Support First Things by turning your adblocker off or by making a  donation. Thanks!

A new Johns Hopkins study  warns of the billions added to health care costs if infant male circumcisions are outlawed.

Johns Hopkins experts say the added expense stems from new cases and higher rates of sexually transmitted infections and related cancers among uncircumcised men and their female partners . . . .

The Johns Hopkins team’s analysis showed that, on average, each male circumcision passed over and not performed leads to $313 more in illness-related expenses, costs which Tobian says would not have been incurred if these men had undergone the procedure.

Peter Lawler adds :
The evidence here, it seems to me, at least as striking as that supporting the Mayor’s recent initiative on nudging NYC women in the direction of breast feeding. So it’s difficult to see why the power of the city shouldn’t be mobilized to require or at least strongly encourage or incentivize circumcision.  And certainly free circumcision, the evidence shows, should be part of any health care mandate.

Comments are visible to subscribers only. Log in or subscribe to join the conversation.



Filter First Thoughts Posts

Related Articles