Male circumcision has been heavily debated in Denmark in recent years. Photo: Colourbox 
 
 A poll showing 74 percent support for banning male circumcision comes as parliament prepares for a new round of political discussion on male circumcision. 
 
 Nearly three fourths of Danes are in favour of banning male circumcision, a new poll revealed. 
 
 In a survey of over 1,000 Danes conducted by YouGov for Metroxpress newspaper, 74 percent of respondents wanted a full or partial ban on the practice while just ten percent supported giving parents the right to circumcise their sons. 
 
 The poll results come as parliament prepares to hold a hearing on the practice of circumcision on Wednesday. Left-wing party the Red-Green Alliance (Enhedslisten) and libertarian party Liberal Alliance are in favour of a ban, while other parties report internal disagreement on the issue. 
 
 The debate about circumcision is a frequent topic in Denmark. Following extensive media coverage in both 2012 and 2013, the Danish Health and Medicines Authority (Sundhedsstyrelsen) carried out a study on the potential health risks and benefits of circumcision. In June 2013, the agency determined that there was neither enough risk to justify outlawing circumcision nor enough documentation of its benefits to generally recommend the practice. 
 
 Despite the health authorities’ findings, Wednesday’s hearing in parliament may be the first step toward an eventual ban. 
 
 “We will handle this topic politically within a few years. As I see it, it goes against the [UN’s] Convention on the Rights of the Child to circumcise children. I’m leaning toward a ban until the person is of legal age,” Venstre MP Hans Christian Schmidt, a former health minister, told Metroxpress. 
 
 According to Sundhedsstyrelsen, somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 circumcisions are performed in Denmark each, primarily on Jewish and Muslim boys. Male circumcision is almost universal in the Muslim world and highly prevalent in many African countries. It is also a popular practice in the United States where more than half of all boys are circumcised and in Canada, where a 2007 survey put the percentage at 31.9 percent. 
 
 Jair Melchior of the Jewish faith group Mosaisk Troessamfund cautioned politicians to not let opinion polls affect their stance on circumcision. 
 
 “The problem is that there are so many assertions in the debate on circumcising boys. If it was so dangerous, the Jewish community would have been the first to stop it. But it’s not,” Melchior told Metroxpress. ||||| NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. health officials on Tuesday released a draft of long-awaited federal guidelines on circumcision, saying medical evidence supports the procedure and health insurers should pay for it. 
 
 FILE - In this July 28, 2011, file photo, anti-circumcision activists Frank McGinness, right, and Jeff Brown rally against circumcision with about 25 protesters outside a San Francisco courthouse. On... (Associated Press) 
 
 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines stop short of telling parents to have their newborn sons circumcised. That is a personal decision that may involve religious or cultural preferences, said the CDC's Dr. Jonathan Mermin. 
 
 But "the scientific evidence is clear that the benefits outweigh the risks," added Mermin, who oversees the agency's programs on HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. 
 
 These are the first federal guidelines on circumcision, a brief medical procedure that involves cutting away the foreskin around the tip of the penis. Germs can grow underneath the foreskin, and CDC officials say the procedure can lower a male's risk of sexually-transmitted diseases, penile cancer and even urinary tract infections. 
 
 The CDC started working on the guidelines about seven years ago, when a cluster of influential studies in Africa indicated circumcision might help stop spread of the AIDS virus. 
 
 "The benefits of male circumcision have become more and more clear over the last 10 years," said Dr. Aaron Tobian, a Johns Hopkins University researcher involved in one of the African studies. 
 
 But the guidelines are important, because the rates of newborn male circumcision have been dropping, he added. 
 
 The guidelines are being published in the federal register Tuesday. For the next 45 days, the CDC will receive public comment before finalizing them next year. 
 
 They are likely to draw intense opposition from anti-circumcision advocacy groups, said Dr. Douglas Diekema, a Seattle physician who worked on a circumcision policy statement issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2012. 
 
 "This is a passionate issue for them and they feel strongly that circumcision is wrong," said Diekema, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington. 
 
 Indeed, the head of one group did argue against the CDC's conclusions on Tuesday, saying they minimize potential complications from the procedure. 
 
 The guidelines "are part of a long historical American cultural and medical bias to attempt to defend this traumatic genital surgery," said, Ronald Goldman, executive director of the Circumcision Resource Center. 
 
 The CDC guidelines largely mirror the pediatrician group's statement, but the CDC's document incorporates more research and comes from an organization that many may see as more neutral on the topic, Diekema said. 
 
 The thinking on circumcision has swung wildly over the years. It's been practiced by Jews and Muslims for thousands of years, but didn't become common in this country until the 20th century. By one estimate, only 25 percent of U.S. male newborns were circumcised in 1900. 
 
 It gradually became the cultural norm, and in the 1950s and 1960s surpassed 80 percent. But then the trend reversed. Part of it had to do with changing demographics, as the U.S. population grew to include larger numbers of Mexican-Americans and other ethnic groups that didn't traditionally circumcise their children. 
 
 Also, opposition to the procedure grew from advocates who decried the pain, bleeding and risk of infections to newborns. Their message was aided by the Internet and by the neutral stance of physicians groups — including, for a time, the American Academy of Pediatrics. 
 
 A wave of state Medicaid programs stopped paying for newborn circumcisions, which cost roughly $150 to $200. The list eventually rose to 18 states, according to CDC numbers. 
 
 By 2010 the newborn circumcision rate was down to about 58 percent, according to one CDC estimate. 
 
 But even as the circumcision rate dropped, more medical evidence came in supporting it — particularly three rigorous and influential studies in Africa that looked at the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases in circumcised and uncircumcised men and their partners. 
 
 In the new guidelines, the CDC says there is now strong evidence that male circumcision can: 
 
 —Cut a man's risk of getting HIV from an infected female partner by 50 to 60 percent. 
 
 —Reduce their risk of genital herpes and certain strains of human papillomavirus by 30 percent or more. 
 
 —Lower the risk of urinary tract infections during infancy, and cancer of the penis in adulthood. 
 
 Studies have not shown that circumcision will reduce an HIV-infected man's chances of spreading the AIDS virus to women. And research has not found circumcision to be a help in stopping spread of HIV during gay sex. 
 
 The guidelines say circumcision is safer for newborns and infants than for older males, noting the complication rate rises from 0.5 percent in newborns to 9 percent in children ages 1 to 9, according to the CDC. Minor bleeding and pain are the most common problems, experts say. 
 
 CDC officials are recommending doctors tell parents of baby boys of the benefits and risks of circumcision. Mermin did not say how that information should be presented. 
 
 Because circumcision can be beneficial to men as well, the CDC says information about the procedure also should be given to sexually active uncircumcised men — especially men considered to be at higher risk of catching HIV, the guidelines say.
– "To be circumcised should be an informed, personal choice," or so thinks the Danish Medical Association, which on Friday issued its recommendation that no boy under age 18 in the country be circumcised. Going that route then leaves the door open for the male to make a decision of his own "when he has come of age," says Lise Moller, the head of the association’s ethics board. That's not to say the doctors' group is calling for a ban, which it says it weighed and decided against due to cases where male circumcision is medically necessary and for the potential for clandestine botched procedures, says Moller. Had they wanted a ban, they'd possibly face a steep slope. In a June report to the UN, Denmark agreed with Egypt's stance that it is a parental right to circumcise one's male child, reports the Copenhagen Post. Still, the Local reports that 74% of respondents to a 2014 survey said they'd support a full or partial ban. An estimated 1,000 to 2,000 circumcisions take place in Denmark each year, and the country should have a firmer idea of that number as of Jan. 1, after which all circumcisions must be logged in Denmark's national patient registry, reports the Local. Doctors who fail to do so will be fined, reports the Post. The CDC reports that in 2010, an estimated 58% of male newborns were circumcised in the US. (This mom went into hiding and then to jail in an attempt to avoid circumcising her son.)