A man from Salem said he’s never felt whole since he was circumcised as a baby and has spent his adult life trying to reverse the procedure.

A mother from Moultonborough called it male genital mutilation.

A man from Merrimack argued the practice has both long-standing historic and preventative medical reasons.

The opinions were among many expressed ahead of a hearing for House Bill 94, which would end Medicaid coverage for elective circumcision as lawmakers look for ways to cut costs.

If passed, the bill would eliminate coverage for circumcision procedures for newborns and minors, except in cases where the procedure is medically necessary due to a specific health condition, for families on the state’s Medicaid program, which is usually lower-income residents.

Last year, a similar bill was introduced but narrowly failed to pass.

Rep. Jason Osborne, a Republican from Auburn and one of the bill’s co-sponsors, explained that the move is intended to curb spending on what he describes as a “medically unnecessary, irreversible surgery.”

According to the bill’s fiscal note, the change could save New Hampshire around $100,000 annually. Last year, the Medicaid program spent a total of $211,433 on circumcision services, with the costs split equally between state and federal funds. Each side contributed $105,716.50, according to data provided by the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services.

However, opponents of the bill argue that it would violate religious freedoms.

“What possible purpose could it have other than to show a profound disrespect of our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters?” Campbell Harvey, a Manchester resident, voiced concern in an online testimony.

The Circumcision Resource Center reports that 16 states do not cover infant circumcisions through Medicaid. Maine is the only state in New England where this procedure is not covered through state Medicaid.

Apart from those who support the bill as a way to reduce taxpayer spending, some also back it due to the negative personal effects they claim to have experienced from being circumcised as infants.

Tiffany Hale, from Berlin, argued that Medicaid is meant for essential medical care and not cosmetic procedures like circumcision.

“Cosmetic procedures come with risks and when things go wrong that adds even more expense to the taxpayers to correct the damage,” wrote Hale. “Clearly the right thing to do is to defund this purely cosmetic surgery.”