Tweet
https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...eening-process
I've been taking an extended break, but stumbled across this in the U.S. Federal Register (in follow-up to a "Call to Action" post on the former site).
Excerpt:
One thing I would definitely do differently if preparing a response today, is that I would not presume to speak on behalf of the Hispanic/Latino community.
I've been taking an extended break, but stumbled across this in the U.S. Federal Register (in follow-up to a "Call to Action" post on the former site).
Excerpt:
Two commenters raised similar concerns regarding a statement made by HHS/CDC in the preamble of the 2015 NPRM regarding the inconclusive correlation between male circumcision and HIV prevention. Both commenters expressed disdain over the ethical, legal and methodological issues surrounding male circumcision as it relates to communicable disease. One commenter stated that some men from traditionally non-circumcising cultures [e.g. Hispanic/Latino communities] may read the NPRM and feel compelled to have themselves, and male children, circumcised in the belief that it may help them gain admittance to the U.S. Finally, both commenters concluded that any reference to male circumcision should be removed from the regulation.
Response: HHS/CDC thanks these commenters for their input. We note first that today's final rule does not contain any reference to male circumcision. Second, we clarify that whether a male is circumcised does not—and will not under today's final rule—have an effect on his medical examination or eventual admission into the United States. In the preamble language of the June 2015 NPRM, HHS/CDC stated: “. . . HIV prevention strategies such as male circumcision may be playing a role, although definitive studies of this effect are still pending.” This statement was made in addition to several other hypotheses which supported the underlying fact that “[D]eclining rates of these [STIs] are likely due to a variety of factors.” Other factors considered and listed in the NPRM included: Improved living conditions, better sanitation (e.g., availability of soap and water), condom use, educational efforts, improved recognition by physicians and treatment based on clinical presentation of sexually transmitted infections, treatment of sexual partners, as well as increased antibiotic usage for treatment of other unrelated conditions. No changes were made to the final rule based on these comments.
Response: HHS/CDC thanks these commenters for their input. We note first that today's final rule does not contain any reference to male circumcision. Second, we clarify that whether a male is circumcised does not—and will not under today's final rule—have an effect on his medical examination or eventual admission into the United States. In the preamble language of the June 2015 NPRM, HHS/CDC stated: “. . . HIV prevention strategies such as male circumcision may be playing a role, although definitive studies of this effect are still pending.” This statement was made in addition to several other hypotheses which supported the underlying fact that “[D]eclining rates of these [STIs] are likely due to a variety of factors.” Other factors considered and listed in the NPRM included: Improved living conditions, better sanitation (e.g., availability of soap and water), condom use, educational efforts, improved recognition by physicians and treatment based on clinical presentation of sexually transmitted infections, treatment of sexual partners, as well as increased antibiotic usage for treatment of other unrelated conditions. No changes were made to the final rule based on these comments.
Comment