The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has finalized its recommendation statement 1 regarding periodic screening with the pelvic examination, and it is both unusual and remarkable. It is unusual because the USPSTF typically does not make recommendations about a test separate from a specific health condition. It is remarkable in that it finds the evidence insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of performing screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women-a conclusion in direct contrast to that of 2 other high-profile professional societies: the American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Evidently, both the ACP and the ACOG believe the evidence to be sufficient to make a recommendation, but in different directions. The ACP strongly recommends against performing the examination in asymptomatic, nonpregnant adult women. 2 This conclusion was based on a systematic review that found no evidence in support of the examination but found evidence of harms ranging from psychological distress to unnecessary surgery. 3 The ACOG, on the other hand, acknowledges the lack of evidence but recommends annual examinations in women 21 years or older "based on expert opinion." 4(p422) The ACOG's Well Woman Task Force reinforces the recommendation and the belief that the decision to perform the examination be a shared one between a woman and her clinician. 5 In effect, we now have 3 influential groups making 3 different recommendations. It is important to note that the USPSTF recommendation statement 1 does not apply to health conditions for which the USPSTF already recommends screening, such as cervical cancer, gonorrhea, or chlamydia in some women. Specifically, the USPSTF addresses the stand-alone value of the routine pelvic examination (which may include any of the following components, alone or in combination: assessment of the external genitalia, internal speculum examination, bimanual palpation, and recto-vaginal examination) outside of any other indications. All 3 groups agree on 1 fact: there is a substantial lack of evidence of benefit of the examination in this context, including its value in screening for ovarian cancer. How can it be that such a long-standing practice has escaped the usual high standards of evidence required of preventive interventions? Has the emperor been traipsing around unclothed for as long as anyone can remember? Perhaps it is the attention to harms that have caused a closer look. The new USPSTF statement 1 puts these harms in