Well it's no secret. The states are alarmingly insane.

    From the first link they give:

    And then the article itself:

    Doesn't make any sense.  If circumcising an adult male (supposedly) stops him from passing AIDS, then there is no evidence that circumcising a neonate does.  Neonates never ever want sex.  

    The FDA probably wants to make the foreskins into expensive moisturizing cream for consumers' hands.  This isn't right.

    Did you know they circumcise boys in hospitals under twenty-four hours old?  Can you imagine how traumatized you would be?  Welcome to the world and the knife! Between your legs!  I think I'd want to crawl back in.

    Also, from what I've read and been shown, a neonates foreskin does not peel back.  That often takes up to two years before the skin can be drawn back.  Plus doctors make mistakes and take the head off sometimes.  And those bell clamps!  They squeeze the skin off slowly and painfully.  Can you imagine?

 I don't think it can be made mandatory. The general trend, even in the USA, has been away from male circumcision(only 60% of males now get circumcised). Partly, it's because doctors are now increasingly terrified of being sued in the future as the baby, technically, has no say in the matter, at the time. Plus, there are plenty of anti-circumcision groups now in the US, with many men looking into foreskin reconstruction in order to repair some of the damage. These would not tolerate such behaviour and feminist groups can hardly condemn female genital mutilation in the Middle-East while still condoning male genital mutilation in the West -  such would be hypocrisy.

There is actually plentiful evidence to show that the link made between male circumcision and AIDS is completely bogus, the trouble is that the relevant pro-circumcision advocates have been entirely dishonest and have only cited the randomised trials that vaguely support their position, not the multitude which prove the exact opposite. Here's a link, though there are many others:-
http://www.circumstitions.com/Short-HIV.html

The real problem is this, IMO:- Male (and female)circumcision originally became fashionable as a way of controlling male and female sexual desire/masturbation-rates in the Western world, by removing some  genital areas which were sexually sensitive and which  enhanced performance. When the prudery changed due to changing mores, there had to be other excuses made for such a revolting practice, so excuses such as bogus links to prostate-cancer/AIDS etc. were given, despite dodgy evidence. In the UK, while male circumcision is generally very seriously frowned upon, it is still unfortunately practised in 1% of cases for Muslims and Jews, justified solely on religious not medical grounds, though, quite frankly, the infants, IMO, have a perfect right to sue their own parents and the doctor in later years.

I think what they are saying is that the usual listed drawbacks for NOT being circumcised are mostlly or entirely myths. That said I can't quite figure out/decipher the reasons why circumcision would be bad for males myself? Surely traditional hospital birthing is just as traumatic with or w/o such a procedure.

---

I know just from conversations and such that many females have issues/repulsions with uncircumcised males, whether this is based on cultural misinformation or not.

PTSD