U.S. Hospital Circumcision Rates By State

The above map, created by Jonathon Conte of the Bay Area Intactivists, and Danelle Day, of Saving Our Sons, depicts the varying rates of infant circumcision state-by-state in the U.S. today. Rates are from 2009-2010 hospital statistics obtained at MGMBill.org, where readers can find references to original statistic sources.

The state with the highest rate of forced infant circumcision during the 2009-2010 year was West Virginia (86%) followed closely by Michigan and Kentucky (both 85%). The state with the lowest rate of infant circumcision during the same period was Nevada (11%) followed by Washington (14%).

Medicaid continues to use tax dollars to fund unnecessary infant circumcision in the majority of states each year. If you live in a Medicaid-funded state, please get involved in letter-writing efforts to encourage Medicaid to stop channeling money into this destructive practice. No matter your location, we encourage you to get involved in local awareness-raising efforts in whatever manner fits your personal style. Speak up and connect with others doing the same.

State / Circumcision Rate 

* Indicates a state where Medicaid covers infant circumcision

Alabama* - No Data 
Alaska* - No Data 
Arizona - 20% 
Arkansas* - 67% 
California - 22% 

Colorado - 65% 
Connecticut* - 71% 
Delaware* - No Data 
Florida - 34% 
Georgia* - 72% 

Hawaii* - 79% 
Idaho - No Data 
Illinois* - 64% 
Indiana* - 82% 
Iowa* - 82% 

Kansas* - 75% 
Kentucky* - 85% 
Louisiana - 42% 
Maine - 68% 
Maryland* - 72% 

Massachusetts* - 66% 
Michigan* - 85% 
Minnesota - 62% 
Mississippi - No Data 
Missouri - 76% 

Montana - 50% 
Nebraska* - 83% 
Nevada - 11% 
New Hampshire* - 76% 
New Jersey* - 66% 

New Mexico* - 49% 
New York* - 59% 
North Carolina - 52% 
North Dakota - No Data 
Ohio* - 84% 

Oklahoma* - 76% 
Oregon - 20% 
Pennsylvania* - 80% 
Rhode Island* - 76% 
South Carolina - 81% 

South Dakota* - 77% 
Tennessee* - 76% 
Texas* - 50% 
Utah - 39% 
Vermont* - 65% 

Virginia* - 74% 
Washington - 14% 
Washington DC* - No Data 
West Virginia* - 86% 
Wisconsin* - 82% 
Wyoming* - 77% 



  1. Interesting break down. Thanks for collecting this data. I'm glad to see that routine infant circumcision is on the decline in the US. As an adult male who was circumcised as an infant, (not sure when really, never asked), I really wish my parents left the choice up to me. I most definitely would NOT have chosen to circumcise myself. This is a human rights issue - men who do voice their opinion about "choice" are often labeled damaged or thought to have psychological issues. Some do, but most do not. Most love their parents, don't hate them, but just wish like i do, that they had been given a choice in such a huge decision.

    1. You know I find this interesting. I love my parents, but i truly think the child in my hates my mother for this. They say you don't remember the pain, but psychiatrists are finding that it becomes projected at the mother. Also my mother told me that she had to clean it and keep it from re adhering which was extremely painful, and this lasted for many months of life. To believe that this doesn't make a baby boy associate pain with his mother and women in general is just ignorant. At least now I know where this rage comes from. I don't need to feel bad about hating and loving my mother simultaneously. I was trained to do it. This is how sick this procedure is. It breaks the love bond between son and monther. Consequently, my mother is very remorseful about it. At least I can thank her for the tireless effort she must have spent cleaning it in my first 2 years of life when I didn't have protective skin, because there are many complications and terrible things that happen as a result of the prolonged and exposed open wound. When you realize how many parents are clueless of how much maintenance and care must go to this open wound and why children see extreme complication including buried penis, and gang green and extrreme infection it makes you think twice. The intact penis requires almost no maintenance! The Circed penis requires serious medical care! End the cycle! End Abuse against children.

    2. Thank you for your perspective. Very enlightening. Agree 100%!

  2. In Western states where circumcision rates have been falling for more than a generation to below 25%, even below 20%, there have not been the health problems we are warned will be epidemic in the absence of this practice. If the most common reason it is done is because it is customary and "he" will look like his brothers and friends, then we could just stop doing it and "he" can still look like his brothers and friends, and anyways, in so many other ways he doesn't look like "them" at all! So what? For Jews, the original Jewish circ took only a little skin off the tip and the boy remained functionally intact. You can have it both ways! The first information you need when deciding circumcision is that you do not need to do this.

    1. if you took "a little skin off the tip" you would damage the frenulum and remove the ridged band

  3. It makes me very sad and angry that my home state (West Virginia) has the highest rate of male genital mutilation! I'm VERY disappointed in my state, but it doesn't really surprise me. Most people in this state are either stupid, uneducated or both. Makes me feel like moving from this backwoods, backwards state.

  4. It is interesting that circumcision rates are highest in states where Medicaid covers the cost (and I believe it runs to over $1,000). When Medicaid stops paying for it, the rates will fall precipitously..

    1. It is technically illegal to force this cost on payers because it is an elective surgery. The money wheel is greased, and corporations are growing fat off reselling the tissue which is a genetic human rights violation IMO. No one has the right to my body and no one should have the right to resell tissue they illegally stole from me! See for yourself. https://www.lifetechnologies.com/order/catalog/product/C0045C

    2. When my first boys were born in the late 90s and early 00s, we had medicaid since my husband's job didn't provide insurance providers in our area. We were told me had to circ the boys or there would be all kinds of medical problems and they just did it. We weren't given a choice in the matter. I had another son in 2010 on employer provided insurance. He is NOT circ'd as I knew I had a choice and it wasn't even pushed on us AT ALL when we said "no", unlike when we tried to 10 yrs ago. The difference was night and day. 1999 "Sign here to have the circumcision done to prevent recurrent UTI, bladder infections, etc" 2010 "are you planning on having your son circ'd?"

    3. you were given a choice in 1999 if you had to sign for it

  5. I hate Wisconsin's rate being so high. However, I did not circumcise either of my boys. No reason to do that to any infant. It truly is terrible that most people tell me that they wanted their boys to match the father, or they truly believed it cut back on infection. SO MUCH misinformation out there, sadly.

  6. Medicaid does not cover the cost in Idaho, I know it says no data but I know they don't cover it and those that want it done have to pay out of pocket

  7. The rate is also lower in states that pay less vs those that pay more

  8. Government child abuse and sexual abuse.

    1. Yes, this is TRUE child sexual abuse that does REAL harm, unlike somebody just copping a feel! Sure, it's not right, but ironically people not only do not go to jail for the former, they actually GET PAID to abuse and harm poor, defenseless infant boys! Tragic.

  9. Advocates of circumcision state that it prevents a variety of STIs. Surgery hasn't been casually used for prevention of illness since antibiotics made tonsillectomy unnecessary. Most STIs can be treated with antibiotics too, and HPV can be prevented in most cases with as little as one treatment with Gardisil, which is less costly and less radical.
    I adopted two school-aged boys from other countries, and because circumcision here is common, offered them the choice. The only guys I know who got a choice said no.
    Canada and Aurstralia once had circ rates above 50%, and both now hover around 20% after insurance no longer covered it.
    Even if you have a son who is circed, if you have a another son, it's silly to decide he must be cut too so they look the same. Who will see that, and in how many other ways will they not look the same? I know families who stopped doing it after their first and/or second had it. If the kids don't care, why should anyone else? It just makes them more individual. Just over half in the US now choose it, and the rates seem to be falling. It's okay to let him decide for himself someday.

  10. Anonymous: HPV can be prevented by LIFESTYLE choices. Gardasil is one of the riskiest vaccines out there and even pro-vaccine people are mixed on their opinions of Gardasil. My prediction is that we will see an INCREASE in cancer and fertility problems among women who've gotten this vaccine because of the facts that it contains polysorbate 80 that interferes w/ fertility and it will be exposing all who receive the vaccine to FOUR strains of HPV when those who make wise lifestyle choices aside from that will otherwise be exposed to NONE of them.
    There've been some girls who have died suddenly from reactions to this vaccine (That's a reaction you can't get treatment for) or have wound up w/ Guillain Barre Syndrome from this vaccine. An infection that is primarily preventable through lifestyle choices is not worth the risks of the crazy chemicals in that vaccine. It's better to make wise lifestyle choices instead.

    All that said, I agree that circumcision is unnecessary and should be left to the boy to decide for himself when he's old enough to know what that is. If you're not Jewish or Muslim, there's really no reason to do it at all. If anybody's dumb enough to claim it's biblical (aside from Jews since they don't follow the New Testament), they should be pointed to the book of Galatians where Paul is telling people that physical circumcision should not be forced upon people.

  11. I'm curious if there are more updated statistics? It has been 4 yrs since these stats and i think it would be interesting to see what they are now.

  12. Unfortunately many people were then and are now still having circumcisions performed outside of the hospital, simply because it is cheaper. Typically at the pediatrician's office. I believe that may be driving part of this eperceived change. The problem is that people are still being told by the medical community that it's beneficial. The American Academy of Pediatrics policy is a morally bankrupt one, where they lead with "the benefits outweigh the risks" and that parents should have access to it and insurance should pay for it, but later in the fine print explain that the "benefits" are "not statistically significant" and do not recommend the procedure. Huh? This recommendation is the ONLY reason parents are continuing to consent to this. They know it's wrong but believe they should still be paid for it if the parents are dumb enough to fall for their misleading and cherry-picked statistics? It's an outrage and the AAP needs to come out unequivocally against it, refusing to perform the procedure. The practice would end overnight.

  13. You can explain the benefits of keeping boys intact till you are blue in the face, but as soon as parents realize their insurance or Medicaid won't pay for the privilege, they opt for an intact boy.

    Rates were once high in Arizona, too, but after the State Legislature stopped funding cosmetic cutting, parents started leaving their children intact. It is a big savings for the taxpayers, as fully one half of all births in Arizona are funded through Medicaid. I'm sure that holds true for many of the States with high rates ... so people, call, write, e-mail the people who represent you in your State House. Tell them you are tired of paying for cosmetic surgeries for people who can't afford to pay childbirth expenses. When the legislators realize just how much money they will save ... they'll fully back defunding.

  14. Mr. Andersson's comment is simply false. A doctor could say that there are benefits to keeping a boy intact, and no benefit to circumcision, whatsoever let alone until blue in the face, to any parent and they would follow his/her advice. Doctor advice that the benefits outweigh the risks is the only reason people still do it. Better yet, they could and should refuse to perform the procedure. Insurance isn't forcing them to perform it by covering it. The ethical imperative lies with the doctor to choose doing the right thing for his patient vs. taking money for treatment that is not necessary. To do otherwise is fraud, plain and simple. It's true that insurance companies and states shouldn't even cover it, but that's no excuse for doctors and their professional organizations to escape blame. They are the ones recommending, performing and profiting from the procedure.

  15. There is a video on this site showing a gomco circumcision from 2011 "for health care professionals." (http://www.savingsons.org/2011/01/neonatal-circumcision-video-for.html) I had to stop the video before even 2 minutes since it is so heartbreaking. But what I want to point out is that the "doctor" injects the anesthesia in totally the WRONG place, and gives doctors-in-training the same absurd model, which obviously provides no anesthetic benefit. (The proper way to do a DPNB, dorsal penile nerve block, is to inject .5 ccs of lidocaine at the base of the penis at the 10 and 2 o'clock positions--in other words, on the top side of the penis. This "doctor" injects .5 ccs of lidocaine at the 6 o'clock position, on the underside of the penis, nowhere near the dorsal nerves. My assumption is that he enjoys tying up and torturing helpless babies, and therefore deliberately administers the anesthesia in a way that gives them no relief--and provides other practitioners with this erroneous example. And if my contentions are untrue, then it is nevertheless true that he appears incompetent to perform surgeries, since he does not even follow a simple technique for administering anesthesia in the correct way.

  16. Here in the UK, the only parents still imposing genital cutting on boys are immigrants from the East and from Africa. Unfortunately, I was genital mutilated in 1947, shortly before it went out of fashion. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo3534612.html
    Campaign against Juvenile Genital Cutting, regardless of gender.

  17. Keep in mind that in some of the states where Medicaid doesn't cover circumcision, the insurance companies that contract with Medicaid to actually cover the Medicaid participants will still cover circumcision. I'm in Missouri and last summer when I was choosing which insurance company I wanted to use for my Medicaid coverage, all three insurance companies offered circumcision for FREE. (Needless to say I did not utilize that "benefit")

  18. Yet..... IF a male chooses a circumcision for himself as a consenting adult...... NO ONE covers it! It's only covered if it's a defenseless child being strapped to a circumstraint board........

    1. It makes you wonder who keeps promoting this? Why? CDC and AAP.. what a scam organization both are.

  19. I used to live in Vermont. Certainly as a boy I was aware of the other boys including my brothers who had their foreskins removed. It was at age 13, my foreskin spontaneously retracted and I began moving it back and forth over the glans. Suddenly my whole body experienced great pleasure, but I as a kid, thought it was a warning. So much for the foreskin the penis's only moving part. They have to keep inventing reasons to remove it. Some things never change and now I am 71. I guess in USA circumcision will out live me.

  20. Well here in Michigan now progress is being made Medicaid no longer covers it and many major medical plans are no longer either

    1. Congratulations since Michigan is a monster foreskin cutter. I worked as did others to get Vermont to drop the circumcision from Medicaid. We were rebuffed each time. When I lived in Vt back in 1990's and early 20's The rates at some hospitals were 95 percent. Middlebury, Rutland St Albans and Bennington at 95 percent. The over all state rate was 65 percent. Today after all this time for education to have taken place, 20 years, a generation, its 2013 at 67 ! Go figure

  21. It has been very disappointing for me a native Vermonter, to see people so lock step, after there have been so many new stories about circumcision in Burlington papers. I believe it is backward as hell, when 70 percent are still doing this mutilation. I used to have NOCIRC web site and you can still see it on U of Vermont servers. I know such a horror is just brushed off by these people and Vermont Medicaid still, even after political bills introduced to stop payments, still pays. Is this your educated and open minded State they claim, with the Maple Trees? Rutland and saint Albans have cut every male child with stats over 90 percent. The other ten were too sick to mutilate.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...