realized his fashion debacle.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255);">For him, the solution was simple.  Just take the leisure suit off and forget it.  For a circumcisied man, he can't take his genital version of a leisure suit off.  It's permanent and will follow him for life.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255);">Frank</span></p>
</div>
</div>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>MCatLvrMom2A&X</strong> <a href="/community/t/1352444/i-think-some-states-have-increased-rates#post_16972617"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Here is the latest stats that I am aware of from 2009-2010 <a href="http://mgmbill.org/statistics.htm" target="_blank">http://mgmbill.org/statistics.htm</a> it shows % by state in the map down the page. There are several states still over 80%<br>
It does however claim a overall US rate of 33% for 2009 which if true is a huge difference from 2006 when it was 63%</div>
</div>
<p>There is a math problem here.  With the national rate at 32.5%, it is virtually impossible for the individual states to be over 80%.  Play with the numbers a little bit and you'll see.  For instance, if one state actually had an 80% circumcision rate,4 other states would have to have circumcision rates of about 16% to get the 32.5% national rate.  I wouldn't believe any state has a 16% rate any more than I believe any state has an 80% rate.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Frank</p>
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top