Today a house committee considered a bill that would prohibit Medicaid from funding circumcisions of newborn baby boys.

NH House Roundup:

The House killed:

• HB 251, which would exclude circumcision from Medicaid coverage.

Unless a child required circumcision for medical reasons, Medicaid could no longer cover it under House Bill 1683.

A separate bill would require providers to show parents the tools used in a circumcision and get their written permission before performing the procedure.

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.

Joe Shapiro schrieb:

“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.

Some lawmakers failed Thursday in attempts to change N.H. House decisions on two bills — one about circumcision and another regarding medical assistance in dying
By a narrow vote last week, the House tabled, or postponed further consideration, of House Bill 1683, which would prohibit Medicaid coverage for elective circumcision for boys under 18.
On Thursday, representatives tried to breathe new life into that bill by asking the House to reconsider its earlier decision. But a majority of lawmakers decided to keep that bill tabled, so the proposal is likely dead for this year’s legislative session.

“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.

Some of those who oppose argue religion is a valid justification for Medicaid reimbursement for the surgery and the bill is therefore antisemitic.

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.

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.

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.

A man from Salem said he’s never felt whole since he was circumcised as a baby and has spent his adult life trying to reverse the procedure.