The House has voted to stop paying for circumcisions for poor children under the state Medicaid program. This decision passed by just one vote. Last year, a similar bill was voted down.
Supporters of the bill
Supporters argue that circumcision is not medically necessary. They say it carries risks of permanent complications. These risks can change a child’s life. They also point out that some parents choose circumcision for personal or religious reasons.
They believe circumcision was once seen as a way to reduce sexual pleasure. People considered this a major problem in earlier times, but Medicaid might not consider these reasons.
Opponents of the bill
Opponents of the bill say it targets poor families. They also argue that it could make Jewish and Muslim families feel unwelcome in the state.
They point out that Medicaid covers other medical procedures. These procedures are not mandatory. Circumcision is the only one excluded, reflecting broader issues with Medicaid’s priorities.
Rep. Paul Berch, a Democrat from Westmoreland, said the bill sends a message. He said it makes Jews and Muslims feel less welcome in New Hampshire. “Some may not see that sign, but Jews and Muslims will,” Berch said.
He mentioned other medical services covered by Medicaid. These include dental and vision care, hearing aids, physical therapy, mental health counseling, and bariatric surgery.
Medical benefits of circumcision
Rep. David Nagel, a Democrat from Gilmanton, said circumcision is medically recommended. He said the procedure is beneficial but not required. He explained that about 70% of male newborns have circumcision. The satisfaction rate for this procedure is 90%.
Nagel acknowledged that there are risks. However, complications are very rare. He also mentioned that the cost of circumcision rises significantly when done later in life. Therefore, it might be more cost-effective for Medicaid to cover it earlier.
“We do it because of patient choice,” Nagel said. “It’s an important part of American healthcare, and we should cover it.”
Rep. Julius Soti’s viewpoint
Rep. Julius Soti, a Republican from Windham, opposed the bill. He said circumcision is part of the Jewish covenant. He also mentioned that, in the past, quacks promoted circumcision. This happened during the time when circumcisions on newborn boys peaked.
Soti argued that circumcision is not part of “traditional American values.” He noted that historic leaders in portraits in the House chamber were not circumcised.
Soti questioned why the state pays to reduce sexual pleasure for poor people. “Why are we paying to diminish the sexual pleasure of poor people?” he asked.
The House sent it to the Finance Committee for review. However, the committee chair waived the review, and the bill moved to the Senate, where lawmakers may further scrutinize Medicaid requirements.
