Circumcision’s decline pinned on immigration

updated 6:15 p.m. ET June 18, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO - On the eighth day of her son’s life, Julia Query welcomed friends and family to celebrate his birth and honor their Jewish heritage.

But there was no crying, no scalpel, no blood, no “mohel” — the person who traditionally performs ritual circumcisions in the Jewish faith. In fact, Elijah Rose’s “bris” differed markedly from the ceremony long used to initiate Jewish boys into a covenant with God: There was no circumcision.

“I knew before I was even pregnant that I would not circumcise,” said Query, 39, a San Francisco filmmaker whose son was born in 2002. “It’s not like you’re just cutting a piece of paper off a pad — there’s no ‘cut here’ line. It’s not made to be cut off, and I would never, ever do that to my baby.”

Query is among a growing number of American parents refusing circumcision, in which the foreskin is removed from the penis.

According to a study by the National Health and Social Life Survey, the U.S. circumcision rate peaked at nearly 90 percent in the early 1960s but began dropping in the ‘70s. By 2004, the most recent year for which government figures are available, about 57 percent of all male newborns delivered in hospitals were circumcised. In some states, the rate is well below 50 percent.

A heated issue
Experts say immigration patterns play the biggest role in the decline, which is steepest in Western states with big populations from Asian and Latin American countries where circumcision is uncommon. The trend has also accompanied a change in Americans’ attitudes toward medicine and their bodies.

“The rates of drug-free labor and breast-feeding all rose during the 1980s, while the initial declines in male circumcision rates began during the 1980s as well,” said Katharine Barrett, an anthropology lecturer at Stanford University. “It may have been part and parcel of the wider effort to reclaim bodies — adult female and infant male — from unnecessary and potentially harmful medical interventions.”

Circumcision remains the nation’s most common surgery, and the United States is still one of the few developed countries where a majority of baby boys are circumcised. But circumcision is a heated issue and the subject of vehemently pro and anti Web sites.

“We were all circumcised when I was born,” said R. Louis Schultz, a 79-year-old New Yorker and author of “Out in the Open: The Complete Male Pelvis.” “People thought it could ward off masturbation or disease, and those funny attitudes have really changed. Now people are saying, ‘Why do it?”’

Many doctors still recommend circumcision because of some evidence that it reduces the risk of penile cancer, urinary tract infections, HIV and perhaps other sexual transmitted diseases. Many major insurance companies still cover it, and many hospitals offer it free for newborns.

MORE FROM KIDS AND PARENTING

Kids and parenting Section Front

Baby bottle chemical levels safe, agency says Nearly 3 percent of teen girls assaulted   Internet, alcohol and sleep tied to girls' weight Low-fat milk recommended for some toddlers Body at home of woman who claimed baby buy Parents of blinded girl lose Motrin suit Record number of babies born last year When teen years hit, sluggishness sets in Teachers get nurse duty as schools are squeezed Background TV harms tots’ attention spans Kids and parenting Section Front   Add Kids and parenting headlines to your news reader: