United States of America: Difference between revisions

(110 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 42:

}}</ref>

The United States is unique in having a ~~medical~~ industry that aggressively promotes the practice of medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic, harmful infant [[circumcision]]. The decline of the unnecessary practice has been slowed by continual encouragement and promotion of circumcision by the ~~medical~~ industry. However, the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys ~~is now~~ in decline.

The United States is unique in having a [[circumcision industry]] that aggressively promotes the practice of medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic, harmful, infant [[circumcision]]. The decline of the unnecessary practice has been slowed by payments for unnecessary circumcision by various government heath programs and by continual encouragement and promotion of circumcision by the [[circumcision industry]]. However, the practice of non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of newborn boys has been in gradual decline for several decades.

Despite the financially self-serving promotional efforts of the circumcision industry, the incidence of non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of infant boys was reported to have continued its slow decline to 52.1 percent in 2016.<ref name="jacobson2021">{{REFjournal

Despite the financially self-serving promotional efforts of the [[circumcision industry]], Jacobson et al. (2021) reported the incidence of non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of newborn infant boys was reported to have continued its slow decline to 52.1 percent in 2016.<ref name="jacobson2021">{{REFjournal

|last=Jacobson

|first=Deborah L.

Line 78:

|volume=205

|issue=1

~~|article=~~

|pages=257-63

|url=https://www.auajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1097/JU.0000000000001316

Line 85:

Line 84:

|DOI=10.1097/JU.0000000000001316

|accessdate=2021-10-15

}}</ref> Yang et al. (2025) reported the incidenec of circumcision of the newborn had declined to 49.3 percent in 2022, making non-circumcision or [[intactness]] the new NORM among America's newborn boys. Yang et al. studied a ten-ear period during which the incidence of circumcision declined at a rate of 0.5% per year.<ref name="yang2025">{{REFjournal

|last=Yang

|first=

|init=P

|author-link=

|last2=Zhu

|first2=

|init2=X

|author2-link=

|last3=Patel

|first3=

|init3=EU

|author3-link=

|last4=Quin

|first4=

|init4=PC

|author4-link=

|last5=Grabowski

|first5=

|init5=MK

|author5-link=

|last6=Tobian

|first6=

|init6=AAR

|author6-link=Aaron Tobian

|etal=no

|title=Trends in Circumcision Among Newborn Males in the US

|trans-title=

|language=

|journal=JAMA Pediatrics

|location=

|date=2025-09-15

|season=

|volume=

|issue=

|article=e252464

|page=

|pages=

|url=https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2838312

|archived=

|quote=

|pubmedID=40952753

|pubmedCID=12439174

|DOI=10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.2464

|accessdate=2025-09-17

}}</ref>

The United States is unusual among nations in that osteopathic physicians (DOs) enjoy equal standing with allopathic physicians (MDs)<ref>{{REFweb

|url=https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/ama-press-releases/aoa-and-ama-stand-against-misrepresentation-osteopathic-physicians#:~:text=The%20American%20Osteopathic%20Association%20%28AOA%29%20and%20the%20American,of%20osteopathic%20medicine%20by%20media%2C%20celebrities%20and%20companies.

|title=AOA and AMA stand against misrepresentation of osteopathic physicians

|last=Anonymous

|first=

|init=

|author-link=

|publisher=American Medical Association

|date=2020-11-04

|accessdate=2026-03-22

}}</ref> Osteopathic physicians observe four [[Tenets of Osteopathic Medicine]] in their practice.

==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

Line 105:

Line 162:

One may be certain that the eighteenth century [https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/founding-fathers/ Founding Fathers of the United States] of America were men with [[intact]] [[foreskin]]s as were the [[foreskinned]] men who fought the American Civil War (1861-1865).

Non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of males for non-religious reasons originated with [[Claude François Lallemand]] in 1836 in France but soon spread to the [[United Kingdom]] in the early nineteenth century, from which it eventually spread to other English-speaking nations.

Non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of males for non-religious reasons originated with [[Claude François Lallemand]] in 1836 in France but soon spread to the [[United Kingdom]] in the early nineteenth century, from which it eventually spread to other English-speaking nations.<ref name="hodges1997">[[Frederick M. Hodges| Hodges FM]]. [https://lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/_Textual/GeorgeCDenniston-MarilynFayreMilos-editors_JamesDeMeo_SexualMutilations-AHumanTragedy_1997_235pp/GeorgeCDenniston-MarilynFayreMilos-editors_JamesDeMeo_SexualMutilations-AHumanTragedy_1997_235pp.pdf#page=28 A short history of the institutionalization of involuntary sexual mutilations in the United States]. in: Denniston GC, Milos MF (eds.), Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (New York: Plenum Publishing, 1997), pp. 17-40. (ISBN 0-306-45589-7)</ref>

Edward Dixon (1847) recommended circumcision to prevent the spread of syphilis.<ref name="self2016" />

===Late nineteenth century===

The late nineteenth century was characterized by prominent medical doctors advancing all sorts of absurd reasons for the performance of non-therapeutic circumcision, including the prevention of venereal disease.<ref name="self2016" />

====First quarter====

The late nineteenth century was characterized by prominent medical doctors advancing all sorts of absurd reasons for the performance of non-therapeutic [[circumcision]], including the prevention of venereal disease.<ref name="self2016" />

The first recorded non-religious circumcision of a boy in the United States occurred in 1870 when [[Lewis Albert Sayre]], a prominent New York City doctor, [[circumcised]] a boy of five years of age for paralysis.<ref name="gollaher1994">{{GollaherDL 1994}}</ref> [[Lewis Albert Sayre|Sayre]] then continued to advocate circumcision for numerous reasons until his death in 1900. According to [[Lewis Albert Sayre|Sayre]], circumcision was recommended for paralysis, epilepsy, hernia, lunacy, curvature of the spine, and clubfoot.

[[M. J. Moses]] (1871) advocated [[circumcision]] to prevent [[masturbation]].<ref name="moses1871">{{Moses1871}}</ref>

====Second quarter====

[[H. H. Kane]] (1879) 'discovers' that [[circumcision]] cures nocturnal emissions and abdominal neuralgia.<ref>{{Kane1879}}</ref>

Seventh-day Adventist [[John Harvey Kellogg]], {{MD}}, of Battle Creek, Michigan, was an important 19th century promoter of male circumcision. Although masturbation is never mentioned in the Bible, Dr. Kellogg believed that [[masturbation]] was immoral, sinful, and caused one to dream "impure dreams", which he believed was harmful to the mental faculties, resulting in mental disorders, such as feeblemindness.<ref name="kellogg1888">{{Kellogg1888}}</ref> He believed that the urge to masturbate could be prevented by eating bland foods, for which purpose, he and his brother invented corn flakes.

Seventh-day Adventist [[John Harvey Kellogg]], {{MD}}, of Battle Creek, Michigan, was an important 19th century promoter of male circumcision. Although masturbation is never mentioned in the Bible, Dr. Kellogg believed that [[masturbation]] was immoral, sinful, and caused one to dream "impure dreams", which he believed was harmful to the mental faculties, resulting in mental disorders, such as "feeblemindness".<ref name="kellogg1888">{{Kellogg1888}}</ref> He believed that the urge to masturbate could be prevented by eating bland foods, for which purpose, he and his brother invented corn flakes.<ref name="self2016" />

Dr. Kellogg (1879) also recommended [[circumcision]] in cases "in which irritation is produced by retained secretions".<ref name="kellogg1888"/>

Line 176:

Line 236:

When Remondino discussed the [[foreskin]], he used the most horrific, derogatory, and disparaging language. He devoted thirteen chapters to the alleged evils and faults of the foreskin. It is not clear why he had such an extreme dislike for a natural and functional body part. His recommendation, of course, was for [[Adolescent and adult circumcision| circumcision]].

[[H. L. Rosenberry]], {{MD}}, (1894) published a paper "proving" that circumcision cures urinary and rectal incontinence.<ref name="rosenberry1894">{{Rosenberry1894}}</ref>

[[H. L. Rosenberry]], {{MD}}, (1894) published a paper "proving" that circumcision cures urinary and rectal incontinence.<ref name="self2016" /> <ref name="rosenberry1894">{{Rosenberry1894}}</ref>

Dr. [[E. J. Spratling]] (1895) provided information for other doctors.<ref>{{REFjournal

Dr. [[E. J. Spratling]] (1895) provided information for other doctors.<ref name="self2016" />He gaved a detailed explanation of how a circumcision is to be done so as to make it as difficult as possible to achieve orgasm by [[masturbation]].<ref>{{REFjournal

|last=Spratling

|init=EJ

Line 192:

Line 252:

}}</ref>

By the end of the nineteenth century, America had at least one prominent physician and surgeon on the east coast promoting circumcision and another prominent physician and surgeon on the west coast promoting circumcision. There was no real medical science with which to dispute and discredit their false claims. Non-therapeutic circumcision of males was now well-established in the United States.

By the end of the nineteenth century, America had at least one prominent physician and surgeon on the east coast promoting circumcision and another prominent physician and surgeon on the west coast promoting circumcision. There was no real medical science with which to dispute and discredit their false claims. Non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of males was now well-established in the United States.

===Early twentieth century===

====First quarter====

The early twentieth century is characterized by advocacy of circumcision based on false claims to prevent cancer and sexually transmitted (venereal) disease; and by the involvement of the United States military services in the promotion of circumcision.

[[Ernest G. Mark]] (1901) noted that the "pleasurable sensations that are elicited from the extremely sensitive" [[Ridged band|inner lining]] of the [[foreskin]] may encourage a child to [[Masturbation|masturbate]], which is why he recommended circumcision since it "lessens the sensitiveness of the organ".<ref>{{Mark1901}}</ref>

Brimhall (1902) reported an [[amputation]] of a penis after circumcision.<ref name="brimhall1902">{{REFjournal

Brimhall (1902) reported an [[amputation]] of a [[penis]] after circumcision.<ref name="brimhall1902">{{REFjournal

|last=Brimhall

|init=JB

Line 232:

Line 293:

}}</ref>

[[Abraham L. Wolbarst]], {{MD}}, a Jewish New York doctor, apparently considered [[L. Emmett Holt|Holt]]'s paper to be an attack on ritual circumcision or perhaps Judaism itself. He collected ''opinions'' from other doctors of the alleged value of circumcision for health and published those ''opinions'' as ''scientific fact'' in a 1914 ''JAMA'' article.<ref name="wolbarst1914">{{REFjournal

[[Abraham L. Wolbarst]], {{MD}}, a Jewish New York doctor, apparently considered [[L. Emmett Holt|Holt]]'s paper to be an attack on [[Brit Milah| ritual circumcision]] or perhaps [[Judaism]] itself. He collected ''opinions'' from other doctors of the alleged value of [[circumcision]] for health and published those ''opinions'' as ''scientific fact'' in a 1914 ''JAMA'' article.<ref name="wolbarst1914">{{REFjournal

|last=Wolbarst

|last=Wolbarst entitled ''Universal circumcision as as sanitary measure]].

|first=Abraham L.

|init=AL

Line 245:

Line 306:

|url=https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/453164

|accessdate=2021-10-04

}}</ref> Wolbarst's paper appeared shortly before the start of World War I. It is thought that Wolbarst's false claims inspired some military commanders to require men under their command to be circumcised so as to reduce venereal disease (VD).

}}</ref> Wolbarst's paper appeared shortly before the start of World War I. It is thought that Wolbarst's false claims inspired some military commanders to require men under their command to be [[circumcised]] so as to reduce venereal disease (VD).

M. S. Reuben (1916) (1917) reported additional cases of tuberculosis after ritual circumcision.<ref name="reuben1916">{{REFjournal

Line 279:

Line 340:

}}</ref>

J. Brennermann (1921) reported that [[Meatal stenosis| meatal disease]] occurs only in circumcised boys who lack the protection of the [[foreskin]].<ref name="brennermann2021>{{REFjournal

J. Brennermann (1921) reported that [[Meatal stenosis| meatal disease]] occurs only in [[circumcised]] boys who lack the protection of the [[foreskin]].<ref name="brennermann2021>{{REFjournal

|last=Brennermann

|init=J

Line 295:

Line 356:

|accessdate=2021-10-04

}}</ref>

====Second quarter====

[[Abraham L. Wolbarst|Wolbarst]] (1926) made his claim for the first time that male circumcision prevents [[penile cancer]].<ref name="wolbarst1926!>{{REFjournal

|last=Wolbarst

Line 385:

Line 446:

World War II. America entered the war after the Empire of Japan attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on 7 December 1941. This was followed by Germany declaring war on the United States.

The information on military circumcision in WWII is sketchy and anecdotal. It appears that many [[foreskinned]] American men were encouraged and, in some cases, forced to be circumcised. It seems that the American military's foreskin-phobia and circumcision policy persisted through the Korean War (1950-52) but was discontinued by a change in policy thereafter.

The information on military circumcision in WWII is sketchy and anecdotal. It appears that many [[foreskinned]] American men were encouraged and, in some cases, forced to be [[circumcised]]. It seems that the American military's [[foreskin]]-phobia and circumcision policy persisted through the Korean War (1950-52) but was discontinued by a change in policy thereafter.

The "Sand Myth" circulated among English-speaking armies. According to the [http://www.circumstitions.com/sand.htm Sand Myth], [[foreskinned]] men who fought in the Saharan desert had medical issues due to sand collecting under the [[foreskin]]. [[Intact]] Italian and German men who fought in the same desert had no such problems.<ref>{{REFjournal

Line 410:

Line 471:

[[Abraham Ravich]] (1942) falsely claimed that circumcision prevents [[prostate cancer]].<ref name="ravich1942">{{Ravich1942}}</ref>

'''Post-war era.''' In the post-war era after WWII, the popularity of non-therapeutic circumcision, driven by medical promotion by doctors seeking a nice [[Financial incentive| surgical fee]] as an alleged preventive of penile cancer and by the [[Adamant father syndrome| adamant request of circumcised men home from the war who became fathers]].

'''Post-war era.''' In the post-war era after WWII, the popularity of non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] increased, driven by medical promotion by doctors seeking a nice [[Financial incentive| surgical fee]] as an alleged preventive of penile cancer and by the [Adamant father syndrome| adamant request of circumcised men home from the war who became fathers]].

Non-therapeutic, medically-unnecessary circumcision of boys had become a "routine" surgical operation that usually was performed automatically on newborn boys even without consent from anyone.

Non-therapeutic, medically-unnecessary [[circumcision]] of boys had become a "routine" surgical operation that usually was performed automatically on newborn boys even without consent from anyone.

Laumann et al. (1997) reported an incidence of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys of 85 percent in 1948.<ref name="laumann1997" />

Line 433:

Line 494:

}}</ref>

The publication of a landmark article by [[Douglas Gairdner]] (1949) in the [[United Kingdom]] showing that infant circumcision is non-therapeutic, unnecessary, causes deaths, and which called for preservation of the [[foreskin]]<ref name="gairdner1949">{{GairdnerDM 1949}}</ref> was totally ignored by the circumcision industry in the United States.

The publication of a landmark article by [[Douglas Gairdner]] (1949) in the [[United Kingdom]] showing that infant circumcision is non-therapeutic, unnecessary, causes deaths, and which called for preservation of the [[foreskin]]<ref name="gairdner1949">{{GairdnerDM 1949}}</ref> was totally ignored by the [[circumcision industry]] in the United States.

===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 horribly traumatic experience.

====Third quarter====

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>

Line 481:

Line 543:

}}</ref>

Preston (1970) considered the matter of infant [[circumcision]]. He examined and debunked claims that male circumcision could prevent cancer of the cervix in women, cancer of the penis and cancer of the prostate in men. Preston concluded:

Preston (1970) considered the matter of infant [[circumcision]]. He examined and debunked claims that male circumcision could prevent cancer of the [[cervix]] in women, cancer of the [[penis]] and cancer of the prostate in men. Preston concluded:

<blockquote>Routine circumcision of the newborn is an unnecessary procedure. It provides questionable benefits and is associated with a small but definite incidence of complications and hazards. These risks are preventable if the operation is not performed unless truly medically indicated. Circumcision of the newborn is a procedure that should no longer be considered routine.<ref>{{REFjournal

Line 526:

Line 588:

Laumann et al. reported an incidence of newborn circumcision of 78 percent in 1971.

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:

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:

There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.<ref>{{REFbook

There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.<ref>{{REFbook

|year=1971

|title=Standards and Recommendation for Hospital Care of Newborn infants

Line 539:

Line 601:

}}</ref>

</blockquote>

====Fourth quarter====

The statement in the 1971 manual was good medical science, then and now, but it did not sit well with the membership of the AAP because it provided no basis on which to promote non-therapeutic circumcision for profit. A four-member "ad hoc" task force was formed to produce a new statement to fit the desires of the membership, which was published in ''Pediatrics'' in 1975.<ref name="aap1975">{{REFjournal

The statement in the 1971 manual was good medical science, then and now, but it did not sit well with the membership of the AAP because it provided no basis on which to promote non-therapeutic circumcision for profit. A four-member "ad hoc" task force was formed to produce a new statement to 'walk-back' the earlier statement to fit the desires of the membership, which was published in ''Pediatrics'' in 1975.<ref name="aap1975">{{REFjournal

|last=Thompson

|first=

Line 576:

Line 638:

The statement falsely claimed facilitation of hygiene, prevention of [[phimosis]], and prevention of [[penile cancer]] as reasons that parents may elect non-therapeutic infant circumcision.<ref name="aap1975" />

The statement expressed no concern for the [[pain]] and [[trauma]] of circumcision, nor did it provide information on the functions and value of the [[foreskin]] nor did it recognize the child as a person with domestic and international rights to self-determination and physical integrity. The statement carefully avoided recommending [[circumcision]] and placed the responsibility for the certain [[amputation]] injury on the parents rather than on the attending physician.<ref name="aap1975" />

The statement expressed no concern for the [[pain]] and [[trauma]] of circumcision, nor did it provide information on the functions and value of the [[foreskin]] nor did it recognize the child as a person with domestic and international rights to self-determination and [[physical integrity]]. The statement carefully avoided recommending [[circumcision]] and placed the responsibility for the certain [[amputation]] injury on the parents rather than on the attending physician.<ref name="aap1975" />

The 1975 statement served as the AAP's position statement until 1989.

Line 654:

Line 716:

Grimes concluded:

<blockquote> However, until the benefits of [[routine]] ~~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> However, until the benefits of [[Routine Infant Circumcision| routine 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.

Line 660:

Line 722:

It was at about this time that several small organizations that opposed non-therapeutic circumcision of boys started to appear. They were the first [[intactivists]], although that word had not yet been coined. One such organization was the Remain Intact Organization of Larchwood, Iowa, which was lead by Rev. [[George Zangger| Russell George Zangger]]. From the 1970s to the 1990s Zangger sent out cards with New Testament quotations that said the outward sign of circumcision is of no value. [[Jeffrey R. Wood]] formed [[INTACT Educational Foundation| INTACT]] (Infants Need to Avoid Circumcision [[Trauma]]), founded in 1976 as a local resource serving Western Massachusetts, and "Dedicated to Preserving Freedom of Choice." The organization gained recognition and had members across the nation.

Boczko & Freed (1979) collected cases of [[penile cancer]] in [[~~circucised~~]] men and by so doing, disproved the false belief propagated since 1932 by [[Abraham L. Wolbarst]] that circumcision was protective against penile cancer.<ref name="boczko1979">{{REFjournal

Boczko & Freed (1979) collected cases of [[penile cancer]] in [[circumcised]] men and by so doing, disproved the false belief propagated since 1932 by [[Abraham L. Wolbarst]] that circumcision was protective against penile cancer.<ref name="boczko1979">{{REFjournal

|last=Boczo

|first=Stanley

Line 743:

Line 805:

|accessdate=2021-10-11

}}</ref>

[[BUFF| Brothers United for Future Foreskins]] (1982) revived the practice of [[epispasm]] (non-surgical [[foreskin restoration]]) that had not been praticed since antiquity.

[[Marilyn Fayre Milos]], {{RN}}, while a nursing student at [https://www.mymarinhealth.org/locations/medical-center/ Marin General Hospital], witnessed an unanesthetized circumcision of a newborn boy in 1979. Shocked by the extreme [[pain]] and horror of it, she became an opponent of infant circumcision and was forced to resign in 1985 from her nursing position at Marin General Hospital where infant non-therapeutic circumcision is a profit center and promoted to parents. She immediately created the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers ([[NOCIRC]]) in 1985.

Line 784:

Line 848:

}}</ref>

Anand & Hickey (1987) published a paper in the ''New England Journal of Medicine'' that conclusively proved that newborn infants are capable of feeling [[pain]]. After publication of this landmark paper, no doubt about pain sensation in infants remained. The article stated:

Anand & Hickey (1987) published a paper in the ''New England Journal of Medicine'' that conclusively proved that newborn infants are capable of feeling [[pain]]. After publication of this landmark paper, no doubt about the existence of pain sensation in infants remained. The article stated:

Numerous lines of evidence suggest that even in the human [[fetus]], pain pathways as well as cortical and subcortical centers necessary for pain perception are well developed late in gestation, and the neurochemical systems now known to be associated with pain transmission and modulation are intact and functional. Physiologic responses to painful stimuli have been well documented in neonates of various gestational ages and are reflected in hormonal, metabolic, and cardiorespiratory changes similar to but greater than those observed in adult subjects. Other responses in newborn infants are suggestive of integrated emotional and behavioral responses to pain and are retained in memory long enough to modify subsequent behavior patterns.<ref name="anand1987">{{REFjournal

Line 1,089:

Line 1,153:

===Early twenty-first century===

====First Quarter====

The twenty-first century has been characterized by greater opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys in the general population, the utter failure of the circumcision industry's vaunted new circumcision policy, and much more attention to legal and ethical issues relating to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.

Line 1,157:

Line 1,221:

}}</ref>

Geoffrey P. Miller (2002) discussed the impact of American culture on the law of circumcision.<ref name="miller2002">{{REFjournal

[[Geoffrey P. Miller]] (2002) discussed the impact of American culture on the law of circumcision.<ref name="miller2002">{{REFjournal

|last=Miller

|first=Geoffrey P.

Line 1,213:

Line 1,277:

|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/~~

|url=

|work=Genital Integrity Policy

|editor=

Line 1,230:

Line 1,294:

[[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~~

|url=

|contribution=

|last=Hill

Line 1,241:

Line 1,305:

}}</ref>

[[Georganne Chapin]] founded [[Intact America]] in 2008.

[[Georganne Chapin]] founded [[Intact America]] in 2008 with the aid of a grant from Texas philanthropist Dean Pisani.

[[Robert S. Van Howe|Van Howe]] & Svoboda (2008) said of the American practice of medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic infant circumcision:

Line 1,357:

Line 1,421:

[[Jen Williams]] organized [[Your Whole Baby]] in 2014.

The infamous [[Nebus v. Hironimus]] Florida [[circumcision]] case culminated after five years of litigation with Florida Family Court Judge [[Jeffrey Dana Gillen]] arrested the mother, [[Heather Hironimus]], and forced her to sign a consent for harmful, [[pain| painful]] circumcision in open court while handcuffed.

Heather Hironimus signs consent form for circumcision of 4 and 1/2 year old son under extreme duress

<youtube>Btxl4UGBdpc</youtube>

[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]] commissioned a [https://www,doctorsopposingcircumcision.org new website] in 2016.

Line 1,402:

Line 1,471:

}}</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.

The ill-fated, embarrassing 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.

[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] released a special report on circumcision for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.<ref name="doc2019">{{REFdocument

|title=Male Circumcision: A special report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

|url=https://pool.intactiwiki.org/w/images/Male_Circumcision_DOC_2019-02-01.pdf

|contribution=

|last=Anonymous

|first=

|publisher=Doctors Opposing Circumcision

|format=PDF

|date=2019-02-01

|accessdate=2025-12-08

}}</ref>

[[Dan Bollinger|Bollinger]] (2019) discussed circumcision as an adverse childhood experience,<ref name-"bollinger2019">{{REFdocument

Line 1,550:

Line 1,631:

}}</ref> Infant circumcision is a profit center for many American hospitals so parents are pushed to circumcise.

==~~Government financial support for non~~-~~therapeutic circumcision~~==

[[Intact America]] (2024) called child circumcision "an outdated practice in desperate need of reevaluation",<ref name="alissa2024-12-16">{{REFweb

~~The United States government provides [[financial incentive]] for medically~~-~~unnecessary, non~~-~~therapeutic [[~~circumcision~~]] by [[third~~-~~party payment]] through numerous government health insurance programs~~:

|url=https://intactamerica.org/circumcision-reevaluation/

|title=Circumcision: An Outdated Practice in Desperate Need of Re-Evaluation

|last=Alissa

|first=Kristel

|init=

|author-link=

|publisher=Intact America

|date=2024-12-16

|accessdate=2024-12-23

}}</ref> and exposed the propaganda that has promoted the harmful but profitable practice of child circumcision.<ref>{{REFweb

|url=https://intactamerica.org/exposing-circumcision-propaganda/

|title=The Unkindest Cut: Exposing the Propaganda That Normalized Circumcision—and How We Reclaim the Truth

|last=Alissa

|first=Kristel

|init=

|author-link=

|publisher=Intact America

|date=2024-11-19

|accessdate=2024-12-23

}}</ref>

* [~~https://www.medicaid.gov/ Medicaid~~] ~~— About 45 percent~~ of ~~births are under Medicaid~~.

[[Intact America]] (2024) reports a rapid increase in the percentage of Americans who oppose the harmful [[circumcision]] of boys.<ref>{{REFweb

* [https://www.~~healthcare~~.~~gov~~/~~medicaid-chip~~/~~childrens-health-insurance-program~~/ ~~Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP)] — Covers children whose family income is higher~~.

|url=https://www.instagram.com/p/DKVZQGTRl77/?igsh=MWV1aW90MzBpd2dzdA%3D%3D

* [https://www.ihs.gov/ Indian Health Service] — Covers the indigenous population.

|title=Opposition to circumcision overtime.

* [https://www.tricare.mil/ Tricare] — Covers military dependents.

|last=Anonymous

* [https://www.benefits.gov/benefit/4440 Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program] — Covers federal employees and families.

|first=

* [https://www.medicare.gov/ ~~Medicare] − Covers persons who have reached 65 years of age.~~

|init=

|author-link=

|publisher=Intact America

|date=2024

|accessdate=2025-06-01

}}</ref>

== ~~Some statistical data ==~~

====Second quarter====

=== ~~Prevalence of circumcision~~ ===

[[PEPFAR]] (2025) has scrapped its ineffective and harmful "voluntary male medical circumcision" ([[VMMC]]) program after 15 years and at least 27,000,000 harmful and useless [[foreskin]] amputations.<ref name="gwarisa2025">{{REFnews

~~Peter Moore~~ (~~2015~~) ~~reported that 62 percent of all American males reported being~~ [[~~circumcised~~]],<ref name="~~moore2015~~">{{~~REFweb~~

|title=New PEPFAR Waiver Scraps Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision Program

|url=https://~~today~~.~~yougov~~.~~com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports~~/~~2015~~/02/03/~~younger~~-~~americans~~-circumcision

|url=https://healthtimes.co.zw/2025/02/07/new-pepfar-waiver-scraps-voluntary-medical-male-circumcision-program/

|~~title~~=~~Young Americans less supportive of circumcision at birth~~

|last=Gwarisa

|~~last~~=~~Moore~~

|first=Michael

|~~first~~=~~Peter~~

|init=

|date=~~2015~~-02-03

|author-link=

|accessdate=~~2022~~-02-07

|publisher=Healthtimes

}}</ref> ~~which increases the prevalence of~~ [[~~intact]] [[foreskin~~]] ~~to 38 percent of living American males of all ages. This percentage~~ is ~~expected to gradually but constantly decline, while the percentage of males who are~~ [[~~intact~~]] ~~due to the declining incidence of newborn boys receiving medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic~~ [[~~circumcision~~]] ~~is expected to increase~~. ~~The percentage of males with~~ [[~~intact]] [[foreskin~~]] ~~is lowest with senior citizens and highest in the youngest age groups~~.

|website=

|date=2025-02-07

|accessdate=2025-02-15

|format=

|quote=

}}</ref> Numerous studies have demonstrated that [[adult circumcision]] is not effective in preventing [[HIV]] [[infection]]. Child [[circumcision]] had previously been discontinued.

~~=== Incidence of~~ circumcision ~~===~~

[[Intact America]] (2024) is tracking the opposition to [[circumcision]] in the [[United States]]. It reports [https://www.instagram.com/p/DKVZQGTRl77/ steadily increasing opposition] to [[child circumcision]].

~~===Long-term declining trend===~~

~~The incidence of non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision hit its peak at 85-90 percent~~ in ~~1980~~. It ~~has been slowly declining ever since~~.

~~Peter Moore (2015) reported that~~ the ~~incidence~~ of ~~circumcision~~ was ~~55 percent~~.~~<ref name="moore2015"/>~~

President Donald J. Trump appointment of [[Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr.]] to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services was approved by the United States Senate was ratified by the United States Senate on 13 February 2025. Kennedy wants to reform healthcare in the United States.

~~Jacobson et al. (2021) collected circumcision statistics from the Kids' Inpatient Database from 2002 to 2016. They reported that the incidence of non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision~~ has ~~"decreased significantly over time" with 55 percent being circumcised, which translates to a~~ [[~~genital integrity~~]] ~~(intact) rate of 45 percent. The previous intact rate for the nation had been reported to be 41.7 percent~~ in ~~2010~~, ~~so this represents an improvement~~ of ~~7.9 percent~~ in the ~~number~~ of ~~intact boys. The incidence of circumcision for~~ the ~~entire United States had declined to 52~~.~~1 percent at~~ the ~~end~~ of ~~the study period (2016), which indicates that 47.9 percent of boys born~~ in ~~that year are [[intact]]~~.~~<ref name="jacobson2021" />~~

[[Eric Clopper]] has organized [[Intact Global]] in 2024, which has the goal of litigating in numerous states to ensure that boys will enjoy "the equal protection of the law". Intact Global instituted a suit against the state of Oregon in March 2025.

~~===Midwest===~~

Data Panda has reported the incidence of non-therapeutic circumcision by state on 24 May 2025. The incidence ranged from a low of 10 percent in Washington to a high of 91 percent in West Virginia.<ref>{{REFweb

~~The Midwest~~ has ~~been called~~ the ~~'circumcision capital of America" because of its higher rates~~ of circumcision. ~~Nevertheless, the popularity~~ of ~~circumcision is declining even~~ in ~~the Midwest~~.

|url=https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/circumcision-rate-by-state

|title=Circumcision Rate by State

|last=Anonymous

|first=

|init=

|author-link=

|publisher=Data Panda

|date=2025-05-24

|accessdate=2025-09-19

}}</ref>

~~In the Midwest, the incidence of~~ [[~~circumcision~~]] ~~had 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.~~

[[Jake Tran]] has produced a [[This should be a crime| video]] about the practice of [[child circumcision]] in the United States.

~~===Change in popularity===~~

The popularity of non-circumcision of boys has increased to the point that non-circumcision has become the NORM in many sections of the United States. if long-term trends have continued, it is possible that non-circumcision or "intactness" has become the NORM in the United States.

==~~Parity~~==

In a milestone for [[intactivism]], Microsoft Network (MSN) reported that the incidence of [[child circumcision]] in the United States has declined below 50 percent, which makes non-circumcision or [[genital integrity]] the new NORM in the United States among newborn boys.<ref name="msn2025">{{REFnews

|title=Less Than Half of U.S. Boys Now Circumcised

|url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/less-than-half-of-us-boys-now-circumcised/ar-AA1MBjzN

|last=Anonymous

|publisher=Microsoft Network

|website=

|date=2025-09-17

|accessdate=2025-09-29

|quote=From 2012 to 2022, the prevalence of circumcision during hospitalization of male neonates age 0 to 28 days decreased significantly by nearly 5 percentage points, from 54.1% to 49.3%,

}}</ref>

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" /> ~~A state of parity has now been reached where the~~ percentage of [[intact]] boys ~~is about equal to~~ the percentage of [[circumcised]] boys.

==Government financial support for non-therapeutic circumcision==

The United States government provides [[financial incentive]] for medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] by [[third-party payment]] through numerous government health insurance programs:

As the present trend continues, ~~it is expected that being~~ [[~~intact~~]] ~~will shortly become~~ the more usual, normal condition ~~for young~~ boys in America, if it ~~has not already done so~~.

* [https://www.medicaid.gov/ Medicaid] — About 45 percent of births are under Medicaid.

==American [[genital integrity]] organizations==

* [https://www.healthcare.gov/medicaid-chip/childrens-health-insurance-program/ Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP)] — Covers children whose family income is higher.

* [https://www.ihs.gov/ Indian Health Service] — Covers the indigenous population.

The United States of America now have numerous [[genital integrity]] ([[intactivist]]) organizations working to promote and encourage the protection of the [[physical integrity]] of American boys.

* [https://www.tricare.mil/ Tricare] — Covers military dependents.

* [https://www.benefits.gov/benefit/4440 Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program] — Covers federal employees and families.

* [https://www.medicare.gov/ Medicare] − Covers persons who have reached 65 years of age.

* [[Financial incentive]]

* [[Intact-friendly]]

==The second term of President Donald J. Trump==

The second term of President Donald J. Trump commenced on 21 January 2025. President Trump has promised far-reaching reforms of the executive branch of the government of the United States. It is not clear at this time (9 February 2025) how this will affect the practice of male [[circumcision]] in the United States. We note that the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief ([[PEPFAR]]) has been paused. The performance of ineffective [[genital mutilation]] (male circumcision) on African males may have stopped.<ref>{{REFnews

|title=Trump's Foreign Aid Freeze

These documents by [[Dan Bollinger]] are included here because they contain significant information about the United States:

|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-rubio-pepfar-prep-usaid_n_67a65f98e4b0682fe26ceb1f

|last=Cohn

|first=Jonathan

|init=

|author-link=

|last2=

|init2=

|author2-link=

|publisher=Huffpost

|website=

|date=2025-02-07

|season=

|accessdate=2025-02-09

|format=

|quote=

}}</ref>

== Statistical data ==

The National Center for Health Statistics (2013) reported that the incidence of child [[circumcision]] has been declining for thirty years.<ref>{{REFweb

|url=https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs/2013/08/22/1667/

|title=Male Newborn Circumcision on a Three Decade Decline

|last=

|first=

|init=

|author-link=

|publisher=National Center for Health Statistics

|date=2013-08-22

|accessdate=2025-01-19

}}</ref>

=== Prevalence of circumcision ===

'''Prevalence of circumcision''' is the percentage of all males of all ages in the population who have been [[circumcised]].

[[Intact America]] carried out a survey in 2022 that claims that 73 percent of all American men were [[circumcised]],<ref>{{REFweb

|url=https://www.intactamerica.org/newsroom-gender-equality/

|title=Intact Facts

|last=

|first=

|init=

|publisher=Intact America

|date=2022

|accessdate=2023-03-29

}}</ref> however no documentation has been provided so it is not clear in what region it was carried out or what age groups were surveyed. The prevalence of [[circumcision]] varies by age, region, race, and religion. On another webpage, [[Intact America]] claims 78 percent are circumcised so Intact America is uncertain of its claims.

Peter Moore (2015) reported that 62 percent of all American males reported being [[circumcised]],<ref name="moore2015">{{REFweb

|url=https://today.yougov.com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2015/02/03/younger-americans-circumcision

|title=Young Americans less supportive of circumcision at birth

|last=Moore

|first=Peter

|date=2015-02-03

|accessdate=2022-02-07

}}</ref> which increases the prevalence of [[intact]] [[foreskin]] to 38 percent of living American males of all ages. This percentage is expected to gradually but constantly decline, while the percentage of males who are [[intact]] due to the declining incidence of newborn boys receiving medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] is expected to increase. The percentage of males with [[intact]] [[foreskin]] is lowest with senior citizens and highest in the youngest age groups.

=== Incidence of circumcision ===

'''Incidence of circumcision''' is the percentage of newborn boys who currently are being [[circumcised]].

====Long-term declining trend====

The incidence of non-therapeutic neonatal [[circumcision]] hit its peak at 85-90 percent in 1965.<ref name="laumann1997" /> It has been slowly declining ever since.

Peter Moore (2015) reported that the incidence of circumcision was 55 percent.<ref name="moore2015"/>

Jacobsen et al. (2021) used data from 2003 through 2016 from the Kid's Inpatient Database of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to compare [[intact]] with [[circumcised]] boys in the first 28 days of life. The authors reported a gradual declining trend in the incidence of neonatal non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] throughout the study period. The overall incidence of circumcision decreased from 57.4 percent in 2003 to 52.1 percent in 2016 over the 13 year study period or 5.3 percentage points for an average decrease of 0.4 percentage point per year. The authors noted "neonatal circumcision rates decreased significantly over time."<ref name="jacobson2021" />

There was significant variation in the incidence of circumcision by region with the Midwest reporting an incidence of 75 percent (three out of four) for the period, while boys in the West were most likely to preserve their [[foreskin]] as the West reported an incidence of only 25.9 percent or about 1 boy in 4 being [[circumcised]].<ref name="jacobson2021" />

One should also note that the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] [[medical trade association]] vacated its fraudulent 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement by allowing it to expire in 2017 without being re-affirmed.

[https://150.jhu.edu/ Johns Hopkins University] and the Jewish-funded [https://publichealth.jhu.edu/ Bloomberg School of Public Health] have long been outlier advocates of male [[circumcision]]. However, they (2025) are now reporting that the incidence of circumcision has declined "significantly" between 2012 and 2022. The overall decline was from 54.1% to 49.3% — a decline of 4.8 percentage points or 0.048 precentage points per year. The 4.8 percentage point represents a decline of 8.8 percent (4.8/54.1 = 8.8%)<ref name="yang2025" /> Although the incidence of [[circumcision of the newborn]] has been gradually declining for decades, this is the first study to report an overall incidence of less than fifty percent. Based on this new information, we can now report that [[intactness]] is now the NORM among the newborn boys of America. We note that [[Australia]] reported a significant improvement in child health when the incidence of circumcision declined in that nation.<ref>{{REFweb

|url=https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/australias-children-in-brief/summary

|title=Australia’s children: in brief

|last=Anonymous

|first=

|init=

|author-link=

|publisher=Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

|pubmedID=

ISBN=978-1-76054-659-5

|DOI=10.25816/5e152818d082c

|date=2019-12-17

|accessdate=2025-09-17

}}</ref> Any circumcisions performed after the newborn period would not be captured by these statistics.

====Midwest====

The Midwest has been called the 'circumcision capital of America' because of its higher rates of circumcision. Nevertheless, the popularity of circumcision is declining even in the Midwest.

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.

=== 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

|date=2023-12-21

|accessdate=2024-05-15

}}</ref> but that era has ended.

[[Intact America]] called attention to the existence of a "tipping point",<ref>{{REFbook

|last=Gladwell

|first=Malcomb

|init=

|year=2002

|title=The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference

|url=https://www.amazon.com/Tipping-Point-Little-Things-Difference/dp/0316346624?s=books

|scope=

|location=

|publisher=Back Bay Books

|pages=301

|ISBN=SBN-10 0316346624

|accessdate=2025-12-01

}}</ref> when public opinion would shift toward [[intactness]] in 2016.<ref>{{REFweb

|url=https://intactamerica.org/do-you-know-about-the-tipping-point/

|title=Do You Know: About the “Tipping Point?

|last=Chapin

|first=Georganne

|init=

|author-link=Georganne Chapin

|publisher=Intact America

|date=2016-11-01

|accessdate=2024-06-03

}}</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 but progressively 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 has exceeded the percentage of [[circumcised]] newborn boys since 2022.<ref name="yang2025" />

As the present trend continues, [[intactness]] is becoming the more usual, normal, and expected condition among newborn infant boys in America. The incidence of [[circumcision]] varies geographically so some locations will report higher percentages [[circumcised]].

==Forecast future incidence of child circumcision==

The incidence of harmful, unnecessary, nontherapeutic [[circumcision]] of newborn boys declines at the rate of 0.5 of one percentage point per year or one percentage point every two years.<ref name="yang2025" />

Based on this historical rate of decline and assuming that it continues, we can forecast the future incidence of harmful [[child circumcision]] in the United States to be:

* 2023: 49.2%

* 2024: 48.7%

* 2025: 48.2%

* 2026: 47.7%

* 2027: 47.2%

* 2028: 46.7%

* 2029: 46.2%

* 2030: 45.7%

==American [[genital integrity]] organizations==

The United States of America now have numerous [[genital integrity]] ([[intactivist]]) organizations working to promote and encourage the protection of the [[physical integrity]] of American boys.

* [[Financial incentive]]

* [[Intact-friendly]]

* [https://en.intactiwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page Home page]

* [[Living with a foreskin in circumcised America]]

* {{URLwikipedia|United_States|United States}}

* {{REFweb

|url=https://www.cirp.org/library/legal/USA/

|title=Legality of Circumcision: The United States of America

|last=Hill

|first=George

|init=

|publisher=Circumcision Reference Library

|date=2013-07-31

|accessdate=2023-08-26

}}

These documents by [[Dan Bollinger]] are included here because they contain significant information about the United States:

* {{REFweb

|url=https://www.academia.edu/23494197/Infant_Male_Genital_Cutting_Incidence_Worldwide

|title=Infant Male Genital Cutting Incidence Worldwide

|last=Bollinger

|first=Dan

|author-link=Dan Bollinger

|publisher=Academia

|date=2017-05-19

|accessdate=2021-10-21

|format=PDF

}}

* {{REFjournal

|last=Bollinger

|init=D

|author-link=Dan Bollinger

|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321837170_Origins_of_the_Intactivist_Movement_A_Masculine_Foundation

|title=Origins of the intactivist movement: A masculine foundation

|journal=

|date=2017-11-17

|accessdate=2021-10-14

}}

* {{REFweb

|url=https://~~www~~.~~academia.edu~~/~~23494197~~/~~Infant_Male_Genital_Cutting_Incidence_Worldwide~~

|url=https://intactamerica.org/circumcision-rates/

|title=~~Infant Male Genital Cutting Incidence Worldwide~~

|title=Circumcision Rates by Country: Why America Is the Outlier

|last=~~Bollinger~~

|last=Alissa

|first=~~Dan~~

|first=Kristel

~~|author-link=Dan Bollinger~~

|init=

~~|publisher=Academia~~

|author-link=Kristel Alissa

~~|date=2017-05-19~~

|publisher=Intact America

~~|accessdate=2021-10-21~~

|date=2025-07-03

~~|format=PDF~~

|accessdate=2025-8-03

}}

* {{REFjournal

~~|last=Bollinger~~

|init=D

|author-link=~~Dan Bollinger~~

|~~url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321837170_Origins_of_the_Intactivist_Movement_A_Masculine_Foundation~~

~~|title=Origins of the intactivist movement: A masculine foundation~~

~~|journal~~=

|date=~~2017~~-11-17

|accessdate=~~2021~~-10-14

}}

[[Category:BSM]]

[[Category:~~USA~~]]

[[Category:English-speaking nation]]

[[Category:Circumcision]]

[[Category:Country]]

[[Category:Male circumcision]]

[[Category:History]]

[[Category:USA]]

[[de:Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika]]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 }}</ref>
-The United States is unique in having a medical industry that aggressively promotes the practice of medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic, harmful infant [[circumcision]]. The decline of the unnecessary practice has been slowed by continual encouragement and promotion of circumcision by the medical industry.  However, the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys is now in decline.
+The United States is unique in having a [[circumcision industry]] that aggressively promotes the practice of medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic, harmful, infant [[circumcision]]. The decline of the unnecessary practice has been slowed by payments for unnecessary circumcision by various government heath programs and by continual encouragement and promotion of circumcision by the [[circumcision industry]].  However, the practice of non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of newborn boys has been in gradual decline for several decades.
-Despite the financially self-serving promotional efforts of the circumcision industry, the incidence of non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of infant boys was reported to have continued its slow decline to 52.1 percent in 2016.<ref name="jacobson2021">{{REFjournal
+Despite the financially self-serving promotional efforts of the [[circumcision industry]], Jacobson et al. (2021) reported the incidence of non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of newborn infant boys was reported to have continued its slow decline to 52.1 percent in 2016.<ref name="jacobson2021">{{REFjournal
   |last=Jacobson
   |first=Deborah L.
@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
   |volume=205
   |issue=1
- |article=
   |pages=257-63
   |url=https://www.auajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1097/JU.0000000000001316
@@ Line 85: / Line 84: @@
   |DOI=10.1097/JU.0000000000001316
   |accessdate=2021-10-15
+}}</ref> Yang et al. (2025) reported the incidenec of circumcision of the newborn had declined to 49.3 percent in 2022, making non-circumcision or [[intactness]] the new NORM among America's newborn boys. Yang et al. studied a ten-ear period during which the incidence of circumcision declined at a rate of 0.5% per year.<ref name="yang2025">{{REFjournal
+ |last=Yang
+ |first=
+ |init=P
+ |author-link=
+ |last2=Zhu
+ |first2=
+ |init2=X
+ |author2-link=
+ |last3=Patel
+ |first3=
+ |init3=EU
+ |author3-link=
+ |last4=Quin
+ |first4=
+ |init4=PC
+ |author4-link=
+ |last5=Grabowski
+ |first5=
+ |init5=MK
+ |author5-link=
+ |last6=Tobian
+ |first6=
+ |init6=AAR
+ |author6-link=Aaron Tobian
+ |etal=no
+ |title=Trends in Circumcision Among Newborn Males in the US
+ |trans-title=
+ |language=
+ |journal=JAMA Pediatrics
+ |location=
+ |date=2025-09-15
+ |season=
+ |volume=
+ |issue=
+ |article=e252464
+ |page=
+ |pages=
+ |url=https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2838312
+ |archived=
+ |quote=
+ |pubmedID=40952753
+ |pubmedCID=12439174
+ |DOI=10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.2464
+ |accessdate=2025-09-17
 }}</ref>
+The United States is unusual among nations in that osteopathic physicians (DOs) enjoy equal standing with allopathic physicians (MDs)<ref>{{REFweb
+ |url=https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/ama-press-releases/aoa-and-ama-stand-against-misrepresentation-osteopathic-physicians#:~:text=The%20American%20Osteopathic%20Association%20%28AOA%29%20and%20the%20American,of%20osteopathic%20medicine%20by%20media%2C%20celebrities%20and%20companies.
+ |title=AOA and AMA stand against misrepresentation of osteopathic physicians
+ |last=Anonymous
+ |first=
+ |init=
+ |author-link=
+ |publisher=American Medical Association
+ |date=2020-11-04
+ |accessdate=2026-03-22
+}}</ref> Osteopathic physicians observe four [[Tenets of Osteopathic Medicine]] in their practice.
 ==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
@@ Line 105: / Line 162: @@
 One may be certain that the eighteenth century [https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/founding-fathers/ Founding Fathers of the United States] of America were men with [[intact]] [[foreskin]]s as were the [[foreskinned]] men who fought the American Civil War (1861-1865).
-Non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of males for non-religious reasons originated with [[Claude François Lallemand]] in 1836 in France but soon spread to the [[United Kingdom]] in the early nineteenth century, from which it eventually spread to other English-speaking nations.
+Non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of males for non-religious reasons originated with [[Claude François Lallemand]] in 1836 in France but soon spread to the [[United Kingdom]] in the early nineteenth century, from which it eventually spread to other English-speaking nations.<ref name="hodges1997">[[Frederick M. Hodges| Hodges FM]]. [https://lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/_Textual/GeorgeCDenniston-MarilynFayreMilos-editors_JamesDeMeo_SexualMutilations-AHumanTragedy_1997_235pp/GeorgeCDenniston-MarilynFayreMilos-editors_JamesDeMeo_SexualMutilations-AHumanTragedy_1997_235pp.pdf#page=28 A short history of the institutionalization of involuntary sexual mutilations in the United States]. in: Denniston GC, Milos MF (eds.), Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (New York: Plenum Publishing, 1997), pp. 17-40. (ISBN 0-306-45589-7)</ref>
+Edward Dixon (1847) recommended circumcision to prevent the spread of syphilis.<ref name="self2016" />
 ===Late nineteenth century===
-The late nineteenth century was characterized by prominent medical doctors advancing all sorts of absurd reasons for the performance of non-therapeutic circumcision, including the prevention of venereal disease.<ref name="self2016" />
+====First quarter====
+The late nineteenth century was characterized by prominent medical doctors advancing all sorts of absurd reasons for the performance of non-therapeutic [[circumcision]], including the prevention of venereal disease.<ref name="self2016" />
 The first recorded non-religious circumcision of a boy in the United States occurred in 1870 when [[Lewis Albert Sayre]], a prominent New York City doctor, [[circumcised]] a boy of five years of age for paralysis.<ref name="gollaher1994">{{GollaherDL 1994}}</ref> [[Lewis Albert Sayre|Sayre]] then continued to advocate circumcision for numerous reasons until his death in 1900. According to [[Lewis Albert Sayre|Sayre]], circumcision was recommended for paralysis, epilepsy, hernia, lunacy, curvature of the spine, and clubfoot.
 [[M. J. Moses]] (1871) advocated [[circumcision]] to prevent [[masturbation]].<ref name="moses1871">{{Moses1871}}</ref>
+====Second quarter====
 [[H. H. Kane]] (1879) 'discovers' that [[circumcision]] cures nocturnal emissions and abdominal neuralgia.<ref>{{Kane1879}}</ref>
-Seventh-day Adventist [[John Harvey Kellogg]], {{MD}}, of Battle Creek, Michigan, was an important 19th century promoter of male circumcision. Although masturbation is never mentioned in the Bible, Dr. Kellogg believed that [[masturbation]] was immoral, sinful, and caused one to dream "impure dreams", which he believed was harmful to the mental faculties, resulting in mental disorders, such as feeblemindness.<ref name="kellogg1888">{{Kellogg1888}}</ref> He believed that the urge to masturbate could be prevented by eating bland foods, for which purpose, he and his brother invented corn flakes.
+Seventh-day Adventist [[John Harvey Kellogg]], {{MD}}, of Battle Creek, Michigan, was an important 19th century promoter of male circumcision. Although masturbation is never mentioned in the Bible, Dr. Kellogg believed that [[masturbation]] was immoral, sinful, and caused one to dream "impure dreams", which he believed was harmful to the mental faculties, resulting in mental disorders, such as "feeblemindness".<ref name="kellogg1888">{{Kellogg1888}}</ref> He believed that the urge to masturbate could be prevented by eating bland foods, for which purpose, he and his brother invented corn flakes.<ref name="self2016" />
 Dr. Kellogg (1879) also recommended [[circumcision]] in cases "in which irritation is produced by retained secretions".<ref name="kellogg1888"/>
@@ Line 176: / Line 236: @@
 When Remondino discussed the [[foreskin]], he used the most horrific, derogatory, and disparaging language. He devoted thirteen chapters to the alleged evils and faults of the foreskin. It is not clear why he had such an extreme dislike for a natural and functional body part. His recommendation, of course, was for [[Adolescent and adult circumcision| circumcision]].
-[[H. L. Rosenberry]], {{MD}}, (1894) published a paper "proving" that circumcision cures urinary and rectal incontinence.<ref name="rosenberry1894">{{Rosenberry1894}}</ref>
+[[H. L. Rosenberry]], {{MD}}, (1894) published a paper "proving" that circumcision cures urinary and rectal incontinence.<ref name="self2016" /> <ref name="rosenberry1894">{{Rosenberry1894}}</ref>
-Dr. [[E. J. Spratling]] (1895) provided information for other doctors.<ref>{{REFjournal
+Dr. [[E. J. Spratling]] (1895) provided information for other doctors.<ref name="self2016" />He gaved a detailed explanation of how a circumcision is to be done so as to make it as difficult as possible to achieve orgasm by [[masturbation]].<ref>{{REFjournal
   |last=Spratling
   |init=EJ
@@ Line 192: / Line 252: @@
 }}</ref>
-By the end of the nineteenth century, America had at least one prominent physician and surgeon on the east coast promoting circumcision and another prominent physician and surgeon on the west coast promoting circumcision. There was no real medical science with which to dispute and discredit their false claims. Non-therapeutic circumcision of males was now well-established in the United States.
+By the end of the nineteenth century, America had at least one prominent physician and surgeon on the east coast promoting circumcision and another prominent physician and surgeon on the west coast promoting circumcision. There was no real medical science with which to dispute and discredit their false claims. Non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of males was now well-established in the United States.
 ===Early twentieth century===
+====First quarter====
 The early twentieth century is characterized by advocacy of circumcision based on false claims to prevent cancer and sexually transmitted (venereal) disease; and by the involvement of the United States military services in the promotion of circumcision.
 [[Ernest G. Mark]] (1901) noted that the "pleasurable sensations that are elicited from the extremely sensitive" [[Ridged band|inner lining]] of the [[foreskin]] may encourage a child to [[Masturbation|masturbate]], which is why he recommended circumcision since it "lessens the sensitiveness of the organ".<ref>{{Mark1901}}</ref>
-Brimhall (1902) reported an [[amputation]] of a penis after circumcision.<ref name="brimhall1902">{{REFjournal
+Brimhall (1902) reported an [[amputation]] of a [[penis]] after circumcision.<ref name="brimhall1902">{{REFjournal
   |last=Brimhall
   |init=JB
@@ Line 232: / Line 293: @@
 }}</ref>
-[[Abraham L. Wolbarst]], {{MD}}, a Jewish New York doctor, apparently considered [[L. Emmett Holt|Holt]]'s paper to be an attack on ritual circumcision or perhaps Judaism itself. He collected ''opinions'' from other doctors of the alleged value of circumcision for health and published those ''opinions'' as ''scientific fact'' in a 1914 ''JAMA'' article.<ref name="wolbarst1914">{{REFjournal
+[[Abraham L. Wolbarst]], {{MD}}, a Jewish New York doctor, apparently considered [[L. Emmett Holt|Holt]]'s paper to be an attack on [[Brit Milah| ritual circumcision]] or perhaps [[Judaism]] itself. He collected ''opinions'' from other doctors of the alleged value of [[circumcision]] for health and published those ''opinions'' as ''scientific fact'' in a 1914 ''JAMA'' article.<ref name="wolbarst1914">{{REFjournal
-  |last=Wolbarst
+  |last=Wolbarst entitled ''Universal circumcision as as sanitary measure]].
   |first=Abraham L.
   |init=AL
@@ Line 245: / Line 306: @@
   |url=https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/453164
   |accessdate=2021-10-04
-}}</ref> Wolbarst's paper appeared shortly before the start of World War I.  It is thought that Wolbarst's false claims inspired some military commanders to require men under their command to be circumcised so as to reduce venereal disease (VD).
+}}</ref> Wolbarst's paper appeared shortly before the start of World War I.  It is thought that Wolbarst's false claims inspired some military commanders to require men under their command to be [[circumcised]] so as to reduce venereal disease (VD).
 M. S. Reuben (1916) (1917) reported additional cases of tuberculosis after ritual circumcision.<ref name="reuben1916">{{REFjournal
@@ Line 279: / Line 340: @@
 }}</ref>
-J. Brennermann (1921) reported that [[Meatal stenosis| meatal disease]] occurs only in circumcised boys who lack the protection of the [[foreskin]].<ref name="brennermann2021>{{REFjournal
+J. Brennermann (1921) reported that [[Meatal stenosis| meatal disease]] occurs only in [[circumcised]] boys who lack the protection of the [[foreskin]].<ref name="brennermann2021>{{REFjournal
   |last=Brennermann
   |init=J
@@ Line 295: / Line 356: @@
   |accessdate=2021-10-04
 }}</ref>
+====Second quarter====
 [[Abraham L. Wolbarst|Wolbarst]] (1926) made his claim for the first time that male circumcision prevents [[penile cancer]].<ref name="wolbarst1926!>{{REFjournal
   |last=Wolbarst
@@ Line 385: / Line 446: @@
 <b>World War II.</b> America entered the war after the Empire of Japan attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on 7 December 1941. This was followed by Germany declaring war on the United States.
-The information on military circumcision in WWII is sketchy and anecdotal. It appears that many [[foreskinned]] American men were encouraged and, in some cases, forced to be circumcised. It seems that the American military's foreskin-phobia and circumcision policy persisted through the Korean War (1950-52) but was discontinued by a change in policy thereafter.
+The information on military circumcision in WWII is sketchy and anecdotal. It appears that many [[foreskinned]] American men were encouraged and, in some cases, forced to be [[circumcised]]. It seems that the American military's [[foreskin]]-phobia and circumcision policy persisted through the Korean War (1950-52) but was discontinued by a change in policy thereafter.
 The "Sand Myth" circulated among English-speaking armies. According to the [http://www.circumstitions.com/sand.htm Sand Myth], [[foreskinned]] men who fought in the Saharan desert had medical issues due to sand collecting under the [[foreskin]]. [[Intact]] Italian and German men who fought in the same desert had no such problems.<ref>{{REFjournal
@@ Line 410: / Line 471: @@
 [[Abraham Ravich]] (1942) falsely claimed that circumcision prevents [[prostate cancer]].<ref name="ravich1942">{{Ravich1942}}</ref>
-'''Post-war era.''' In the post-war era after WWII, the popularity of non-therapeutic circumcision, driven by medical promotion by doctors seeking a nice [[Financial incentive| surgical fee]] as an alleged preventive of penile cancer and by the [[Adamant father syndrome| adamant request of circumcised men home from the war who became fathers]].
+'''Post-war era.''' In the post-war era after WWII, the popularity of non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] increased, driven by medical promotion by doctors seeking a nice [[Financial incentive| surgical fee]] as an alleged preventive of penile cancer and by the [Adamant father syndrome| adamant request of circumcised men home from the war who became fathers]].
-Non-therapeutic, medically-unnecessary circumcision of boys had become a "routine" surgical operation that usually was performed automatically on newborn boys even without consent from anyone.
+Non-therapeutic, medically-unnecessary [[circumcision]] of boys had become a "routine" surgical operation that usually was performed automatically on newborn boys even without consent from anyone.
 Laumann et al. (1997) reported an incidence of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys of 85 percent in 1948.<ref name="laumann1997" />
@@ Line 433: / Line 494: @@
 }}</ref>
-The publication of a landmark article by [[Douglas Gairdner]] (1949) in the [[United Kingdom]] showing that infant circumcision is non-therapeutic, unnecessary, causes deaths, and which called for preservation of the [[foreskin]]<ref name="gairdner1949">{{GairdnerDM 1949}}</ref> was totally ignored by the circumcision industry in the United States.
+The publication of a landmark article by [[Douglas Gairdner]] (1949) in the [[United Kingdom]] showing that infant circumcision is non-therapeutic, unnecessary, causes deaths, and which called for preservation of the [[foreskin]]<ref name="gairdner1949">{{GairdnerDM 1949}}</ref> was totally ignored by the [[circumcision industry]] in the United States.
 ===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 horribly traumatic experience.
+====Third quarter====
+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>
@@ Line 481: / Line 543: @@
 }}</ref>
-Preston (1970) considered the matter of infant [[circumcision]]. He examined and debunked claims that male circumcision could prevent cancer of the cervix in women, cancer of the penis and cancer of the prostate in men. Preston concluded:
+Preston (1970) considered the matter of infant [[circumcision]]. He examined and debunked claims that male circumcision could prevent cancer of the [[cervix]] in women, cancer of the [[penis]] and cancer of the prostate in men. Preston concluded:
 <blockquote>Routine circumcision of the newborn is an unnecessary procedure. It provides questionable benefits and is associated with a small but definite incidence of complications and hazards. These risks are preventable if the operation is not performed unless truly medically indicated. Circumcision of the newborn is a procedure that should no longer be considered routine.<ref>{{REFjournal
@@ Line 526: / Line 588: @@
 Laumann et al. reported an incidence of newborn circumcision of 78 percent in 1971.
-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:
+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>
-There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.<ref>{{REFbook
+<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
@@ Line 539: / Line 601: @@
   }}</ref>
 </blockquote>
+====Fourth quarter====
-The statement in the 1971 manual was good medical science, then and now, but it did not sit well with the membership of the AAP because it provided no basis on which to promote non-therapeutic circumcision for profit. A four-member "ad hoc" task force was formed to produce a new statement to fit the desires of the membership, which was published in ''Pediatrics'' in 1975.<ref name="aap1975">{{REFjournal
+The statement in the 1971 manual was good medical science, then and now, but it did not sit well with the membership of the AAP because it provided no basis on which to promote non-therapeutic circumcision for profit. A four-member "ad hoc" task force was formed to produce a new statement to 'walk-back' the earlier statement to fit the desires of the membership, which was published in ''Pediatrics'' in 1975.<ref name="aap1975">{{REFjournal
   |last=Thompson
   |first=
@@ Line 576: / Line 638: @@
 The statement falsely claimed facilitation of hygiene, prevention of [[phimosis]], and prevention of [[penile cancer]] as reasons that parents may elect non-therapeutic infant circumcision.<ref name="aap1975" />
-The statement expressed no concern for the [[pain]] and [[trauma]] of circumcision, nor did it provide information on the functions and value of the [[foreskin]] nor did it recognize the child as a person with domestic and international rights to self-determination and physical integrity. The statement carefully avoided recommending [[circumcision]] and placed the responsibility for the certain [[amputation]] injury on the parents rather than on the attending physician.<ref name="aap1975" />
+The statement expressed no concern for the [[pain]] and [[trauma]] of circumcision, nor did it provide information on the functions and value of the [[foreskin]] nor did it recognize the child as a person with domestic and international rights to self-determination and [[physical integrity]]. The statement carefully avoided recommending [[circumcision]] and placed the responsibility for the certain [[amputation]] injury on the parents rather than on the attending physician.<ref name="aap1975" />
 The 1975 statement served as the AAP's position statement until 1989.
@@ Line 654: / Line 716: @@
 Grimes concluded:
-<blockquote> However, until the benefits of [[routine]] 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> However, until the benefits of [[Routine Infant Circumcision| routine 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.
@@ Line 660: / Line 722: @@
 It was at about this time that several small organizations that opposed non-therapeutic circumcision of boys started to appear. They were the first [[intactivists]], although that word had not yet been coined.  One such organization was the Remain Intact Organization of Larchwood, Iowa, which was lead by Rev. [[George Zangger| Russell George Zangger]]. From the 1970s to the 1990s Zangger sent out cards with New Testament quotations that said the outward sign of circumcision is of no value. [[Jeffrey R. Wood]] formed [[INTACT Educational Foundation| INTACT]] (Infants Need to Avoid Circumcision [[Trauma]]), founded in 1976 as a local resource serving Western Massachusetts, and "Dedicated to Preserving Freedom of Choice." The organization gained recognition and had members across the nation.
-Boczko & Freed (1979) collected cases of [[penile cancer]] in [[circucised]] men and by so doing, disproved the false belief propagated since 1932 by [[Abraham L. Wolbarst]] that circumcision was protective against penile cancer.<ref name="boczko1979">{{REFjournal
+Boczko & Freed (1979) collected cases of [[penile cancer]] in [[circumcised]] men and by so doing, disproved the false belief propagated since 1932 by [[Abraham L. Wolbarst]] that circumcision was protective against penile cancer.<ref name="boczko1979">{{REFjournal
   |last=Boczo
   |first=Stanley
@@ Line 743: / Line 805: @@
   |accessdate=2021-10-11
 }}</ref>
+[[BUFF| Brothers United for Future Foreskins]] (1982) revived the practice of [[epispasm]] (non-surgical [[foreskin restoration]]) that had not been praticed since antiquity.
 [[Marilyn Fayre Milos]], {{RN}}, while a nursing student at [https://www.mymarinhealth.org/locations/medical-center/ Marin General Hospital], witnessed an unanesthetized circumcision of a newborn boy in 1979. Shocked by the extreme [[pain]] and horror of it, she became an opponent of infant circumcision and was forced to resign in 1985 from her nursing position at Marin General Hospital where infant non-therapeutic circumcision is a profit center and promoted to parents. She immediately created the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers ([[NOCIRC]]) in 1985.
@@ Line 784: / Line 848: @@
 }}</ref>
-Anand & Hickey (1987) published a paper in the ''New England Journal of Medicine'' that conclusively proved that newborn infants are capable of feeling [[pain]]. After publication of this landmark paper, no doubt about pain sensation in infants remained. The article stated:
+Anand & Hickey (1987) published a paper in the ''New England Journal of Medicine'' that conclusively proved that newborn infants are capable of feeling [[pain]]. After publication of this landmark paper, no doubt about the existence of pain sensation in infants remained. The article stated:
 <blockquote>
 <i>Numerous lines of evidence suggest that even in the human [[fetus]], pain pathways as well as cortical and subcortical centers necessary for pain perception are well developed late in gestation, and the neurochemical systems now known to be associated with pain transmission and modulation are intact and functional. Physiologic responses to painful stimuli have been well documented in neonates of various gestational ages and are reflected in hormonal, metabolic, and cardiorespiratory changes similar to but greater than those observed in adult subjects. Other responses in newborn infants are suggestive of integrated emotional and behavioral responses to pain and are retained in memory long enough to modify subsequent behavior patterns.</i><ref name="anand1987">{{REFjournal
@@ Line 1,089: / Line 1,153: @@
 ===Early twenty-first century===
+====First Quarter====
 The twenty-first century has been characterized by greater opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys in the general population, the utter failure of the circumcision industry's vaunted new circumcision policy, and much more attention to legal and ethical issues relating to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.
@@ Line 1,157: / Line 1,221: @@
 }}</ref>
-Geoffrey P. Miller (2002) discussed the impact of American culture on the law of circumcision.<ref name="miller2002">{{REFjournal
+[[Geoffrey P. Miller]] (2002) discussed the impact of American culture on the law of circumcision.<ref name="miller2002">{{REFjournal
   |last=Miller
   |first=Geoffrey P.
@@ Line 1,213: / Line 1,277: @@
   |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/
+  |url=
   |work=Genital Integrity Policy
   |editor=
@@ Line 1,230: / Line 1,294: @@
 [[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
+  |url=
   |contribution=
   |last=Hill
@@ Line 1,241: / Line 1,305: @@
 }}</ref>
-[[Georganne Chapin]] founded [[Intact America]] in 2008.
+[[Georganne Chapin]] founded [[Intact America]] in 2008 with the aid of a grant from Texas philanthropist Dean Pisani.
 [[Robert S. Van Howe|Van Howe]] & Svoboda (2008) said of the American practice of medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic infant circumcision:
@@ Line 1,357: / Line 1,421: @@
 [[Jen Williams]] organized [[Your Whole Baby]] in 2014.
+The infamous [[Nebus v. Hironimus]] Florida [[circumcision]] case culminated after five years of litigation with Florida Family Court Judge [[Jeffrey Dana Gillen]] arrested the mother, [[Heather Hironimus]], and forced her to sign a consent for harmful, [[pain| painful]] circumcision in open court while handcuffed.
+<br><br>
+<b>Heather Hironimus signs consent form for circumcision of 4 and 1/2 year old son under extreme duress</b>
+<youtube>Btxl4UGBdpc</youtube>
 [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]] commissioned a [https://www,doctorsopposingcircumcision.org new website] in 2016.
@@ Line 1,402: / Line 1,471: @@
 }}</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.
+The ill-fated, embarrassing 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.
+[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] released a special report on circumcision for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.<ref name="doc2019">{{REFdocument
+ |title=Male Circumcision: A special report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
+ |url=https://pool.intactiwiki.org/w/images/Male_Circumcision_DOC_2019-02-01.pdf
+ |contribution=
+ |last=Anonymous
+ |first=
+ |publisher=Doctors Opposing Circumcision
+ |format=PDF
+ |date=2019-02-01
+ |accessdate=2025-12-08
+}}</ref>
 [[Dan Bollinger|Bollinger]] (2019) discussed circumcision as an adverse childhood experience,<ref name-"bollinger2019">{{REFdocument
@@ Line 1,550: / Line 1,631: @@
 }}</ref> Infant circumcision is a profit center for many American hospitals so parents are pushed to circumcise.
-==Government financial support for non-therapeutic circumcision==
+[[Intact America]] (2024) called child circumcision "an outdated practice in desperate need of reevaluation",<ref name="alissa2024-12-16">{{REFweb
-The United States government provides [[financial incentive]] for medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] by [[third-party payment]] through numerous government health insurance programs:
+ |url=https://intactamerica.org/circumcision-reevaluation/
+ |title=Circumcision: An Outdated Practice in Desperate Need of Re-Evaluation
+ |last=Alissa
+ |first=Kristel
+ |init=
+ |author-link=
+ |publisher=Intact America
+ |date=2024-12-16
+ |accessdate=2024-12-23
+}}</ref> and exposed the propaganda that has promoted the harmful but profitable practice of child circumcision.<ref>{{REFweb
+ |url=https://intactamerica.org/exposing-circumcision-propaganda/
+ |title=The Unkindest Cut: Exposing the Propaganda That Normalized Circumcision—and How We Reclaim the Truth
+ |last=Alissa
+ |first=Kristel
+ |init=
+ |author-link=
+ |publisher=Intact America
+ |date=2024-11-19
+ |accessdate=2024-12-23
+}}</ref>
-* [https://www.medicaid.gov/ Medicaid] — About 45 percent of births are under Medicaid.
+[[Intact America]] (2024) reports a rapid increase in the percentage of Americans who oppose the harmful [[circumcision]] of boys.<ref>{{REFweb
-* [https://www.healthcare.gov/medicaid-chip/childrens-health-insurance-program/ Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP)] — Covers children whose family income is higher.
+ |url=https://www.instagram.com/p/DKVZQGTRl77/?igsh=MWV1aW90MzBpd2dzdA%3D%3D
-* [https://www.ihs.gov/ Indian Health Service] — Covers the indigenous population.
+ |title=Opposition to circumcision overtime.
-* [https://www.tricare.mil/ Tricare] — Covers military dependents.
+ |last=Anonymous
-* [https://www.benefits.gov/benefit/4440 Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program] — Covers federal employees and families.
+ |first=
-* [https://www.medicare.gov/ Medicare] − Covers persons who have reached 65 years of age.
+ |init=
+ |author-link=
+ |publisher=Intact America
+ |date=2024
+ |accessdate=2025-06-01
+}}</ref>
-== Some statistical data ==
+====Second quarter====
-=== Prevalence of circumcision ===
+[[PEPFAR]] (2025) has scrapped its ineffective and harmful "voluntary male  medical circumcision" ([[VMMC]]) program after 15 years and at least 27,000,000 harmful and useless [[foreskin]] amputations.<ref name="gwarisa2025">{{REFnews
-Peter Moore (2015) reported that 62 percent of all American males reported being [[circumcised]],<ref name="moore2015">{{REFweb
+ |title=New PEPFAR Waiver Scraps Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision Program
-  |url=https://today.yougov.com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2015/02/03/younger-americans-circumcision
+  |url=https://healthtimes.co.zw/2025/02/07/new-pepfar-waiver-scraps-voluntary-medical-male-circumcision-program/
-  |title=Young Americans less supportive of circumcision at birth
+ |last=Gwarisa
-  |last=Moore
+  |first=Michael
-  |first=Peter
+ |init=
-  |date=2015-02-03
+ |author-link=
-  |accessdate=2022-02-07
+  |publisher=Healthtimes
-}}</ref> which increases the prevalence of [[intact]] [[foreskin]] to 38 percent of living American males of all ages. This percentage is expected to gradually but constantly decline, while the percentage of males who are [[intact]] due to the declining incidence of newborn boys receiving medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] is expected to increase. The percentage of males with [[intact]] [[foreskin]] is lowest with senior citizens and highest in the youngest age groups.
+  |website=
+  |date=2025-02-07
+  |accessdate=2025-02-15
+ |format=
+ |quote=
+}}</ref> Numerous studies have demonstrated that [[adult circumcision]] is not effective in preventing [[HIV]] [[infection]]. Child [[circumcision]] had previously been discontinued.
-=== Incidence of circumcision ===
+[[Intact America]] (2024) is tracking the opposition to [[circumcision]] in the [[United States]]. It reports [https://www.instagram.com/p/DKVZQGTRl77/ steadily increasing opposition] to [[child circumcision]].
-===Long-term declining trend===
-The incidence of non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision hit its peak at 85-90 percent in 1980. It has been slowly declining ever since.
-Peter Moore (2015) reported that the incidence of circumcision was 55 percent.<ref name="moore2015"/>
+President Donald J. Trump appointment of [[Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr.]] to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services was approved by the United States Senate was ratified by the United States Senate on 13 February 2025. Kennedy wants to reform healthcare in the United States.
-Jacobson et al. (2021) collected circumcision statistics from the Kids' Inpatient Database from 2002 to 2016. They reported that the incidence of non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision has "decreased significantly over time" with 55 percent being circumcised, which translates to a [[genital integrity]] (intact) rate of 45 percent. The previous intact rate for the nation had been reported to be 41.7 percent in 2010, so this represents an improvement of 7.9 percent in the number of intact boys. The incidence of circumcision for the entire United States had declined to 52.1 percent at the end of the study period (2016), which indicates that 47.9 percent of boys born in that year are [[intact]].<ref name="jacobson2021" />
+[[Eric Clopper]] has organized [[Intact Global]] in 2024, which has the goal of litigating in numerous states to ensure that boys will enjoy "the equal protection of the law". Intact Global instituted a suit against the state of Oregon in March 2025.
-===Midwest===
+Data Panda has reported the incidence of non-therapeutic circumcision by state on 24 May 2025. The incidence ranged from a low of 10 percent in Washington to a high of 91 percent in West Virginia.<ref>{{REFweb
-The Midwest has been called the 'circumcision capital of America" because of its higher rates of circumcision. Nevertheless, the popularity of circumcision is declining even in the Midwest.
+ |url=https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/circumcision-rate-by-state
+ |title=Circumcision Rate by State
+ |last=Anonymous
+ |first=
+ |init=
+ |author-link=
+ |publisher=Data Panda
+ |date=2025-05-24
+ |accessdate=2025-09-19
+}}</ref>
-In the Midwest, the incidence of [[circumcision]] had 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.
+[[Jake Tran]] has produced a [[This should be a crime| video]] about the practice of [[child circumcision]] in the United States.
-===Change in popularity===
-The popularity of non-circumcision of boys has increased to the point that non-circumcision has become the NORM in many sections of the United States. if long-term trends have continued, it is possible that non-circumcision or "intactness" has become the NORM in the United States.
-==Parity==
+In a milestone for [[intactivism]], Microsoft Network (MSN) reported that the incidence of [[child circumcision]] in the United States has declined below 50 percent, which makes non-circumcision or [[genital integrity]] the new <b>NORM</b> in the United States among newborn boys.<ref name="msn2025">{{REFnews
+ |title=Less Than Half of U.S. Boys Now Circumcised
+ |url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/less-than-half-of-us-boys-now-circumcised/ar-AA1MBjzN
+ |last=Anonymous
+ |publisher=Microsoft Network
+ |website=
+ |date=2025-09-17
+ |accessdate=2025-09-29
+ |quote=From 2012 to 2022, the prevalence of circumcision during hospitalization of male neonates age 0 to 28 days decreased significantly by nearly 5 percentage points, from 54.1% to 49.3%,
+}}</ref>
-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" /> A state of parity has now been reached where the percentage of [[intact]] boys is about equal to the percentage of [[circumcised]] boys.
+==Government financial support for non-therapeutic circumcision==
+The United States government provides [[financial incentive]] for medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] by [[third-party payment]] through numerous government health insurance programs:
-As the present trend continues, it is expected that being [[intact]] will shortly become the more usual, normal condition for young boys in America, if it has not already done so.
+* [https://www.medicaid.gov/ Medicaid] — About 45 percent of births are under Medicaid.
-==American [[genital integrity]] organizations==
+* [https://www.healthcare.gov/medicaid-chip/childrens-health-insurance-program/ Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP)] — Covers children whose family income is higher.
+* [https://www.ihs.gov/ Indian Health Service] — Covers the indigenous population.
-The United States of America now have  numerous [[genital integrity]] ([[intactivist]]) organizations working to promote and encourage the protection of the [[physical integrity]] of American boys.
+* [https://www.tricare.mil/ Tricare] — Covers military dependents.
+* [https://www.benefits.gov/benefit/4440 Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program] — Covers federal employees and families.
-{{SEEALSO}}
+* [https://www.medicare.gov/ Medicare] − Covers persons who have reached 65 years of age.
-* [[Financial incentive]]
-* [[Intact-friendly]]
+==The second term of President Donald J. Trump==
+The second term of President Donald J. Trump commenced on 21 January 2025. President Trump has promised far-reaching reforms of the executive branch of the government of the United States. It is not clear at this time (9 February 2025) how this will affect the practice of male [[circumcision]] in the United States. We note that the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief ([[PEPFAR]]) has been paused. The performance of ineffective [[genital mutilation]] (male circumcision) on African males may have stopped.<ref>{{REFnews
-{{LINKS}}
+ |title=Trump's Foreign Aid Freeze
-These documents by [[Dan Bollinger]] are included here because they contain significant information about the United States:
+ |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-rubio-pepfar-prep-usaid_n_67a65f98e4b0682fe26ceb1f
+ |last=Cohn
+ |first=Jonathan
+ |init=
+ |author-link=
+ |last2=
+ |init2=
+ |author2-link=
+ |publisher=Huffpost
+ |website=
+ |date=2025-02-07
+ |season=
+ |accessdate=2025-02-09
+ |format=
+ |quote=
+}}</ref>
+== Statistical data ==
+The National Center for Health Statistics (2013) reported that the incidence of child [[circumcision]] has been declining for thirty years.<ref>{{REFweb
+ |url=https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs/2013/08/22/1667/
+ |title=Male Newborn Circumcision on a Three Decade Decline
+ |last=
+ |first=
+ |init=
+ |author-link=
+ |publisher=National Center for Health Statistics
+ |date=2013-08-22
+ |accessdate=2025-01-19
+}}</ref>
+=== Prevalence of circumcision ===
+'''Prevalence of circumcision''' is the percentage of all males of all ages in the population who have been [[circumcised]].
+[[Intact America]] carried out a survey in 2022 that claims that 73 percent of all American men were [[circumcised]],<ref>{{REFweb
+ |url=https://www.intactamerica.org/newsroom-gender-equality/
+ |title=Intact Facts
+ |last=
+ |first=
+ |init=
+ |publisher=Intact America
+ |date=2022
+ |accessdate=2023-03-29
+}}</ref> however no documentation has been provided so it is not clear in what region it was carried out or what age groups were surveyed. The prevalence of [[circumcision]] varies by age, region, race, and religion. On another webpage, [[Intact America]] claims 78 percent are circumcised so Intact America is uncertain of its claims.
+Peter Moore (2015) reported that 62 percent of all American males reported being [[circumcised]],<ref name="moore2015">{{REFweb
+ |url=https://today.yougov.com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2015/02/03/younger-americans-circumcision
+ |title=Young Americans less supportive of circumcision at birth
+ |last=Moore
+ |first=Peter
+ |date=2015-02-03
+ |accessdate=2022-02-07
+}}</ref> which increases the prevalence of [[intact]] [[foreskin]] to 38 percent of living American males of all ages. This percentage is expected to gradually but constantly decline, while the percentage of males who are [[intact]] due to the declining incidence of newborn boys receiving medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] is expected to increase. The percentage of males with [[intact]] [[foreskin]] is lowest with senior citizens and highest in the youngest age groups.
+=== Incidence of circumcision ===
+'''Incidence of circumcision''' is the percentage of newborn boys who currently are being [[circumcised]].
+====Long-term declining trend====
+The incidence of non-therapeutic neonatal [[circumcision]] hit its peak at 85-90 percent in 1965.<ref name="laumann1997" /> It has been slowly declining ever since.
+Peter Moore (2015) reported that the incidence of circumcision was 55 percent.<ref name="moore2015"/>
+Jacobsen et al. (2021) used data from 2003 through 2016 from the Kid's Inpatient Database of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to compare [[intact]] with [[circumcised]] boys in the first 28 days of life. The authors reported a gradual declining trend in the incidence of neonatal non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] throughout the study period. The overall incidence of circumcision decreased from 57.4 percent in 2003 to 52.1 percent in 2016 over the 13 year study period or 5.3 percentage points for an average decrease of 0.4 percentage point per year. The authors noted "neonatal circumcision rates decreased significantly over time."<ref name="jacobson2021" />
+There was significant variation in the incidence of circumcision by region with the Midwest reporting an incidence of 75 percent (three out of four) for the period, while boys in the West were most likely to preserve their [[foreskin]] as the West reported an incidence of only 25.9 percent or about 1 boy in 4 being [[circumcised]].<ref name="jacobson2021" />
+One should also note that the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] [[medical trade association]] vacated its fraudulent 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement by allowing it to expire in 2017 without being re-affirmed.
+[https://150.jhu.edu/ Johns Hopkins University] and the Jewish-funded [https://publichealth.jhu.edu/ Bloomberg School of Public Health] have long been outlier advocates of male [[circumcision]]. However, they (2025) are now reporting that the incidence of circumcision has declined "significantly" between 2012 and 2022. The overall decline was from 54.1% to 49.3% — a decline of 4.8 percentage points or 0.048 precentage points per year. The 4.8 percentage point represents a decline of 8.8 percent (4.8/54.1 = 8.8%)<ref name="yang2025" /> Although the incidence of [[circumcision of the newborn]] has been gradually declining for decades, this is the first study to report an overall incidence of less than fifty percent. Based on this new information, we can now report that [[intactness]] is now the NORM among the newborn boys of America. We note that [[Australia]] reported a significant improvement in child health when the incidence of circumcision declined in that nation.<ref>{{REFweb
+ |url=https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/australias-children-in-brief/summary
+ |title=Australia’s children: in brief
+ |last=Anonymous
+ |first=
+ |init=
+ |author-link=
+ |publisher=Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
+ |pubmedID=
+ ISBN=978-1-76054-659-5
+ |DOI=10.25816/5e152818d082c
+ |date=2019-12-17
+ |accessdate=2025-09-17
+}}</ref> Any circumcisions performed after the newborn period would not be captured by these statistics.
+====Midwest====
+The Midwest has been called the 'circumcision capital of America' because of its higher rates of circumcision. Nevertheless, the popularity of circumcision is declining even in the Midwest.
+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.
+=== 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
+ |date=2023-12-21
+ |accessdate=2024-05-15
+}}</ref> but that era has ended.
+[[Intact America]] called attention to the existence of a "tipping point",<ref>{{REFbook
+ |last=Gladwell
+ |first=Malcomb
+ |init=
+ |year=2002
+ |title=The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference
+ |url=https://www.amazon.com/Tipping-Point-Little-Things-Difference/dp/0316346624?s=books
+ |scope=
+ |location=
+ |publisher=Back Bay Books
+ |pages=301
+ |ISBN=SBN-10 0316346624
+ |accessdate=2025-12-01
+ }}</ref> when public opinion would shift toward [[intactness]] in 2016.<ref>{{REFweb
+ |url=https://intactamerica.org/do-you-know-about-the-tipping-point/
+ |title=Do You Know: About the “Tipping Point?
+ |last=Chapin
+ |first=Georganne
+ |init=
+ |author-link=Georganne Chapin
+ |publisher=Intact America
+ |date=2016-11-01
+ |accessdate=2024-06-03
+}}</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 but progressively 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 has exceeded the percentage of [[circumcised]] newborn boys since 2022.<ref name="yang2025" />
+As the present trend continues, [[intactness]] is becoming the more usual, normal, and expected condition among newborn infant boys in America. The incidence of [[circumcision]] varies geographically so some locations will report higher percentages [[circumcised]].
+==Forecast future incidence of child circumcision==
+The incidence of harmful, unnecessary, nontherapeutic [[circumcision]] of newborn boys declines at the rate of 0.5 of one percentage point per year or one percentage point every two years.<ref name="yang2025" />
+Based on this historical rate of decline and assuming that it continues, we can forecast the future incidence of harmful [[child circumcision]] in the United States to be:
+* 2023: 49.2%
+* 2024: 48.7%
+* 2025: 48.2%
+* 2026: 47.7%
+* 2027: 47.2%
+* 2028: 46.7%
+* 2029: 46.2%
+* 2030: 45.7%
+==American [[genital integrity]] organizations==
+The United States of America now have numerous [[genital integrity]] ([[intactivist]]) organizations working to promote and encourage the protection of the [[physical integrity]] of American boys.
+{{SEEALSO}}
+* [[Financial incentive]]
+* [[Intact-friendly]]
+* [https://en.intactiwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page Home page]
+* [[Living with a foreskin in circumcised America]]
+{{LINKS}}
+* {{URLwikipedia|United_States|United States}}
+* {{REFweb
+ |url=https://www.cirp.org/library/legal/USA/
+ |title=Legality of Circumcision: The United States of America
+ |last=Hill
+ |first=George
+ |init=
+ |publisher=Circumcision Reference Library
+ |date=2013-07-31
+ |accessdate=2023-08-26
+}}
+These documents by [[Dan Bollinger]] are included here because they contain significant information about the United States:
+* {{REFweb
+ |url=https://www.academia.edu/23494197/Infant_Male_Genital_Cutting_Incidence_Worldwide
+ |title=Infant Male Genital Cutting Incidence Worldwide
+ |last=Bollinger
+ |first=Dan
+ |author-link=Dan Bollinger
+ |publisher=Academia
+ |date=2017-05-19
+ |accessdate=2021-10-21
+ |format=PDF
+}}
+* {{REFjournal
+ |last=Bollinger
+ |init=D
+ |author-link=Dan Bollinger
+ |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321837170_Origins_of_the_Intactivist_Movement_A_Masculine_Foundation
+ |title=Origins of the intactivist movement: A masculine foundation
+ |journal=
+ |date=2017-11-17
+ |accessdate=2021-10-14
+}}
 * {{REFweb
-  |url=https://www.academia.edu/23494197/Infant_Male_Genital_Cutting_Incidence_Worldwide
+  |url=https://intactamerica.org/circumcision-rates/
-  |title=Infant Male Genital Cutting Incidence Worldwide
+  |title=Circumcision Rates by Country: Why America Is the Outlier
-  |last=Bollinger
+  |last=Alissa
-  |first=Dan
+  |first=Kristel
- |author-link=Dan Bollinger
+  |init=
- |publisher=Academia
+  |author-link=Kristel Alissa
- |date=2017-05-19
+  |publisher=Intact America
- |accessdate=2021-10-21
+  |date=2025-07-03
- |format=PDF
+  |accessdate=2025-8-03
-}}
-* {{REFjournal
- |last=Bollinger
-  |init=D
-  |author-link=Dan Bollinger
-  |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321837170_Origins_of_the_Intactivist_Movement_A_Masculine_Foundation
- |title=Origins of the intactivist movement: A masculine foundation
- |journal=
-  |date=2017-11-17
-  |accessdate=2021-10-14
 }}
 {{ABBR}}
 {{REF}}
 [[Category:BSM]]
-[[Category:USA]]
+[[Category:English-speaking nation]]
+[[Category:Circumcision]]
+[[Category:Country]]
 [[Category:Male circumcision]]
 [[Category:History]]
+[[Category:USA]]
 [[de:Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika]]