# Latest circumcision stats from 2008



## glongley (Jun 30, 2004)

Most recent circumcision stats available (2008) at:

http://mgmbill.org/statistics.htm

Explains sources and caveats, a well done page.


----------



## Marnica (Oct 4, 2008)

Thanks for that...interesting. I wish there was a way to get even more accurate info. This data doesn't capture any infant circumsized after d/c from the hospital, so basically all circs done at bris's and other religious ceremonies.

I also noticed that the states with the higher rates (with the exception of TX) are also the states where circs are still Medicaid funded. The best thing that could ever happen is if medicaid stopped paying for this accross the country!


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Wow. My state (IL) is like a yellow island in the red storm. I can NOT believe the rates are so high almost everywhere! Ok, I can since not circ'ing here is like having a second head, but still. Makes me wish I lived on the west coast!

The rates in other english-speaking countries is interesting, too. Shows you how far behind the US in comparison to other "sister" countries. http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/


----------



## MommytoB (Jan 18, 2006)

Our montana state has no data . I just wonder how it could get data but I imagine the montana area would prably range in the orange area if they had the stats .


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

at the stats for my state. I like my own little world of people who don't cut their boys or wouldn't do it again if they made the mistake with their first son. I really thought it was dropping around here too but I think these stats are the same as the last ones.


----------



## titania8 (Feb 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LavenderMae* 














at the stats for my state. I like my own little world of people who don't cut their boys or wouldn't do it again if they made the mistake with their first son. I really thought it was dropping around here too but I think these stats are the same as the last ones.

i feel the same way. 85% here....highest in the world.







though i have to believe we are making progress. it will get better. it will.

right?


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Yea for Utah being yellow! (Of course green would be better but yellow is better than I expected.)

The Utah rate has dropped considerably since Medicaid no longer pays for it!!


----------



## PotreroHill (Apr 29, 2009)

I can't believe it's 85% in some states
















Is Nevada the lowest with 12%?


----------



## WaitingForKiddos (Nov 30, 2006)

I'm on my phone and can't see the map. What are CA's rates?


----------



## ElliesMomma (Sep 21, 2006)

i think CA's was 22 percent. what makes Nevada's so low, and Florida's too?

can anybody who's in the know summarize why the vast desparity between, say Michigan 85 percent and Florida, 39 percent?


----------



## Momalea (Dec 29, 2002)

I was happy to see that my comes in at 19%! It also explains why I thought intact had become the norm. I'm always surprised when I see circ'd little boys in the dressing room at our local pool. All the naked little boys I see in my circle of friends are intact.
On the other hand, I was really shocked by how high the rates are around the country. It's so bizarre and sad to me that circumcision is still the norm across the nation.


----------



## Vancouver Mommy (Aug 15, 2007)

I find this really interesting. In Canada (according to 2006-7 statistics) the national rate is approx. 31%, with no province above 50%.

http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/yr99p-e.html


----------



## shishkeberry (Sep 24, 2004)

Blah, my state sucks. 83%?







Well, I'm proud to be a member of the other 17%.


----------



## anony (Jun 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Vancouver Mommy* 
I find this really interesting. In Canada (according to 2006-7 statistics) the national rate is approx. 31%, with no province above 50%.

http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/yr99p-e.html

Yeah it's much lower than the U.S. although the rates they cobbled together seem rather high. They base this off of phone interviews and before that, the statistics they used were much lower, claiming a 13% rate (one missing a couple provinces had just a 9% rate). What changed exactly? Were they inaccurate with one or the other? Which is a more reliable stat-gathering method anyway?

Now that older one was just for hospitals and didn't include the incidence of circumcision after the neonatal period or in clinics, since hospitals barely offer it now up here. If a hospital discourages 87% of parents on it, I doubt 1/5 of those are unreceptive enough to that disclaimer to go have it done at a clinic somewhere and I doubt there's a rate of circ's done in the first few years after birth that more than equals the rates at birth. Doesn't add up. Knowing older, married-with-kids friends of mine and the locker room, it seems rarer than 31% (no I don't look but sometimes you do notice I'm afraid).


----------



## anony (Jun 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ElliesMomma* 
i think CA's was 22 percent. what makes Nevada's so low, and Florida's too?

can anybody who's in the know summarize why the vast desparity between, say Michigan 85 percent and Florida, 39 percent?

I think for states like California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas and Florida, the defunding by medicaid was one thing but smarter doctors or possibly many more doctors of Latin descent. Florida has many Cuban defectors from over the years who were in the medical business and in their culture, circ is not practiced. The same can be said for the high amount of people of Mexican descent in Texas, Nevada, Arizona and California. The cultures haven't allowed themselves to be sucked in by the circ propaganda and the influence is spreading as a result, which is good to see.

Therefore, more Americanized generations of these minority groups will come to see circ as alien, unfamiliar and won't jump on it. That said, pockets of people with these backgrounds will do it just to fit in more. But I think that's why in a state like NY (still between 1/2 and 3/4 but close to 1/2) the lowest rates are in the NYC area where there's a high proportion of Puerto Ricans and other nationalities that don't routinely practice it. Demographics plays a big part but Caucasian and African-Americans, both of whom made up the majority of the U.S. before WW2, both do it fairly regularly. But the tide is turning, however slowly.


----------



## MommytoB (Jan 18, 2006)

Also, if I'm not mistaken some hospitals in Nevada won't perform circumcision but I was thinking that would have only been las vegas but maybe there are more hospitals that won't do that in nevada .

California doctors are a mix of americans and foreigners but lot of them were made up of hispanics, and latin americans .

The foreigners in california were a bit more on top of things than some of the american ones .

Same with the demographic of the southern part of california that they had citzens of hispanic, my son's father(polish), and latin-americans .

You would order pizza, food, or go get some food you would end up with someone with an accent .


----------



## by-the-lake (Jul 2, 2008)

Just throwing this out for interest. I work in Minnesota, where circs are not medicaid funded. My hosptial 'eats' the cost of circ to keep the customer happy







. I am sad to see all these medicaid funded states.


----------



## glongley (Jun 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anony* 
Yeah it's much lower than the U.S. although the rates they cobbled together seem rather high. They base this off of phone interviews and before that, the statistics they used were much lower, claiming a 13% rate (one missing a couple provinces had just a 9% rate). What changed exactly? Were they inaccurate with one or the other? Which is a more reliable stat-gathering method anyway?

Now that older one was just for hospitals and didn't include the incidence of circumcision after the neonatal period or in clinics, since hospitals barely offer it now up here.

The 9% vs. 31% rate in Canada does indeed reflect the difference between rates at hospital discharge, vs. the number of boys who are ultimately circumcised within the first year of life. It may be that circumcisions are not performed in hospitals in Canada much any more due to lack of reimbursement and general recognition of lack of medical necessity, but that post-hospital circumcision providers are picking up the slack for those parents determined to have it done.

Relaize that the numbers given for the US are also hospital discharge figures. Certainly a number of circumcisions are performed for religious reasons after hospital discharge or in doctor's offices instead of the hospital for whatever reason. So the 55% national circ rate usually quoted only reflects hospital discharge figures and the rates for all circumcision in the first year of life are undoubtedly higher. I believe there was a study in the last few years looking at data in Maryland that showed perhaps 10% higher rates for post hospital infant circs than were reflected in the discharge stats. (I may not be remembering the exact numbers right).

Gillian


----------



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

I live in Ohio and I am sad to say that I am not surprised at all at the 85% rate. I don't know of anyone but me IRL that has not had their son circ'd. Not one person.

DS was born in TX and there was no push for circ. I was asked (still on the operating table!) and then the next day the ped asked and that was it. We moved here when he was 8 months old and I turned down circ twice. The first time he was having raw patches on his scrotum and thighs and at one point, his foreskin was slightly inflamed. The very FIRST thing that popped out of her mouth was that if it happened again, he'd need a circ. She insisted that it was a foreskin infection and pushed HARD for both oral and topic abx. I refused without a culture and she refused to culture it. If we don't know what we're treating, I'm not giving him meds! If she had bothered to culture it, she would have found that it was a yeast infection (caused by a food allergy). If I had agreed, the abx would have made the yeast infection much worse and we would have ended up with an open wound from a circ AND a yeast infection and we might have ended up one of those "he HAD to be circ'd for infections!" stories.

The second time the doctor insisted that he MUST have a UTI even though he wasn't showing any symptoms and that since he was "uncircumcised" they'd have to cath him to get a clean catch since "he probably has some bacteria up there." I wish I'd said no to that, but it didn't really seem to bother him. It turned out to just be some kind of mild viral illness and he was fine. The nurse who did the cath said they get a LOT of older kids in for circ's. I told her about them trying to circ him for what turned out to be a yeast infection and she was shocked. I said, "So how many of those do you think were really necessary?" and she had no answer. Hopefully it made her think.

Anyway, long story short, I'm not surprised at all at the numbers. I also wouldn't be surprised if they were actually much higher than that. We have significant Jewish, Muslim, and Amish communities in this state, none of which would be included in the 85% statistic.


----------



## Night_Nurse (Nov 23, 2007)

...


----------



## Night_Nurse (Nov 23, 2007)

...oops...that was meant for a pm...


----------



## ursaminor (Mar 28, 2009)

Boo, my current state MI and home state OH are outrageous. We have a large Latino population here, but I guess all their babies are getting cut now. What a shame. I asked my mom about the Amish communities in OH, she had many Amish clients over the years, and out of all only 1 father wanted his child circumcised. Probably because he happened to be born in a hospital and was compulsory cut. It didnt seem to be prevalent in that particular community. Altho I dont think Amish communities really share many ties with one another, so it is possible that circumcision could gain popularity in isolated communities, though it holds no traditional heritage.
I am very surprised Hawaii is so High!


----------



## bandgeek (Sep 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *minkajane* 
I live in Ohio and I am sad to say that I am not surprised at all at the 85% rate. I don't know of anyone but me IRL that has not had their son circ'd. Not one person.

I'm in ohio and I'm not surpised either. They actually told me it was required for him to be circ'ed before we were discharged from the hospital.







I do know better of course, and he did NOT get circ'ed. I'm thankful to know a few people in my area who leave their boys intact.


----------



## MommatoAandA (Jun 4, 2010)

Why are my tax dollars still paying to mutilate the babies in my state? WTF MA???? UGHHH. Its lower than I though though.


----------



## melanie_rabbitbarn (Mar 28, 2007)

I have also wondered what the "real" numbers are since 3 of 4 families I know circ status for had their babies circumcised AFTER discharge from the hospital. And this is in the low-circ rate Pacific Northwest. Maybe our higher home birth rates contribute to the lower hospital circ rates?


----------



## bluebirdiemama (May 2, 2008)

holy crap. It's so weird to think this happens to 76-100% of babies in so many states








I have made the right decision for my own ds, thank GOD!, but I am starting to feel the need to stand up for all the other baby boys.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ElliesMomma* 
i think CA's was 22 percent. what makes Nevada's so low, and Florida's too?

can anybody who's in the know summarize why the vast desparity between, say Michigan 85 percent and Florida, 39 percent?

My friend who has dual citizenship told me that most Mexicans don't circumcise, and Florida obviously has a lot of immigrants.


----------



## larzanna (Jan 23, 2008)

BOOOOOOO Ohio! Although i should have guessed it. I really did think it was more like 70%, not 85% though!


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anony* 
If a hospital discourages 87% of parents on it, I doubt 1/5 of those are unreceptive enough to that disclaimer to go have it done at a clinic somewhere and I doubt there's a rate of circ's done in the first few years after birth that more than equals the rates at birth. Doesn't add up. Knowing older, married-with-kids friends of mine and the locker room, it seems rarer than 31% (no I don't look but sometimes you do notice I'm afraid).

I agree with you on this. I was under the impression that our rate in Canada was much lower. My children are grown up now, and it seemed that when DS was born it was about 50/50 in Alberta. A few months ago I was talking to our family doctor about this, and she said that she has noticed a marked decrease in the last five years, so hopefully today, in 2010, it is much lower than those stats suggest.


----------



## frogautumn (May 24, 2007)

Wow, really interesting statistics. I was surprised to see my state (NY) was 58%. I thought it would be higher...good for you NY, but you still have a long way to go!

I see someone mentioned that these stats wouldn't reflect a a post-hospital private circ (like a bris), but they also wouldn't reflect a baby boy born at home, would they? I would have to imagine that the majority of homebirth boys would not be circ'ed...


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

I wonder where I could find NM's stats.

My 3 boys were born in CO, though, where it states the rate is 64% That sounds accurate to me among people with little boys born there in the past decade.

Thanks for the link!


----------



## Night_Nurse (Nov 23, 2007)

I'm not sure I believe the stats exactly. I hate to be a Debbie Downer but I know the stats for my state (Texas) are much higher than stated. Even if they are 26 - 50% in the border towns they are much, much higher in the major cities and even rural towns. I'd guess the true percentage is closer to 75 - 80% for the whole state.

I've been looking at trends in my own hospital over the past 3 years or so. I'd say at least half of our immigrant moms circ their boys, including those who traditionally don't. We'll get mamas in town from Mexico working the farms or just traveling through back to Mexico and many of them who deliver go ahead and circ. I'm not sure why. And we have a huge Bermese population now and they circ without fail. They can't speak any English and I'm hoping the details of the procedure aren't getting lost in translation. But anywho...lost of circs in North Texas. I'd guess that 95% of non-immigrant boys in my area are circed too.








My friend who works in another part of the state said about 75% of boys there are also circed.

Just to address a few things others have mentioned in this thread...Texas does still fund Medicaid circs.
Yes, the stats wouldn't include boys born at home but don't assume most of them escape RIC either. At least in N. TX, many homebirthed and birth center born babies are still circed. I'm a member of a homebirth group in my area and half of the moms report they still circ.

The Utah rates seem too low to me. But I do believe RIC is decreasing somewhat and that is encouraging.


----------



## jonathonsmom (Dec 13, 2001)

I thought Texas would be high, too. I lived in San Antonio when my first was born. At the large company for which I worked, I got a lot of pressure to "just do it". "It's no big deal, my OB did it." (As if OBs doing it makes it less of a deal, since they are unskilled? They only occasionally save lives by performing surgery to remove babies from wombs or stop hemorrhaging.) Anyway, I finally found a male coworker whose brother grew up intact in Texas. The intact brother said his status wasn't an issue. Just about everyone else I talked to had circed or would circ. I did find two people who wouldn't if they had it to do again because of complications. I found two people who didn't circ.

Now, I'm in Colorado, and our numbers are higher than Texas? I just find that astounding.

Dawn


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Night_Nurse* 

The Utah rates seem too low to me. But I do believe RIC is decreasing somewhat and that is encouraging.

Personally I've talked several Utahns out of circ'ing!!


----------



## Pumpkinheadmommy (Nov 6, 2007)

I think I remember reading it was discouraged by the Mormon religion. At least the old-school Mormons were opposed to it.


----------



## amydiane (Feb 4, 2009)

I live in Florida and I never would have guessed it's "only" 36% here. I don't know anyone else here who didn't circ.


----------



## zmom2010 (Jul 15, 2010)

I'm in Cinci, Ohio, and shocked at the numbers. When I was in the hospital after ds was born, the very young female pediatrician who did the initial exams at the hospital came in and asked "you didn't circ?"and I told her we weren't going to and she smiled and very quietly said "Good for you". I was shocked at this but pleasantly surprised!!!!! So maybe there's hope for ohio yet


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

Yeah, I'm in OH too and not the least bit surprsied at the 85 or 86 or whatever percentile it is. I too know *no one* else with an intact boy - and I have lots of friends with little boys. And all of them are circ'd.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *glongley* 
The 9% vs. 31% rate in Canada does indeed reflect the difference between rates at hospital discharge, vs. the number of boys who are ultimately circumcised within the first year of life. It may be that circumcisions are not performed in hospitals in Canada much any more due to lack of reimbursement and general recognition of lack of medical necessity, but that post-hospital circumcision providers are picking up the slack for those parents determined to have it done.

Relaize that the numbers given for the US are also hospital discharge figures. Certainly a number of circumcisions are performed for religious reasons after hospital discharge or in doctor's offices instead of the hospital for whatever reason. So the 55% national circ rate usually quoted only reflects hospital discharge figures and the rates for all circumcision in the first year of life are undoubtedly higher. I believe there was a study in the last few years looking at data in Maryland that showed perhaps 10% higher rates for post hospital infant circs than were reflected in the discharge stats. (I may not be remembering the exact numbers right).

Gillian

Though the stats do miss post discharge circs, they also miss homebirthed boys who get to remain intact, so there is some balancing out and the %s may not be that far off.


----------



## 2boyzmama (Jun 4, 2007)

I'm in Ohio, the state with the highest percentage, and proud to say that I have three intact boys! (two of them born in this state, one not)

I had no issues at birth with my two that were born in Ohio, but I hung up signs with huge bold red letters that made my preference quite clear









I have, though, had issues with Dayton Children's Hospital. They haven't ever suggested a circ is necessary, but they are woefully uninformed on the proper care of an intact penis. I sent a nasty gram to the head of Radiology after a nurse tried to retract my son to cath him for a VCUG.

My oldest son was born overseas at a military hospital, and I fended off circumcision numerous times, it got a little ridiculous! Then I asked one of the nurses "what the rate is here for circ?" and she said "oh, it's free, is that why you're declining?" No, I meant the percentage. She estimated it at about 80-85%. Then she stood there waiting for me to say yes, and I just smiled and looked at my son and said "well, you're a lucky one!"


----------



## MommaKitten21 (May 12, 2009)

I'm in OH too.... I expected the rate to be high, but not that high!!!









I get told all these "horrible" things that are going to happen since I didn't circ ds! I'm the only one among anyone I know here who didn't circ! It's so sad to me


----------



## St. Margaret (May 19, 2006)

Yeah, California! I'm guessing Latinos and other immigrant populations help our rate, but I think there's just a lot more of thinking differently/openmindedness here, which helps people stop a tradition of circ! This will be great to cite if anyone questions upcoming DS's status!









But those other numbers are very sad


----------



## PiesandAbrosmama (Jan 31, 2003)

Honestly thought CO was going to be much lower! For real not as bad as many of the states, but I was hoping and thinking we should be with the green states at least very close and maybe yellow. 66% Still way way to high for this state!
This is such a strange cultural thing and obviously a very state to state culture as well.


----------



## Lula's Mom (Oct 29, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anony* 
Therefore, more Americanized generations of these minority groups will come to see circ as alien, unfamiliar and won't jump on it. That said, pockets of people with these backgrounds will do it just to fit in more. But I think that's why in a state like NY (still between 1/2 and 3/4 but close to 1/2) the lowest rates are in the NYC area where there's a high proportion of Puerto Ricans and other nationalities that don't routinely practice it.

I don't know that Puerto Ricans don't often circumcise... it's a very 'mainstream' parenting culture there. Mostly hospital birthing, a huge number of c-sections, a lot of formula-feeding. And my husband & his 2 brothers, born in San Juan, were circumcised. My MIL says she was told at the hospital that they would get cancer if she didn't have them cut. And I think that immigrant populations who might not circumcise in their home country at least think about doing it here, as Night_Nurse said about Mexican parents in Texas, so I don't think we can safely believe that being Latino means no circ (trust me, I was hoping that when I met my husband!







)


----------

