Circumcision Decision Taken Away From Poor Moms

on June 24, 2011 at 2:10 PM

newborn baby foot No matter which side you fall on the circumcision debate, here's betting you're pretty glad you got to make your own choice. So what if you weren't allowed the choice? And the only thing you'd done "wrong" to lose that right was to be poor when you went into labor?

While America debates the legality of San Francisco banning circumcision for all parents, it turns out moms on Medicaid in 17 states are already being denied the ability to make the choice for their little boys. State-sponsored health care won't pay for it. And Colorado is about to bring it to 18. The way legislators see it, when you're poor, you don't get to make health care choices about your child anymore.

While this news may have the intactivists jumping up and down, it kind of makes you wonder what they'll come up with next, doesn't it? After all, this is all about budgets. Colorado expects to save $186,500 by cutting the circumcisions out of the budget.

And when money comes before moms, nobody wins. Take the proposal awhile back in Utah that would have taken away poor women's epidurals. Because it would have saved money. Apparently poor ladies don't deserve some relief after 13 hours of pitocin ripping through their veins. Yeah, that proposal made no provisos for the different situations where epidurals would be used. It was all "elective epidurals." All of them.

Not a big fan of circumcision OR epidurals? Then surely you'd like a nice kindly midwife! The benefits abound when you take advantage of these folks! They generally save you money too -- what with lower C-section rates, lower risk births, blah, blah, blah. Oh, but Medicaid doesn't cover them in a lot of states. States like, ahem, Colorado.

Health decisions shouldn't be based on how much they'll cost the state. They should be based on whether they're good for moms and good for babies. Right now, circumcision remains a divisive issue in the mom community in part because it's medical. It's something that doctors should be weighing in on, something doctors should be helping moms decide on, not legislators.

Should being poor mean a mom loses her rights to be in control of her pregnancy and her child's health?

Image via Daquella manera/Flickr

About the author Jeanne Sager

writes articles for The Stir by day, slays closet monsters and bounds through bedtime stories with her elementary schooler by night. Diet Pepsi courses through her veins. The Phineas and Ferb soundtrack reverberates through her brain.

Filed Under: pain management, motherhood

Comments (144)|
Likes (6)

Comments (144)

Shanna84

on Jun 24, 2011 at 2:12 PM

I think their thinking is that they are cosmetic surgeries, not medically neccessary. So to some extent I agree that medicaid shouldn't pay for it. They can still have the procedure done, it just isn't free. Which seems fair to me.

Report this comment

Justamom283

on Jun 24, 2011 at 2:19 PM

It appears to me that the way legislators see it, when you're poor, you can make all the choices you want to you just can't have the state pay for what is deemed an elective cosmetic procedure.

Facebook comment from Kimberly Virga

on Jun 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM

A circumcision isn't cosmetic. There is medical data proving that it is unsanitary. Everyone jump down my throat now! What they want to take away from the poor is pathetic. There are poor people and then there are abusers of the system, and they are NOT always one in the same. People deserve choices; just because we live in a country where we refuse to take care of our citizens' health doesnt' mean we start stripping the less fortunate of their rights. Fuck that.

hoticedcoffee

on Jun 24, 2011 at 2:21 PM

This bill doesn't take away a mother's rights to circ her child. It takes away her entitlement to have it done for free. Just like epidural proposal didn't ban them, they just wouldn't be free. Same for midwives - not gone, just not free. Though certainly, kudos to you for thinking that woman who happens to be poor must also be too stupid to figure out the service is still available, she just has to figure out how to pay for it if it's that important to her.

Unnecessary medical intervention should ABSOLUTELY be determined based on how they effect the state's bottom line. That's one of the things about a free ride - you sometimes have to take the budget seat to make sure there's enough "other people's money" to cover your fare.

on Jun 24, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Kimberly Virga, you should know by now if you're going to claim 'medical data' to support your (cough-idiotic-cough) statement, you need to post a link supporting it (and not a link to op-ed). Then of course, someone else will post a link that contradicts your findings. So how about not making this about circumcision?

MemphisSuzi

I am in the camp that believes the government pays for WAY TO MUCH as it is. Circ, epidurals, midwives - those are not MEDICALLY NECESSARY things to have. So if you want them - pay for them yourself.

Nonmember comment from Katrina Merz

on Jun 24, 2011 at 2:25 PM

I would hope medicade wouldn't pay for a boob job or other elective unnecessary surgeries. They didn't loose the choice either, if they really want to they can pay for it themselves. Also, how credible of a journalist are you when you use a picture of hotdogs to represent male genitalia?

on Jun 24, 2011 at 2:27 PM

and you changed from the hotdog picture immediately after i posted...

Bethsunshine

on Jun 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Circumcision,epidurals and midwives are all choices that are not medically necessary, and should not be covered by medicaid.

Nonmember comment from Anon

on Jun 24, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Nice way to twist the story. You'd think the Stir writers would want to seem credible, but the more I read, the less they seem to care about that. If someone on Medicaid wants their kid circ'd at birth, they can pay for it and have it done. You know, just like if they want to have their kid's ears or nose or tongue pierced (or do you think Medicaid should pay for that too)?