Keeping State Hands Off Minnesotan Penises
Via reader Jeff Patterson comes this report that Minnesota will no longer be paying for circumcision, Viagra, or sex-change operations for low income residents.
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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hmm...this case calls for further investigation. I will selflessly volunteer a first-hand, hands-on investigation into the matter. Single-handedly.
Let me be the first to hand it to you, smacky.
Clicky
how does circumcision get lumped in with the other 2?
Why did we never hear about this on Prairie Home Companion?
Yet circumcision, the only one NOT medically sound
Actually some men require circumcision for some medical conditions, though I believe such cases are quite rare. I suspect what will happen is that those who actually need a circumcision won't get their's funded but the (optional) religious ones will as we can't offend religious minorities.
There's a "mental health" aspect to circumcision. However, it's the mental health of the parents, not the mental health the baby.
Portlander its the LACK of mental health on the part of the parents if you ask me.
American girls don't like performing certain acts on uncircumcized men. This can have a deleterious effect on mental health during adolescence and adulthood.
Obi:
Oh, yeah. You gotta be a sick pud at some level if you want -- nay, need -- to mutilate your kid.
My first boyfriend, and thus the first penis I ever encountered, was uncut (his parents were European). I didn't know the difference and so didn't mind. In fact, it made me feel sorry for #2, who was cut -- and coincidentally or not, way more uptight than #1. The girls of America will learn to adapt. I'm glad this practice is on the decline (it peaked around my birth).
There's a "mental health" aspect to circumcision. However, it's the mental health of the parents, not the mental health the baby.
Indeed. The first episode of last season's "Penn & Teller: Bullshit" was on circumcision and they featured an expecting couple who were torn on the issue: The mom wanted it. The Dad didn't. At one point the mom-to-be was weeping at the prospect that her son could go through life uncircumsized in a largely circumscized U.S.. "I don't want him to think he's different," was what she said. I didn't see the end, so I don't know what the family decided, but the Dad looked to be waffling to satisfy his whining wife.
AE-G:
I don't think that being snipped necessarily leads to being uptight. Correlation, causation, blahblahblah.
obligatory Minnesota punk music reference: Gary's got a boner.
Akira, that's odd. Usually it's the dad who wants his son to look Like His Daddy, while the mother protests weepily.
Mediageek, I know. That's why I inserted the "coincidentally or not" hedge. Mostly I was just trying to be funny and get a dig in at the ex. 😉
We should fund the circumcisions, it's not like it's any skin off my