New Hampshire Votes to Cut Circumcision From Medicaid Coverage

Earlier this month, New Hampshire House Bill 94, known as the “Children’s Body Autonomy Act,” passed the New Hampshire House of Representatives by a single vote: 184-183.

The proposal would cut non-medically necessary circumcision from the state’s Medicaid program as the state looks for places to tighten its fiscal belt. Estimates indicate the move could save the state $100,000 annually.

Bill advocates say dropping circumcision coverage from Medicaid is long overdue, with one describing the procedure as “male genital mutilation,” a relic of medical quackery of the past. But circumcision proponents say that the bill is an affront to the religious freedom of Muslims and Jews, and inadvertantly sends a message that those communities are not welcome in New Hampshire.

Will elective circumcision get the snip?

Trimming the Budget

This isn’t a circumcision ban in New Hampshire. Bill advocates say that those seeking to circumcise their children for religious or personal reasons are more than welcome to do so on their own dime. Rather, this bill bars the procedure from being funded by the state's Medicaid program, which is primarily utilized by those with limited income. “Why are we paying to diminish the sexual pleasure of poor people?” pondered the bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. Julius Soti.

Bill co-sponsor Rep. Jason Osborne says that New Hampshire taxpayers simply shouldn't be on the hook for what he calls a “medically unnecessary, irreversible surgery.”

Anti-circumcision advocates argued the procedure has no modern medical basis, and cited studies showing that removing the foreskin reduces sexual pleasure for both sexes.

“This bill does not ban circumcision, but simply says that the government should keep its hands off where they don’t belong,” said Rep. Donald McFarlane, speaking in favor of the bill. “We Americans can and should make female orgasms great again.” 

RELATED: Meet the "Intactivists" – Leaders of the Anti-Circumcision Movement

A Medical Necessity?

Circumcision advocates say that Medicaid coverage is necessary for newborn males because of the possible medical benefits, and that circumcision is easiest – and cheapest – on infants. State Rep. Joe Schapiro said that there is “ample research showing potential medical benefits such as reduction in penile cancers and reduced rates of HIV transmission." 

The American Medical Association agrees. A 2023 report from the AMA argued that “the procedure’s benefits outweigh the risks,” including reduced chance of contracting HIV, UTIs, and penile cancer.

However, even the medical benefits of circumcision are controversial; Both the Canadian Paediatric Society and the British Medical Association concluded such medical benefits are marginal at best and alone do not medically justify the procedure, and the United States is the only country where circumcisions are widely performed for non-religious reasons.

Snipping Away at Religious Rights

The controversial bill elicited strong reactions from pro-circumcision politicians, some of whom said that the bill could be an affront to the religious freedom of faith communities which commonly practice circumcision, including Jews and Muslims.

“This sets circumcision apart from all the others. It does send a message,” stated Rep. Paul Berch, who opposes the legislation. “It hangs out a sign that Jews and Muslims not quite as welcome in New Hampshire as others. Some may not see that sign, but Jews and Muslims will.”

Others cosigned that statement. “What possible purpose could it have other than to show a profound disrespect of our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters?” asked one resident, Campbell Harvey. 

However, sponsors say the bill should be passed explicitly because of the religious connection. "This cosmetic procedure originated as strictly a religious ritual, and of course taxpayer money should not cover religious rituals,” argued co-sponsor Rep. Ellen Read. “But now has transformed into simply a cultural cosmetic phenomenon that we all unquestioningly accept, despite the harm it causes men.”

The bill moves next to the State Senate, where lawmakers will decide if New Hampshire should join the 17 other states which don’t offer Medicaid coverage for elective infant circumcisions. 

Where do you stand? Should elective infant circumcision be paid for by the state's Medicaid program? And does barring the procedure from receiving taxpayer funds seriously send a message to Muslims and Jews that they're not welcome in the state of New Hampshire?

On the other hand, couldn't circumcision's lengthy religious history be a reason to deny funding? Should the state be funding a procedure frequently performed as a religious ritual?

Circumcision funded by taxpayers: Cut it or keep it?