CDC circumcision advice fires up Minnesota debate over procedure

New federal recommendations on circumcision triggered a fresh exchange of arguments in Minnesota on Wednesday, without appearing to move anyone away from strongly held personal beliefs.

Opponents of "routine" circumcisions — those without an underlying medical necessity — criticized the Centers for Disease Control's analysis of current research and announced a protest in downtown Minneapolis for Thursday. Meanwhile, parents in Twin Cities hospitals went about privately executing their plans to circumcise or not, regardless.

Tricia Larson, who gave birth to a son Tuesday night at St. John's Hospital in Maplewood, said a number of friends had urged her to "stick with the natural route" and leave his foreskin intact. But Larson, 27, said she planned to proceed with circumcision for Blake Michael Larson because she believes it's better for his health and cleanliness. She said she was glad to have the recommendation — as well as the advice of her mom, a nurse — to back her up.

The CDC findings released Tuesday echo those of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which said in 2012 that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and should be available for families who choose it. That position has been seconded by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

But critics say those decisions were biased and based on faulty research.

Sarah Kuester, spokeswoman for the WHOLE Network, a Minnesota nonprofit that counsels against routine circumcision, said the CDC's report offered no new research to support its recommendation.

"You can throw studies pro and con," Kuester said. "Breaking it down to just the human rights portion, your child deserves to own his whole body," she said. "People want to protect their child."

"I fear it will negatively influence new parents," Nelson wrote in an e-mail. She cited studies that she said contradict the research the CDC relied on. Nelson, the mother of two boys, argued that circumcision is mutilation. "It is a violation of human rights."

Miranda Hertwig, 26, of Duluth, agreed.

"Babies aren't sexually active," said Hertwig, mother of a 3-year-old boy. "They should be able to make their own safe-sex decisions when they're of age."

Arguments like that were among the reasons the Minnesota Legislature voted to drop elective circumcision from Medicaid coverage in 2005 — one of 18 states that have done so. The federal-state health program for low-income families now pays for nearly half of all deliveries nationally, and it periodically becomes the focus of intense debate over birth-related procedures.

But Minnesota's coverage status could change if the CDC ultimately finds a compelling medical argument for circumcision.

Sen. Kathy Sheran, who chairs the Senate's Health, Human Services and Housing Committee, said Wednesday that if the agencies' analysis supports legislation to restore Medicaid funding, "then we will find an author for it in the Senate."

Sheran said she couldn't predict whether it would pass. The debate over circumcision resembles that over vaccinations, she said.

"A person can get a certain perspective … that's hard to get free from," Sheran said. "The scientific findings may or may not move people toward actually taking action."