Yet Another Circumcision News Item

I am bored to tears with the entire subject, but since about 100 of you sent this last night:

The American Academy of Pediatrics has shifted its official position on the contentious issue of infant circumcision, stating Monday that the medical benefits of the procedure for baby boys outweigh the small risks. In its first new policy statement on the issue since 1999, the academy said that circumcision reduced risks of urinary tract infections in infants and of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases later in life — and that the complications associated with the procedure were infrequent and mostly minor. But the physicians' group stopped short of recommending the sometimes controversial practice for all newborn boys, urging parents to be guided by their religious, ethical and cultural practices in addition to the science.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has about 60,000 members in North America. The group is very gay friendly and supported LGBT adoption rights for years.

RELATED: The "intactivists" are predictably outraged about the new policy.

Even as the AAP purports to find that the benefits of non-medical neonatal male circumcision outweigh its risks, not even its own Task Force can unequivocally recommend this surgery, but instead states that the health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns. Instead, it focuses much of its argument on urging that health insurance plans and state Medicaid plans cover the costs of the surgery, which is currently not the case in many states. It appears that the AAP is acting more as a trade association for doctors who perform this unnecessary surgery more than 1 million times a year, instead of standing up for the human rights and bodily integrity of the only patient that counts—the baby boy.