By Lauren Sardi, Assistant Professor of Sociology
To summarize, there is actually no conclusive evidence that male neonatal circumcision offers any of the benefits the AAP Taskforce suggests. The majority of people who are in positions of authority to make statements regarding the bodies of our baby boys also do not have the experience of having (male) foreskin or know its proper functions. Furthermore, studies suggest that uncircumcised infant males have the same rates of UTI transmission as do their female counterparts, and yet, girls are protected from circumcision by a federal law enacted in 1996 which bans any type of female genital cutting (FGC) in the United States. Thus, a medical professional who removes the foreskin of a boy need only have signed consent from his parents; one who removes foreskin from a girl will face fines and prison time. Also, in my analysis of the same studies the AAP Taskforce cites, there is simply no evidence at all to suggest that circumcision provides the same or better protection against infection and/or disease than do condoms. While a new study suggests that a decline in male circumcision rates would (hypothetically, not actually) cost our country approximately four billion dollars in disease treatment, these numbers do not empirically hold up when compared to other countries or when compared historically within our own country.