=Infant Circumcision Debate section=== 

 AlphaEta brings up a suggestion about a opposition to circumcision section.  I think that would solve a lot of the disputes we have been having about notability for inclusion. Notability is surely dependent on context and section heading.  In the context of an opposition to circumcision section, the MGM bill is pretty relevant.  In a legal issues section which documents actual laws - maybe not as much.   

 So, to maybe satisfy some of Jake's concerns (I think he overstates his case somewhat), a section entitled "Infant Circumcision debate" would be better.  This section would concentrate more on the social aspects of the circumcision debate rather than the studies.  Here is a first draft proposal ( I have yet to include references but these are easily found): 

  
 Infant Circumcision debate 

 There has been opposition to circumcision for thousands of years. The Ancient Greeks valued the foreskin and were opposed to circumcision. Ancient Romans passed laws to ban the procedure.  

 In the late 1800's, circumcision became medicalised and soon circumcision came to be performed on infants for supposed prophelactic reasons.  Since this time, considerable debate has emerged.  Most medical organisations do not recommend routine infant circumcision.  Routine infant circumcision is rare now in the English speaking world, apart from the USA where the newborn circumcision rate has remained above 50% to this day.  Because of this, the circumcision debate is most prominent there.  A number of organisations have been set up to educate the American public about circumcision and to promote the idea of "intactness"; there are even campaigns to make it illegal to circumcise, so that males have equal parity with females in terms of genital integrity.  

 As you can see, it is fairly short and would solve a lot of problems.     

  
 ==