The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention caused quite a stir last week when word slipped out that the agency was considering, for the first time, making public-health recommendations concerning circumcision. In terms of a woman’s health, circumcision makes sense because it lowers a man’s risk of getting infected with HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases and, thus, decreases his likelihood of transmitting them to his female partner. But those vehemently opposed to circumcision — who call themselves “intactivists” — have expressed outrage that the government is thinking about recommending that all newborn boys be circumcised. They contend it’s a form of mutilation that destroys a man’s ability to fully experience sexual pleasure.

I’m wondering why the CDC is choosing to tackle this controversial cultural issue at this particular time, when Americans’ tempers are already flaring over health-care reform and rumors of so-called death panels that will determine whether you live or die just won’t go away, even though there’s no mention of them in the legislation.

The agency says it hasn’t decided yet on the final content of the recommendations and whether it will actually include wording that recommends the procedure for all newborns or merely recommends that doctors educate parents about the potential benefits and risks to help them make an informed decision.

Many experts have drawn the conclusion that circumcised men are less likely to spread certain sexually transmitted diseases to women. Hence, some say, circumcision should be advocated in newborns as part of a public health campaign.

I think, though, that this issue is actually far more complex. Circumcision is not just a medical procedure, it is also a religious and cultural one. Judaism prescribes it on the eighth day after birth, while in Islam, boys may be circumcised any time from birth to puberty. As a cultural issue, most Americans have come to accept it as the norm (although it’s less popular today than it was 20 years ago). Europeans, on the other hand, have never embraced it. In the Philippines, two-thirds of teenage boys who responded to a recent survey said that they were choosing to get circumcised to avoid being different from their peers, according to this United Nations website. Same, too, in South Korea. The intactivists, who are growing in number, say that the procedure is barbaric and akin to genital mutilation in females.

Certainly, the debate isn’t about mandatory snipping in the hospital cradle or whether circumcision will solve the AIDS crisis. But I do think CDC folks will have to evaluate the latest research carefully before deciding to take a cultural practice and turn it into a public-health mission.

Deborah Kotz is a syndicated columnist. A version of this commentary was originally published by U.S. News & World Report.