NH House Roundup:
The House killed:
• HB 251, which would exclude circumcision from Medicaid coverage.
Killing Foreskins... 
Der nächste Anlauf:
Unless a child required circumcision for medical reasons, Medicaid could no longer cover it under House Bill 1683.
Aber ich glaube nicht recht dran. Aber "steter Tropfen höhlt den Stein".
Ich wünsche trotzdem viel Glück.
A separate bill would require providers to show parents the tools used in a circumcision and get their written permission before performing the procedure.
Interessante Idee. Erinnert irgendwie ans Mittelalter: "die Instrumente zeigen" 
The second piece of legislation, House Bill 1706, would prohibit providers from performing a circumcision until parents have signed a form that warns them of health complications.
Wie, das ist noch nicht so? Und NH will ein zivilisierter Staat sein?
https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2024/01/17/abo…re-legislation/
Interessante Idee. Erinnert irgendwie ans Mittelalter: "die Instrumente zeigen"
Habe mal Bilder von dieser Liege gesehen, wo dann das Baby fixiert wird. Das hat echt was vom Mittelalter und würde wahrscheinlich ein paar Eltern abschrecken.
Hat leider nicht geklappt.
Die Begründung ist lächerlich.
Es ging ja nicht mal um das elterliche "Recht" auf Verstümmelung sonder lediglich um das "wer bestellt, der bezahlt" - was ansonsten eine Selbstverständlichkeit ist - gerade in den USA.
“It’s a parental choice, and I am here today to ask you not to take that parental choice, that parental prerogative, dare I say that parental right away,” Schapiro said. “Passing this bill would be an intrusion into the freedom of New Hampshire parents to make medical decisions for their families.”
State Rep. Joe Schapiro ...is focusing on getting together with members of his his local Jewish community rather than taking political action as the war continues into its fourth day.
https://indepthnh.org/2023/10/10/new…-behind-israel/
"the freedom of New Hampshire parents"? Or Boys? Conflict of Interests?
“Foreskin is not a birth defect and no one wants less penis,” were the closing words of New Hampshire state Rep. Emily Phillips on March 21 in support of a bipartisan bill to cut Medicaid funding for infant circumcision.
The room, full of nearly 400 state representatives, burst into cheers and ovations
Rep. Phillips is a “regret mom,” who feels she would never have consented, had she known the facts and the possibility of complications before she agreed to the surgery for her first baby.
Earlier in the year, dozens showed up in Concord for a public hearing in support of the bills. Pro-genital integrity organizations such as Intaction and Intact America were present. Many more, including Doctors Opposing Circumcision, Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, and legal scholar Peter Adler, author of “Circumcision is a Fraud,” submitted written testimony. In addition to the representatives sponsoring the bill, medical professionals, lawyers, researchers, men harmed by the procedure, and regret moms testified for over four hours.
Verdammt, es fehlten nur sieben Stimmen! 
Some of those who oppose argue religion is a valid justification for Medicaid reimbursement for the surgery and the bill is therefore antisemitic.
Oha, dann sind in Europa ja viele Länder "antisemitisch", Deutschland vorneweg.
Interestingly, those people seem to be unaware that hospital circumcisions do not fulfill the religious requirement for Jewish people, who are to be circumcised by a Mohel on the eighth day of life during a special ceremony. No religious ceremony is reimbursable by health insurance.
Wobei, geschummelt wird da schon, auch in Deutschland. Allerdings eher von arabisch-türkischer Seite. Dann schreibt der "Beschneidungsspezialist" halt "indiziert"....
Lottogew... -äh, Kassenbetrug, die siebte...läppische 100.000€
Krankenkassenbetrug als Empfehlung
NDR berichtet über Abrechnungsbetrug der Ärzte in Sachen Beschneidung von Jungen
Der eine hat einen Pickel am Po, der andere ist eben beschnitten
Der nächste Anlauf. Einmal muss es doch klappen!
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.
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."
Backers of continuing this coverage say circumcision can have medical benefits.
"That’s the other side of the argument, but we don’t cut off our tonsils or take out our appendix or our gallbladder before they flare up,” Phillips said.
Mal wieder Joe Shapiro hält mit altbekannter Desinformation dagegen:
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."
Peniskrebs? Bullshit! Ein retrahierbare Vorhaut ist kein Risikofaktor für diesen seltenen Krebs. Bei den allermeisten Jungen ist die Vorhaut bis zur Pubertät zurückziehbar.
Eine nicht-retrahierbare Vorhaut ist ein Risikofaktor, genau wie das Rauchen. Dann müsste der Staat das Rauchen auch verbieten. Ob man raucht, oder sich eine nicht retrahierbare Vorhaut behandeln lässt kann jeder für sich selbst entscheiden.
HIV? Seltsam. Wenn das in Ontario nicht stimmt, warum sollte es in New Hampshire?
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.
Es ist eben in der Regel keine medical decision. Und die Eltern hätten (leider) in NH weiter das Recht, ihre Söhne verstümmeln zu lassen. Aber es ist nicht einzusehen, warum die Medicaid-Einzahler dafür auch noch aufkommen sollen. Es ist keine Heilbehandlung.
Drücken wir der Initiative die Daumen!
https://www.newsweek.com/circumcision-m…mpshire-1993076
https://www.concordmonitor.com/New-attempt-ma…-in-NH-58193510
Sie haben noch kein Benutzerkonto auf unserer Seite? Registrieren Sie sich kostenlos und nehmen Sie an unserer Community teil!
