Politicians in San Francisco are attempting to get between your doctor and your baby. They want to outlaw a medical procedure that pediatricians call beneficial.
The nation’s most influential pediatricians group says the health benefits of circumcision in newborn boys outweigh any risks and insurance companies should pay for it.
In its latest policy statement on circumcision, a procedure that has been declining nationwide, the American Academy of Pediatrics moves closer to an endorsement but says the decision should be up to parents.
“It’s not a verdict from on high,” said policy co-author Dr. Andrew Freedman. “There’s not a one-size-fits-all-answer.” But from a medical standpoint, circumcision’s benefits in reducing risk of disease outweigh its small risks, said Freedman, a pediatric urologist in Los Angeles.
Recent research bolstering evidence that circumcision reduces chances of infection with HIV and other sexually spread diseases, urinary tract infections and penis cancer influenced the academy to update their 13-year-old policy.
Wait. I thought politicians deciding on which medical procedures can be done and which couldn’t was a bad thing? Did I miss a memo?
Isn’t this just going to create a situation where mothers seek back alley circumcisions?
The big argument from these liberal types is that circumcision amounts to “genital mutilation.” Ironically, many of these same people support the mutilation of the rest of the child in utero.