New Hampshire House Bill 94 targets Medicaid funding for circumcision amidst backlash

The New Hampshire Senate Health and Human Services Committee convened on April 9, 2025, to discuss House Bill 94, which proposes to eliminate Medicaid funding for infant circumcision. The bill's primary sponsor, Representative Soddy, emphasized that the legislation serves as a housekeeping measure, aligning with existing federal and state laws that prohibit funding for unnecessary elective surgeries. He argued that circumcision is an unnecessary procedure, citing that 80% of the global male population remains intact and that historical justifications for the practice have been debunked.

Soddy highlighted potential cost savings of $200,000 to $300,000 by ceasing Medicaid coverage for circumcision, including expenses related to complications from botched procedures. He noted that other countries, including England and Canada, have stopped funding circumcision without adverse effects.

The committee heard testimony from various stakeholders, including representatives from the Jewish community who opposed the bill. Senator Cindy Rosenwald, representing the Jewish caucus, described the bill as anti-Semitic, arguing that circumcision is a vital religious rite for Jews, akin to baptism for Christians. She urged the committee to consider the implications of restricting access to this practice for low-income families who rely on Medicaid.

Senator Deborah Altschuler echoed these concerns, stating that removing Medicaid coverage would create a two-tiered system, disproportionately affecting economically vulnerable Jewish families. She emphasized that circumcision is not merely a cosmetic procedure but a sacred covenant in Jewish tradition.

Opponents of the bill also pointed to the American Academy of Pediatrics' stance, which recognizes potential health benefits associated with circumcision, including reduced risks of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases. They argued that the procedure is a common practice in the U.S., with approximately 70% of males circumcised, and that the majority of men report satisfaction with the procedure.

Supporters of the bill, however, contended that circumcision is not medically necessary and that Medicaid funds should be redirected to more pressing health needs. They argued that the procedure carries risks and that families should bear the financial responsibility for elective surgeries.

The committee's discussions highlighted the complex interplay between medical, cultural, and religious considerations surrounding circumcision. As the hearing concluded, the committee members were left to weigh the implications of the proposed legislation on both public health and religious freedoms in New Hampshire. Further deliberations and potential votes on House Bill 94 are anticipated in the coming weeks.