The only dubious thing is that they've kept a "religious exemption" for circumcision payments, which seems frankly bizarre: They're effectively conceding that circumcision isn't (generally) a necessary medical procedure, so ultimately they're not going to fund it qua medical procedure—they're only going to fund it qua religious ritual. That one seems unlikely to hold up in court.
Reason's Annual Webathon is underway! Donate today to see your name here.
Reason is supported by: