Lawmakers in New Hampshire are seeking to ensure the state ends Medicaid coverage for elective circumcisions in 2025.
House Bill 1683, which sought to end state Medicaid coverage for circumcision for children "unless there is a specific medical diagnosis that deems the procedure necessary," was narrowly rejected by state lawmakers in March.
Supporters of that bill argued that the government-funded health insurance program should not cover procedures that are not medically necessary. A fiscal note attached to the bill said New Hampshire would save about $90,000 annually if the state Medicaid program did not cover elective circumcision.
Opponents cited the potential health benefits of circumcision and parental rights.
State Representative Ellen Read, a Democrat who co-sponsored House Bill 1683, told Newsweek that she will again back legislation to stop Medicaid coverage for elective circumcisions when the legislative session begins in January.
Read said she opposes taxpayer funds being spent on a procedure that is not medically necessary and can cause complications.
"We do not preemptively remove any other organ that might cause a problem, such as tonsils or appendixes," she told Newsweek.
"This cosmetic procedure originated as strictly a religious ritual, and of course taxpayer money should not cover religious rituals. But now has transformed into simply a cultural cosmetic phenomenon that we all unquestioningly accept, despite the harm it causes men.
"I have advocated and will continue to advocate for the adoption of increased coverage of Medicaid for other services, such as pediatric vision care, so as not [to] overall decrease the coverage Medicaid is providing."
State Representative Emily Phillips, a Republican who sponsored the initial bill, told The Keene Sentinel: "I believe state Medicaid funds should be used for medically necessary procedures."
State Representative Joe Schapiro, a Democrat who did not run for reelection in November, had urged fellow lawmakers to vote against House Bill 1683 in March.
While he noted that routine circumcisions are not medically necessary, he said there was "ample research showing potential medical benefits such as reduction in penile cancers and reduced rates of HIV transmission."
Schapiro also cited parental rights when urging lawmakers to oppose the bill. He said passing the bill "would be an intrusion into the freedom of New Hampshire parents to make medical decisions for their families." He has been contacted for comment via email.
About half of baby boys in the U.S. have their foreskin surgically removed shortly after being born, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Male circumcision is a rite of passage in some religions, such as Islam and Judaism, but others choose circumcision for possible health benefits.
In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics said for the first time that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, and that insurers should pay for the procedure.
"Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it, and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns," the statement said.
English (US) ·