They talk about this a lot in the article.
That's one of the reasons I feel neutral about religious circumcision. The last thing we want to do is to "force" people who are going to have it done come hell (or other undesirable afterlife option) or high water, into backyard procedures. It's a tricky one.
The only thing I am disappointed about in the coverage of the topic in this article, is that the proponents of earlier vs later circumcision talk about ease of restraint rather than the option of a general anaesthetic which is much more controlled and ensures adequate analgesia. It's not even mentioned.