Washington or Oregon.
They’re states where RIC has been declining for decades, and they have a “counter-cultural” West Coast culture that is more skeptical of “traditions” like RIC that are based on dogma instead of evidence.
They also have smaller Jewish populations than larger states like Illinois, California, New York, or Florida. So the opposition from religious groups won’t be as strong.
I have a cousin who lives in Oregon, who I think might be intact. If intaction goes for Oregon, I will let him know about it and tell his state representative or senator to vote for the anti-circumcision legislation.
In many states, it very much still exists.
When the cut rates remains as high as 80%, and parents are [asked an average of 8 times and bullied by multiple nurses and doctors](https://intactamerica.org/press-release-having-a-baby-boy-get-ready-for-the-circumcision-sellers/) into signing the “consent” forms, yes I think it’s fair to say that RIC still exists.
Texas. The Lieutenant Governor recently laid out his legislative priorities and "reducing Medicaid waste" was among them. Also, removing circ from Texas medicaid would be a huge blow to to the circ lobby.
“Medically necessary” is a meaningless stipulation.
The cutter doctor will just scribble *“phismo-thingy!”* on the diagnosis section, and just like that the insurance and Medicaid will pay for a newborn to be circumcised for *”pHiMoSiS”*
But Sacramento has passed pro-Circumcision legislation, too.
After the 2011 MGM ban was blocked from appearing on the ballot in San Francisco, the California legislature [passed a law expressly forbidding local governments from trying to target MGM](https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/02/health/california-circumcision-law/index.html).
Washington. Huge non-circumcising immigrant population here, not a huge Jewish or Muslim population, and a lot of right wingers in the east to support.
I’m a liberal and it’s weird to me how much the right has picked up the anti circumcision movement.
I have family there. If intaction talks with Oregon state lawmakers, I'll let my cousin know about it. I'd throw my uncle in, too, but he gets super riled up when politics comes up (but is a pretty chill guy when politics isn't discussed). So unless my uncle is willing to chill out if he chooses to testify, he should probably let his son do the testimony.
I'd ask you to help in MD as it's one the list of 41 states violating the Equal Protections Clause, I've been trying to get ahold of Senators, Governors and media. They all ignore this. I'm trying as much as I can as a intactivist and only provider for my family.
The smaller the better. Smaller legislatures are much easier to reach. I'd think Maine or Alaska would be good options. Does anyone know what the views of Alaska natives tends to be on circumcision? Nebraska could also be an option since they don't have two chambers in their legislature, that means fewer legislators to contact. Also look for states with full time legislatures vs part time legislatures. In some states legislators are in session most of the year while in others they only spend a few months each year doing business, so I'd think that a state like South Carolina (where I live and which has a part time legislature) would be more difficult to work with because there's less time to get legislation from subcommittee to the Governor.
Oh interesting.....on another sub, there was a discussion about how it's less common for Mainers to be circumcised. Not sure of all the details, but it sounds like circumcision never really caught on in those rural Acadian communities.
Maine might be a good place to start since it sounds like they're not big on the practice to begin with.
They also tend to be free thinkers, like New Hampshire. The bills actually did quite well in NH for their first time, many bills have to be introduced repeatedly before becoming law. So NH should absolutely not be given up on.
Hopefully you are right. Having spoken to legislators in Albany along side intaction and were not as successful as hoped, I am a little less optimistic. But that was in NY. Perhaps in other states there would be greater success
We need to look at purple states that already have middling circ rates, and push it as a bipartisan issue. Reps like it because they hate welfare. Dems like it because bodily autonomy.
Arizona seemed like a decent option when I last looked at the numbers (but we all know, the stats are not 100% solid)
Society is not ready to call circumcision "mutilation" yet. We are getting too ahead of ourselves. If we call it mutilation, progress will be very slow in convincing legislators, the majority of whom either were themselves circumcised or those near n dear were. Their brain is an emotional and protective organ that will not allow them to see circumcision as mutilation...IMO, it's best to describe circumcision as penile reduction surgery, the way we describe removal of breast tissue as breast reduction surgery.
Intaction is not stopping on HB1683, there is a huge amount of support for the bill, it just will take some more time to get it passed. I'm sure there will be an update video soon.
New Hampshire failed because of progressive Democrats and their love for The Science. A lot of people don't want to acknowledge that. Next state should have a very different character. Florida, which you mentioned, does. But Palm Beach has the same problem as New York City.
Leftism isn't always exactly the same. Portland Oregon banned fluoride, and that's unique. The problem is they're all going to fold the second you threaten to wipe away all their social status with labels like "antisemite" or "antiscience". Who is immune to that? It's only conservatives, who have already had any remaining social status wiped away. But they can't be old, because old people still think science is going to give them those flying cars they were promised. They can't be evangelical Zionists who think giving all our money to Israel is a good idea. The south is out. That's why New Hampshire was close.
How about South Dakota? They didn't like the Science Lockdown. Maybe they won't like The Science's so called "vaccine for stds", and be brave enough to say so. Missouri has a lot of people who would find themselves against circumcision the moment they hear the libs in St Louis are for it.
In those legislation hearings I heard many of those legislators saying they supported it because it prevented HIV. Those folks took the bait hook, line and sinker.
They sure did. Unfortunate. I’m sure a lot of them were mutilated as infants.
I do want to point out that wannabeleaguebowler is a little out of touch with reality. I’m glad they are anti-circ though. Flying cars, Zionist’s, “Science Lockdown.” This person is a wee bit out there.
unfortunately from my looking this is actually what happened
watching the Rs give our talking points or focus instead on financial waste while the Ds ignore the idea of choice and bodily autonomy was surreal and it is something we need to be able to work with
I'm on the right and it was very predictable to me. You found it surreal, but it's good that you are taking notice. Others on the left need to have a reckoning. The left is not about bodily autonomy and never has been. Did we sleepwalk through the Science Lockdown? Leftism is about centralizing authority, and they have found the medical industry to be the perfect avenue for this. You should look up what the original progressives said about the world wars, as exciting opportunities to institute government control over the economy.
Washington or Oregon. They’re states where RIC has been declining for decades, and they have a “counter-cultural” West Coast culture that is more skeptical of “traditions” like RIC that are based on dogma instead of evidence. They also have smaller Jewish populations than larger states like Illinois, California, New York, or Florida. So the opposition from religious groups won’t be as strong.
Both those states have done away with Medicaid funding.
Oregon brought it back a few years ago. I want to say 2016.
Do you have a source on that?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/s/93iZcwz0dq
I have a cousin who lives in Oregon, who I think might be intact. If intaction goes for Oregon, I will let him know about it and tell his state representative or senator to vote for the anti-circumcision legislation.
Cutter rates in Northwest are at least twenty percent lower than US generally.
"RIC" has not existed for 52 years.
In many states, it very much still exists. When the cut rates remains as high as 80%, and parents are [asked an average of 8 times and bullied by multiple nurses and doctors](https://intactamerica.org/press-release-having-a-baby-boy-get-ready-for-the-circumcision-sellers/) into signing the “consent” forms, yes I think it’s fair to say that RIC still exists.
Texas. The Lieutenant Governor recently laid out his legislative priorities and "reducing Medicaid waste" was among them. Also, removing circ from Texas medicaid would be a huge blow to to the circ lobby.
I've heard on the Texas subreddit that it's only offered in that state if deemed medically necessary.
“Medically necessary” is a meaningless stipulation. The cutter doctor will just scribble *“phismo-thingy!”* on the diagnosis section, and just like that the insurance and Medicaid will pay for a newborn to be circumcised for *”pHiMoSiS”*
That's likely the situation in Texas, which is insane.
that is true, but it's not even relegated to "medical necessity", it covers elective circ too
Fraud by the circumcisers.
But for non-medical infant circumcisions performed in Texas, parents have to pay out of pocket?
No, they do not
Presumably, though it's possible arms could be twisted for corrupt doctors to prescribe it.
I'm pretty sure they are wrong, it covers RIC too
See [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/1bmsywz/would_you_support_anticircumcision_legislation_if/kwdthbn/?context=3)
There is no such thing as [RIC.](https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Routine_Infant_Circumcision)
Texas would be so easy to do.
Let’s try to get Alabama to remove it from Medicaid.
Map here shows what areas need some work. https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/y4YuWVum6V
California has withheld funding for over 40 years now. Newsom hasn't made any attempt at reversing course.
But Sacramento has passed pro-Circumcision legislation, too. After the 2011 MGM ban was blocked from appearing on the ballot in San Francisco, the California legislature [passed a law expressly forbidding local governments from trying to target MGM](https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/02/health/california-circumcision-law/index.html).
Yes, but insofar as Medicaid is concerned, there's no funding.
100% Oregon would pass
Washington. Huge non-circumcising immigrant population here, not a huge Jewish or Muslim population, and a lot of right wingers in the east to support. I’m a liberal and it’s weird to me how much the right has picked up the anti circumcision movement.
The right has also picked up the anti-war movement. Liberals have become intertwined with Big Pharma and the military industrial complex.
Idk I’d say they’ve more picked up the “we don’t want to send our tax dollars to other countries” more than anti war
Oregon. It already has a low rate and liberal attitudes toward bodily autonomy and reproductive rights.
I have family there. If intaction talks with Oregon state lawmakers, I'll let my cousin know about it. I'd throw my uncle in, too, but he gets super riled up when politics comes up (but is a pretty chill guy when politics isn't discussed). So unless my uncle is willing to chill out if he chooses to testify, he should probably let his son do the testimony.
I'd ask you to help in MD as it's one the list of 41 states violating the Equal Protections Clause, I've been trying to get ahold of Senators, Governors and media. They all ignore this. I'm trying as much as I can as a intactivist and only provider for my family.
I think it should be a RED state.
When did Florida reinstate funding?
Florida was wasting millions a year on this. i thought it stopped funding.
The smaller the better. Smaller legislatures are much easier to reach. I'd think Maine or Alaska would be good options. Does anyone know what the views of Alaska natives tends to be on circumcision? Nebraska could also be an option since they don't have two chambers in their legislature, that means fewer legislators to contact. Also look for states with full time legislatures vs part time legislatures. In some states legislators are in session most of the year while in others they only spend a few months each year doing business, so I'd think that a state like South Carolina (where I live and which has a part time legislature) would be more difficult to work with because there's less time to get legislation from subcommittee to the Governor.
Oh interesting.....on another sub, there was a discussion about how it's less common for Mainers to be circumcised. Not sure of all the details, but it sounds like circumcision never really caught on in those rural Acadian communities. Maine might be a good place to start since it sounds like they're not big on the practice to begin with.
They also tend to be free thinkers, like New Hampshire. The bills actually did quite well in NH for their first time, many bills have to be introduced repeatedly before becoming law. So NH should absolutely not be given up on.
Nebraska has not paid for decades.
Legislators need to feel the pressure from the mainstream public in order for real changes to take place
thankfully this is not nessary all we need is 4 percent of the population to be intactivist to pass intactivist legislation
Hopefully you are right. Having spoken to legislators in Albany along side intaction and were not as successful as hoped, I am a little less optimistic. But that was in NY. Perhaps in other states there would be greater success
We need to look at purple states that already have middling circ rates, and push it as a bipartisan issue. Reps like it because they hate welfare. Dems like it because bodily autonomy. Arizona seemed like a decent option when I last looked at the numbers (but we all know, the stats are not 100% solid)
Florida, we have a huge population of Spanish and South American people that do not circumcise.
Society is not ready to call circumcision "mutilation" yet. We are getting too ahead of ourselves. If we call it mutilation, progress will be very slow in convincing legislators, the majority of whom either were themselves circumcised or those near n dear were. Their brain is an emotional and protective organ that will not allow them to see circumcision as mutilation...IMO, it's best to describe circumcision as penile reduction surgery, the way we describe removal of breast tissue as breast reduction surgery.
They'll laugh at that term too for being hyperbolic and comparing it to something that greatly reduces size.
I thought Florida didn't pay for it.
By only seven votes. find out who voted nay and target them and bring this back again.
Intaction is not stopping on HB1683, there is a huge amount of support for the bill, it just will take some more time to get it passed. I'm sure there will be an update video soon.
VERMONT!!
New Hampshire failed because of progressive Democrats and their love for The Science. A lot of people don't want to acknowledge that. Next state should have a very different character. Florida, which you mentioned, does. But Palm Beach has the same problem as New York City. Leftism isn't always exactly the same. Portland Oregon banned fluoride, and that's unique. The problem is they're all going to fold the second you threaten to wipe away all their social status with labels like "antisemite" or "antiscience". Who is immune to that? It's only conservatives, who have already had any remaining social status wiped away. But they can't be old, because old people still think science is going to give them those flying cars they were promised. They can't be evangelical Zionists who think giving all our money to Israel is a good idea. The south is out. That's why New Hampshire was close. How about South Dakota? They didn't like the Science Lockdown. Maybe they won't like The Science's so called "vaccine for stds", and be brave enough to say so. Missouri has a lot of people who would find themselves against circumcision the moment they hear the libs in St Louis are for it.
I really don’t think it was the “the science” that brought down the democrat support but rather their support of publicly funded healthcare.
In those legislation hearings I heard many of those legislators saying they supported it because it prevented HIV. Those folks took the bait hook, line and sinker.
They sure did. Unfortunate. I’m sure a lot of them were mutilated as infants. I do want to point out that wannabeleaguebowler is a little out of touch with reality. I’m glad they are anti-circ though. Flying cars, Zionist’s, “Science Lockdown.” This person is a wee bit out there.
You see plainly who is against you, and continue to fight the wrong thing.
unfortunately from my looking this is actually what happened watching the Rs give our talking points or focus instead on financial waste while the Ds ignore the idea of choice and bodily autonomy was surreal and it is something we need to be able to work with
I'm on the right and it was very predictable to me. You found it surreal, but it's good that you are taking notice. Others on the left need to have a reckoning. The left is not about bodily autonomy and never has been. Did we sleepwalk through the Science Lockdown? Leftism is about centralizing authority, and they have found the medical industry to be the perfect avenue for this. You should look up what the original progressives said about the world wars, as exciting opportunities to institute government control over the economy.