Circumcision funding should not be reduced by states trying to save money, researchers from Johns Hopkins University said in an editorial Wednesday.
"Based on the medical evidence, banning infant male circumcision would deprive parents of the right to act on behalf of their children's health," doctors Ronald Gray and Aaron Tobian wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
African studies, wrote the researchers, have shown that circumcision can decrease HIV infection rates by up to 60 percent, and other studies have shown it to be effective in preventing other sexually transmitted diseases and urinary tract infections in men and their partners.
Gray and Tobian wrote that removing Medicaid funding for circumcision disproportionately harms minority groups and the poor, who are at greater risk for STDs and may rely on Medicaid.
"Male circumcision decreases dramatically when not covered by insurance," Tobian added.
This week California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill preventing local governments from banning male circumcision, after a San Francisco initiative to do so nearly made the ballot in July. This year, Colorado and South Carolina joined 16 other states to deny Medicaid coverage for circumcision.
The study appeared online Wednesday in JAMA.
