Circumcision funding killed
A COMBINATION of fiscal conservatives, health professionals,
and “intactivists” (people who oppose circumcision of newborn males for a
variety of reasons) convinced the Colorado House Appropriations Committee last
week to kill a bill that would have restored state Medicaid funding for
circumcisions.
The bill failed in the committee on May 4 by a vote of
eight to four, putting an end to the move to restore funding for this year’s
legislative session, which ended Wednesday, May 9, and likely for the
foreseeable future, since its co-sponsor, ?Senator Joyce Foster (D-Denver), is
now retired from the State Legislature.
In earlier committee hearings
this session, including the Senate Health and Human Services Committee in
February and the House Health and Environment Committee last week – and in the
overall Senate debate – proponents and opponents of the bill clashed over a wide
range of issues related to the state helping pay for newborn circumcision
procedures.
Opponents disputed much of that testimony, while so-called
intactivists argued that circumcision actually increases risks of certain
infections and diminishes sexual sensitivity among adult males.
Read
Chris Leppek's previous coverage "Colorado debates circumcision"
They
also often argued their own social justice position, pointing out that newborn
infants have no say in whether they are circumcised or not.
Adding to the
oppositional chorus were those who oppose state funding for such elective
procedures as circumcision, although proponents argued that the annual cost to
the state – estimated at $186,500, based on 2010 figures – was not only
comparatively minimal but currently available.
FOSTER, a former Denver
city councilwoman and wife of retired senior rabbi of Temple Emanuel Rabbi
Steven Foster, told the Intermountain Jewish News this week that the bill failed
primarily because the intactivist movement was able to convince legislators of
their side of the argument, while she carried virtually the entire burden of
arguing the pro-circumcision side.
“I never had any lobbying effort,” she
said. “It was just me the whole time. I tried to get the Jewish Community
Relations Council to work on it, but the JCRC did not have a majority vote on
this issue. It was just so impossible. I can’t be in two chambers at one
time.”
Foster tried to debate the bill primarily on social justice and
health grounds and leave religious freedom out of it, even though many Jews and
Muslims, and even some Christians, view circumcision as a religious
obligation.
She was disappointed, Foster told the IJN, that the Jewish
community did not seem willing to engage in the legislative debate on
circumcision.
“When they decided to remove funding for circumcision last
year, I spent a whole year working on this. Now it’s going to be up to our
community, the Jewish community.”
She added that she expects the
now-encouraged intactivist movement to begin working to ban circumcision
altogether throughout Colorado, similar to ultimately unsuccessful efforts to do
the same thing in California.
That’s when the issue will almost surely be
argued on grounds of religious freedom and Foster says the Jewish community will
have little choice but to get involved.
Foster warned the Jewish
community that the anti-circumcision movement is not likely to go away anytime
soon.
“I think that’s the direction the country is going. When you have
17 states that deny Medicaid for circumcision, that’s the direction, absolutely.
I think that people just aren’t paying attention.”
In the aftermath of
redistricting, Foster chose not to oppose fellow Democrat Sen. Pat Steadman in
this year’s primary, thus putting an end to her own political career. She hopes
that Steadman may pick up the effort to restore state funding for
circumcision.
“He’s a good person and I’m hoping that he will carry the
torch for issues that are important to the district,” Foster says. “I’ve done
the best I could with it.
