15,987
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|article=
[[Category:USA]]
→History: Add heading
|volume=205
|issue=1
|pages=257-63
|url=https://www.auajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1097/JU.0000000000001316
==History==
===Colonial and early 19th century===
Jews have lived in America since before the Revolutionary War. They have always practiced [[Jewish circumcision| ritual circumcision]], ([[Brit Milah]]), of boys on the eighth day of life in accordance with the [[Abrahamic covenant]], however this was only for a very small percentage of the population.<ref name="self2016">{{REFjournal
|url=https://journals.troy.edu/index.php/test/article/view/386/302
===Late twentieth century===
The late twentieth century was characterized by increasing opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys by [[intactivists]] and increasing efforts by the circumcision industry to protect [[third-party payment]] for performance of non-therapeutic circumcision of non-consenting boys; and by increasing recognition that newborn boys intensely feel [[pain]] and that non-therapeutic male [[circumcision]] is a [[trauma| horribly traumatic experience]].
[[Abraham Ravich]] (1951) falsely claimed that [[circumcision]] prevents [[cervical cancer]] in women.<ref name="ravitch1951">{{Ravich1951}}</ref>
The [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] (AAP) is not an "academy" at all. It is a [[medical trade association]] that protects and advances the business and financial interests of its pediatrician "fellows". Influenced by Preston's paper, the AAP published a manual on the hospital care of newborn infants in 1971. The manual included the statement:
<blockquote>
<b>There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.</b><ref>{{REFbook
|year=1971
|title=Standards and Recommendation for Hospital Care of Newborn infants
Grimes concluded:
<blockquote> However, until the benefits of [[Routine Infant Circumcision| routinecircumcision]] circumcision of the neonate can be proved worth the risk and cost, medical resources probably should be allocated to measures of demonstrated value.<ref name="grimes1978" />
</blockquote>
The American circumcision industry appears to have totally ignored Grimes' concerns.
|year=2008
|title=Ch. 10: American Law and the Circumcision of Children
|url=https://www.i2researchhub.org/articles/ch-10-american-law-and-the-circumcision-of-children-doc-genital-integrity-statement/
|work=Genital Integrity Policy
|editor=
[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]] issued a Genital Integrity Policy in June 2008.<ref name-"doc2008">{{REFdocument
|title=Genital Integrity Policy
|url=https://www.i2researchhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/GenitalIntegrityStatement.pdf
|contribution=
|last=Hill
}}</ref>
The ill-fated 2012 [[AAP ]] Circumcision Policy Statement expired on August 31, 2017 in accordance with AAP policy, because it was not reaffirmed. The AAP has had ''no'' official circumcision policy since that time.
[[Dan Bollinger|Bollinger]] (2019) discussed circumcision as an adverse childhood experience,<ref name-"bollinger2019">{{REFdocument
In the Midwest, the incidence of [[circumcision]] has declined to 75 percent, which translates to a [[genital integrity]] rate increase to 25 percent or 1 in 4 boys having an [[intact]] foreskin.<ref name="jacobson2021" /> The previous report from 2010 was one boy in five being intact,<ref name="bollinger2017" /> and before that it was 1 in 10 boys being [[intact]], so this in an increase of 250 percent (0.25/0.10 X 100 = 250%) in the rate of [[Intact| intactness]] for the Midwest. The still high incidence of circumcision in the Midwest is counterbalanced by the low incidence in the West.
=== Intact Intactness is the new norm ===
[[Intactness]] had previously been shamed in the United States,<ref name="garrett2023-12-21">{{REFweb |url=https://intactamerica.org/foreskin-phobia-intact-penis-shamed/ |title=Foreskin Phobia: How The Intact Penis Has Been Shamed |last=Garrett |first=Connor |init= |author-link=Connor Judson Garrett |publisher=Intact America]] argues |date=2023-12-21 |accessdate=2024-05-15}}</ref> but that public opinion regarding non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] era has ended. Intact America called attention to the existence of children is approaching or at a "tipping point" at which [[intact]] genitals , when public opinion would be preferred over the shift toward [[circumcisedintactness]] varietyin 2016.<ref>{{REFweb |url=https://intactamerica.org/publicdo-you-know-about-opinionthe-ontipping-circumcisionpoint/ |title=Public Opinion on CircumcisionDo You Know: Can Intactivists Hit A Tipping About the “Tipping Point?
|last=Anonymous
|first=
|init=
|author-link=
|publisher=Intact America
|date=20242016-0311-2301 |accessdate=2024-0406-0903}}</ref> Public opinion in the United States in 2024 has now reached that tipping point.
The percentage of American boys being [[circumcised]] has been slowly declining for a long time, while the number of boys with [[intact]] [[foreskin]] has correspondingly increased.<ref name="jacobson2021" /> The percentage of [[intact]] newborn boys now exceeds the percentage of [[circumcised]] newborn boys.
As the present trend continues, being [[intactintactness]] is now becoming the more usual, normal , and expected condition for infant boys in America.
==American [[genital integrity]] organizations==
* [[Financial incentive]]
* [[Intact-friendly]]
* [https://en.intactiwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page Home page]
{{LINKS}}
[[Category:BSM]]
[[Category:Male circumcision]]
[[Category:Circumcision]]
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:USA]]
[[de:Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika]]