Which states don't cover circumcision?

The most significant FRAUD in all of this deception is the fact that in the US, and in all developed countries, the cut men get HIV at about the same rate as intact (natural penis) men. Some studies even show cut being MORE at risk for HIV. A study on Circumcision from Puerto Rico that shows "Circumcised men have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection." There is clear evidence that "Circumcision does not appear to shield men from most types of STDs in developed nations". Journal of Pediatrics, MARCH 2008. So there is no STD advantage to removing parts of babies. We need to defund this across the board and that includes defunding the mutilation of African Men.

Let us also remember this is harm, a wounding of a baby. It is also a huiman rights violation to amputate tissue without permission from the owner. The long term harm is huge with nerve damage and harm to the sensory system (some of the sensory system is shut down). A whole range of sensation and sexual and protective function are lost. The lips, nipples and fingertips have similar touch sense. To take this away from another person without their consent is heinous. To do this to a baby is WRONG and creepy.

Fewer parents are falling for the lies and misinformation spread by circumfetishists such as Tobian, Halperin, Morris, and Waskett.  And more men will experience a fuller sexual experience as a result.  The UK largely gave up circumcising baby boys some 60 years ago, and our healthcare is better and cheaper than yours.

Parents, educate yourselves, the circumcision industry is worth billions to the unethical medics who persist in genital mutilation.  And that is really why they do it.