Check out the health equity campaign (HEC) put on by Intaction. They’ve prevented circumcision from being added to Medicaid in some states, which is known to significantly reduce rates, so for probably something small, I would guess less than $100,000, I would say in expectation they’ve prevented something like 5,000 circumcisions per year as long as these policies stay in place, which could be for several years or even decades, which could mean as low as $1-$2 per unnecessary circumcision prevented.
Much more importantly, Intaction is now lobbying at the capital, and this is the first time this has happened in US history. It will be much harder to have an impact, but the impact could be much higher if it at all adds momentum to broad public debate on the topic and ultimately to the (at least nonreligious) practice being banned completely in the United States, which could have a serious ripple effect throughout the world considering a lot of nonreligious circumcision that exists in other countries has been due to US cultural and pseudo-medical influence[1].
I would also check out Eric Clopper and his lawsuit in Oregon with his organization Intact Global. Establishing the unfathomably severe harm of the practice with a win in the courts seems quite plausible, especially in Oregon where rates are very low, and there’s no question the practice violates equal protection. This could help lead the way to a state ban, which again could be crucial for momentum toward more state bans and eventually a national conversation and potential ban.
Importantly, I think both of these are taking relatively conservative approaches and not trying to challenge religious circumcision directly which is what defeated the attempted ban in San Francisco. It seems important to protect children of all religions from genital mutilation and not discriminate against Jews and Muslims, however, I don’t think this is a realistic/helpful/cost-effective place to start as claims of anti-semitism end up severely distracting from the real issue of severe and permanent nonconsensual genital modifications performed on children.
I think it’s very clear that circumcision has far more medical harms than benefits if you look at the data, and agree that in the US the practice is best conceptualized as genital mutilation intended to prevent sexual pleasure and punish masturbation, which is where its roots in the the Victorian age in the US and UK originated, with attempts only coming much later to justify it medically.
Check out the health equity campaign (HEC) put on by Intaction. They’ve prevented circumcision from being added to Medicaid in some states, which is known to significantly reduce rates, so for probably something small, I would guess less than $100,000, I would say in expectation they’ve prevented something like 5,000 circumcisions per year as long as these policies stay in place, which could be for several years or even decades, which could mean as low as $1-$2 per unnecessary circumcision prevented.
Much more importantly, Intaction is now lobbying at the capital, and this is the first time this has happened in US history. It will be much harder to have an impact, but the impact could be much higher if it at all adds momentum to broad public debate on the topic and ultimately to the (at least nonreligious) practice being banned completely in the United States, which could have a serious ripple effect throughout the world considering a lot of nonreligious circumcision that exists in other countries has been due to US cultural and pseudo-medical influence[1].
I would also check out Eric Clopper and his lawsuit in Oregon with his organization Intact Global. Establishing the unfathomably severe harm of the practice with a win in the courts seems quite plausible, especially in Oregon where rates are very low, and there’s no question the practice violates equal protection. This could help lead the way to a state ban, which again could be crucial for momentum toward more state bans and eventually a national conversation and potential ban.
Importantly, I think both of these are taking relatively conservative approaches and not trying to challenge religious circumcision directly which is what defeated the attempted ban in San Francisco. It seems important to protect children of all religions from genital mutilation and not discriminate against Jews and Muslims, however, I don’t think this is a realistic/helpful/cost-effective place to start as claims of anti-semitism end up severely distracting from the real issue of severe and permanent nonconsensual genital modifications performed on children.
I think it’s very clear that circumcision has far more medical harms than benefits if you look at the data, and agree that in the US the practice is best conceptualized as genital mutilation intended to prevent sexual pleasure and punish masturbation, which is where its roots in the the Victorian age in the US and UK originated, with attempts only coming much later to justify it medically.
Thank you very much
Absolutely, glad to be of help!