Yang’s foresight on foreskins: Applaud the mayoral candidate for doubting the need for circumcision
By Georganne ChapinNew York Daily News
Apr 13, 2021 at 9:00 AM
During the 2020 presidential race, Andrew Yang became the first political candidate ever to express his personal opinion that circumcising baby boys is wrong.
“It’s sort of pushed on parents in many situations,” Yang told The Daily Beast. “From what I’ve seen, the evidence on it being a positive health choice for the infant is quite shaky.”
Yang is now a frontrunner in the Democratic mayoral primary in New York City. Many people think that in New York, with its large Jewish and Muslim populations, Yang’s personal opposition to circumcision could be political kryptonite, even if it is not an issue in the race. Apparently it’s not, in part because Yang has since made clear that he believes government should have no role in limiting the procedure and has in fact “attended multiple friends’ brises.”
But politics aside, more Americans should be talking about what happens to 4,000 baby boys every day in American hospitals.
While some health professionals contend it’s “cleaner” and “better” to cut off healthy, valuable tissue from a boy’s genitals, let’s be clear: Newborn circumcision is not medically necessary. No other country in the developed worlddoes it as a routine medical procedure. In Israel and Muslim countries, circumcision is performed as a religious or cultural custom, not as a medical procedure. No medical society in the world recommends the procedure; Even the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which contends “the health benefits…outweigh the risks,” adds a caveat that states, “existing scientific evidence is not sufficient to recommend routine circumcision.”
Yet, three-fourths of newborn boys in the U.S. leave the hospital without their foreskins. Why?
Maybe it has something to do with the way the American healthcare system “sells” circumcision to new parents.
Last year, Intact America, which I lead, conducted a national study of mothers who had given birth to sons within the previous four years. Survey results revealed that physicians, nurses and midwives routinely and often aggressively push new moms to circumcise their sons.
The survey showed that 19 out of 20 mothers were solicited by health professionals to have their baby boys circumcised, and that new mothers were asked, on average, six times to “consent” to their sons’ circumcision. Among the mothers responding to the survey, only 45% of mothers who had not been solicited circumcised their sons. That compares to a 78% circumcision rate among another group of mothers who had been solicited.
This raises an important question: If fewer than half of parents walk into the hospital with plans to circumcise their sons, why do nearly 80% walk out of the hospital having made this irreversible choice? Obviously, medical professionals hold a lot of sway over mothers who have recently given birth and are often exhausted and too tired to argue. These mothers might decide that the professionals know best, or they might simply fold under pressure — and allow their child to be cut.
But something else is at work. Circumcision — America’s most common pediatric surgery — is big business. It is performed on approximately 1.5 million boys a year at a cost of more than $1.9 billion annually.
The Daily News Flash Newsletter
Weekdays
Catch up on the day’s top five stories every weekday afternoon.
Although insurers decline to cover medically unnecessary procedures, many (including most states’ Medicaid programs) do pay for circumcision. We all bear some of that cost, either through higher insurance premiums, or through the taxes we pay. This means pretty much every American is subsidizing medically unnecessary surgery on newborn babies.
Health professionals tout the so-called benefits of circumcision while cavalierly downplaying the adverse consequences. But consider this: the AAP task force on circumcision has stated, “The true incidence of complications...is unknown.” The list of possible complications is long and harrowing, ranging from hemorrhaging to mangling or cutting off the penis, to, in rare instances, death. These are huge risks to take, when one considers that having a foreskin is normal and natural — not pathological.
Adverse consequences can persist and even worsen with time. Researchers report that circumcised men can experience painful erections, loss of sensitivity, penile disfigurement and psychological suffering.
Then there is the loss of the foreskin itself. It is the most erogenous part of the penis, loaded with thousands of nerve endings; it protects the glans (penile head) and provides natural lubrication. As for cleanliness, if a boy can be taught to brush his teeth, he can learn to wash his genitals properly.
In my experience, the more one knows about circumcision, the more one questions why it is condoned as a medical practice. That’s why, even though he’s clarified that his opposition to the practice is personal and not relevant to public policy, Andrew Yang has done a great service in speaking publicly about circumcision. Americans need to think about it more, talk about it more, and heed their own instincts to protect their baby boys.
Chapin is executive director of Intact America, a national advocacy group.
