(Photo by Vitezslav Vylicil on Shutterstock)
Rates For Male Newborns Drop Below 50% Despite Medical Support
In A Nutshell
- Newborn circumcision rates in the US fell from 54% in 2012 to 49% in 2022.
- White families saw the sharpest drop, while Black and Hispanic rates stayed steady.
- Wealthier and privately insured families had higher rates but also bigger declines.
- Researchers point to rising skepticism toward medicine and Hispanic population growth as possible factors.
BALTIMORE — Circumcision among newborn boys in the United States has steadily declined over the past decade, even as leading health organizations have voiced support for the procedure.
A new analysis from researchers at Johns Hopkins University of more than 1.5 million annual hospital records shows the share of newborn boys circumcised during their first month of life fell from 54.1% in 2012 to 49.3% in 2022.
This decline came after the World Health Organization (2007), the American Academy of Pediatrics (2012), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018) each issued statements supporting access to newborn circumcision. These groups highlighted research linking the procedure with lower risks of urinary tract infections, penile inflammation, and transmission of sexually transmitted infections including HIV.
White Families Account for the Largest Circumcision Decline
Trends varied sharply across racial and ethnic groups. For White newborns, circumcision prevalence was 61.0% in 2012, rose to a peak of 65.3% in 2019, and then declined to 60.0% in 2022.
By contrast, Black families maintained the highest rates at about 66% throughout the study period, while Hispanic families consistently had the lowest at around 21%.
Regional differences were just as pronounced. Hospitals in the Midwest recorded the highest prevalence at 68.5% in 2022, while Western hospitals reported only 19.7%. Among White families in the West, circumcision dropped from 34.3% in 2012 to 26.2% in 2022.
Wealth and Insurance Status Shape Decisions
Household income and insurance coverage also influenced circumcision choices. Parents in the wealthiest zip codes started with higher rates (59.4% in 2012) but saw some of the steepest declines, falling to 51.1% by 2022.
Insurance patterns told a similar story. Families with private coverage had the highest baseline prevalence, 64.2% in 2012, yet their rate fell sharply to 56.3% in 2022. Medicaid-covered families showed smaller shifts, with circumcision declining from 44.5% to 42.3% over the same period.
Policy changes may have contributed. By 2011, 17 states had ended Medicaid coverage for routine newborn circumcision, creating financial hurdles for some families. Still, researchers noted that cost alone cannot explain the overall decline, since reductions were also seen among privately insured families.
Cultural Factors and Changing Attitudes Towards Circumcision
The authors note that several factors may contribute to why parents are choosing circumcision less often despite medical endorsements. The American Academy of Pediatrics affirms that the health benefits outweigh the risks but stresses that the decision should remain with parents, stopping short of a recommendation for all newborns.
They highlight increased skepticism toward medical recommendations in the United States and the continual growth of the Hispanic population and births, given that Hispanic families have consistently low circumcision rates.
The study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, also found that rates among Black newborns stayed stable across regions, while White newborns showed the largest decreases. The authors did not investigate reasons for these racial differences, only documenting their persistence.
Medical Guidance Meets Parental Autonomy
The researchers relied on the Kids’ Inpatient Database, a nationally representative sample of pediatric hospitalizations. They examined circumcision procedures performed within 28 days of birth, identified through billing codes. This design captures most newborn circumcisions, though not those performed in outpatient clinics or later in infancy.
Limitations include possible underreporting due to coding sensitivity, lack of state-level identifiers, and the fact that the database counts hospital discharges rather than unique infants. Still, the study represents the most comprehensive national picture available.
Between 2012 and 2022, medical organizations offered some of their clearest endorsements of circumcision’s health benefits. Yet parents moved in the opposite direction, choosing the procedure less often. The gap between institutional recommendations and family decisions underscores how health behaviors reflect more than clinical guidance alone.
As the authors concluded, circumcision trends reflect a mix of demographic change, cultural views, and shifting trust in healthcare, factors that shape decisions even when medical benefits are emphasized.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and should not be taken as medical advice. Parents should consult healthcare professionals when making decisions about circumcision or other procedures.
Paper Summary
Methodology
Researchers analyzed the Kids’ Inpatient Database from 2012 to 2022, examining over 1.5 million hospital records of male newborns aged 0-28 days each year. They excluded babies with bleeding disorders, penile abnormalities, or premature births. The team used medical billing codes to identify circumcision procedures and applied statistical weights to generate national estimates. They calculated annual circumcision rates and used regression analysis to measure changes over time across different demographic groups.
Results
Overall circumcision rates declined from 54.1% in 2012 to 49.3% in 2022. White families drove most of the decline, with rates dropping from 65.3% to 60%. Black families maintained stable rates around 66%, while Hispanic families remained at about 21%. The Midwest had the highest rates (68.5%) and the West the lowest (19.7%). Wealthier families and those with private insurance had higher circumcision rates but experienced the largest declines during the study period.
Limitations
The study only captured hospital-based circumcisions using billing codes, which may underestimate total circumcision rates due to coding issues or outpatient procedures. The database tracks hospital discharges rather than individual patients, so multiple hospitalizations for the same baby appear as separate records. State-level data wasn’t available, limiting analysis of policy effects. The study was restricted to the first 28 days of life, potentially missing some procedures performed later.
Funding and Disclosures
The study received partial funding from a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grant (R01DK131926). Dr. Tobian reported receiving National Institutes of Health grants during the study. The researchers stated that funders had no role in study design, data analysis, or publication decisions. No other conflicts of interest were reported.
Publication Information
The research letter “Trends in Circumcision Among Newborn Males in the US” was published online September 15, 2025, in JAMA Pediatrics. The study was conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, led by Ping Yang and Dr. Aaron A.R. Tobian. The paper was accepted for publication on June 10, 2025.








Bad article… yes it dropped but the science dies not support the expired AAP policy from 2012… expired in 2017.
https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/08/the-aap-report-on-circumcision-bad-science-bad-ethics-bad-medicine/
Circumcision gets mixed up with religion and WW2. Prior to WW2, almost all American males were not circumcised. After WW2 and the fact that Jews were exterminated by Germany partly due to whether they were circumcised, most American hospitals and virtually all Jewish doctors recommended circumcisions.
It does severely reduce the penis’s sensitivity to masturbation and intercourse. Since there is little medical research to support this practice, except for what is done in Israel, there is little need to continue the practice. It should be ended.
Surprising that StudyFinds would mis-quote the American Academy of Pediatrics. This summary says “The American Academy of Pediatrics affirms that the health benefits outweigh the risks” but in fact the AAP HAS NO POLICY about infant circumcision. Their last policy statement was from 2012, but that has been expired for 8 years (three years more than it was in force).
Surprising that Johns-Hopkins is guilty of cherry picking data to promote circumcision.
The JH web page says: “…research has continued to confirm that the procedure reduces penile inflammation, urinary tract infections, and acquisition of HIV…”
This warrants a correction.
The recent evidence actually says circumcision status is irrelevant in predicting whether someone will acquire HIV.
-Zambia 2020 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31608845/
“circumcised men were found to have the same level of infection as uncircumcised men”
-Denmark 2021 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34564796/
“Compared with genitally intact males, rates among circumcised males were not statistically significantly reduced for any specific STI. Indeed, circumcised males had a 53% higher rate of STIs overall” (17.7 million person-years of data)
-Canada 2022 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551593/
“We found that circumcision was not independently associated with the risk of acquiring HIV among males from Ontario” (10.3 million person-years of data)
-Lesotho 2022 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35373731/
“A multivariate analysis showed no net effect of circumcision on HIV…”
-South Africa 2023 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36286328/
“Results matched earlier observations made in South Africa that circumcised and intact men had similar levels of HIV infection.”
Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) should be outlawed!
Great, finally. Imagine coming into this world and almost immediately after you have your most sensitive part of your body mutilated with zero anesthesia. The darker reason/history for circumcision is religious and so a certain group could remain hidden in plain sight as they rape and pillage the country like parasites.
-Flek
shout out to the brothers for keepin it real!
This article mischaracterizes the current and recent past advice particularly from American Academy of Pediatrics. They neither recommend for or against circumcision. They recommend that it be available as an option, which is very different. When my son was born in 2014, not a single doctor or nurse would tell me that the procedure was medically recommended, or else I would have had it done. My kids had all the recommended vaccines on schedule. Please don’t mischaracterize this issue by treating it the same way. It isnt.
Circumcision is child rape and mutilation. Bemefits are lies, lack of risk is a lie. It purposefully dull the male sex organ and destroys pleasure.
The AAP even admitted it’s policy paper was based 100% on lies and false premises.
People are waking up to the fact it’s harmful mutilation and sexual assault of an infant and the man he will become.
Why isn’t this considered genital mutilation?
Stop mutilating babies. I’m glad the doctor recommended against it in my case, even though his reasoning was stupid (“so he looks like his father”).