Johns Hopkins Bows To USAID Censorship Push

An anonymous reader sends us to Wired's Threat Level blog for news that the federally funded Popline database at Johns Hopkins University, said to be the largest source of information on reproductive health, has begun censoring searches that contain the word "abortion." Apparently they took this stop due to pressure from USAID, the federal agency that provides foreign aid to developing nations. From Wired: "Under a Reagan-era policy revived by President Bush in 2001, USAID denies funding to non-governmental organizations that perform abortions, or that 'actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.' A librarian at the University of California at San Francisco noticed the new censorship on Monday, while carrying out a routine research request on behalf of academics and researchers at the university. The search term had functioned properly as of January. Puzzled, she contacted the manager of the database,... who replied in an April 1st e-mail that the university had recently begun blocking the search term because the database received federal funding."

Comments

Pathetic

[scubamage]

I don't understand this at all - like it or not, abortion exists. You can not deny that it exists. Why try to block information about it? That's idiotic. Simply acting as a repository of information is not advocacy in my eyes.

Re:Pathetic

[gstoddart]

I don't understand this at all - like it or not, abortion exists. You can not deny that it exists. Why try to block information about it? That's idiotic. Simply acting as a repository of information is not advocacy in my eyes.

Because, the current administration doesn't like it, and doesn't want it to exist. They don't want you to know it exists, and they don't want you to "actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations" -- which in this case, could be interpreted to include making the information available in an on-line database, even if that is for research purposes.

Sadly, Hopkins is just complying with the law because they probably can't afford to have their federal funding pulled.

Might it be in their interest to assist in fighting this? Probably. Should they do it on their own and risk the funding to pay for the medical procedures and research they do? That's an awful lot to ask of them.

Sadly, this is yet another example of the stunning closed-mindedness of the Bush administration. Censorship in the guise of politically mandated morality. Didn't we accuse the Taliban of doing that?

Cheers

Re:Pathetic

[yali]

What I don't understand is, why are they doing this censorship so quietly and compliantly? It seems like the principled thing would have been to fight it on free speech grounds. Short of that, why not set up the DB to respond with a message like, "All information about abortion has been censored by executive order of President Bush"? They would have been technically in compliance with the policy, but could have made a point (and drawn others to their cause).

Re:Pathetic

[TrebleJunkie]

"Sadly, Hopkins is just complying with the law because they probably can't afford to have their federal funding pulled."

Such is life when you depend on others to support it. "The borrower is slave to the lender." "Beggars can't be choosers." "My house (or dollars), my rules."

The right and moral thing for JH to do would be, at the least to say, frankly, "we value the access to knowledge more than we do government crumbs. As of this momemt, we reject all government funding and will seek private funding through only through groups or individuals that share our values. Clearly, the government does not."

Granted it would be more right and moral for JH to publish it for a fee, and let those who actually value JH's work *pay* for it like they should, instead of simply claiming that they "neeeeeeeeed" it and/or taking it for granted. But as a nation we're far too embedded in the "neeeeeeeeed game" to expect someone to quit cold turkey. Ayn Rand, call your office.

Re:Pathetic

[gstoddart]

What I don't understand is, why are they doing this censorship so quietly and compliantly? It seems like the principled thing would have been to fight it on free speech grounds. Short of that, why not set up the DB to respond with a message like, "All information about abortion has been censored by executive order of President Bush"?

Well, I should think because they didn't want to outright pick a fight and actively court other problems.

Johns Hopkins is a large organization, and has a responsibility to all of its faculty and students. It simply wouldn't be prudent to bait the administration too much. Who knows what kind of fallout that could lead to?

Such an organization has to be a little more diplomatic and cautious than those of us on Slashdot who are free to howl and arm-chair quarterback this (myself included). I think it's unfortunate it's happened, but it's early days, and who knows how this will play out.

There's very little to be gained for a university to start making direct attacks on Bush.

Cheers

Re:Pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never met a staunch member of the Christian Conservative Republican base, have you?

In certain circles on the right, they want vast amounts of scientific and non-political affiliated information known well through out the U.S. and world to be actively censored and shielded from the public. Why? Information is the enemy, and is known to have a liberal bias.

I amount those who seek to slow or stop the flow of information, in whatever its form or content, to that of fascists. That view is one that should have died last century, and one I can only hope is extinguished with the passing of the baby boomer generation.

Unfortunately, there are already education 'factories' from pre-k to Higher Ed, that instill this kind of thought, and who are actively pushing their graduates into the political framework and heirarchy here in the U.S.

These folk have not only drunk the kool-aid, but are selling it to no end. Be afraid.

Re:Pathetic

[gstoddart]

The right and moral thing for JH to do would be, at the least to say, frankly, "we value the access to knowledge more than we do government crumbs. As of this momemt, we reject all government funding and will seek private funding through only through groups or individuals that share our values. Clearly, the government does not."

Well, in an ideal world where funding was easy to replace, and you could afford to cut of your nose to spite your face, fine. The actual reality of it is, that's just not feasible to do. And, without knowing the amount of funding Hopkins receives, it's tough to say if it's crumbs, or big cash.

Granted it would be more right and moral for JH to publish it for a fee, and let those who actually value JH's work *pay* for it like they should, instead of simply claiming that they "neeeeeeeeed" it and/or taking it for granted. But as a nation we're far too embedded in the "neeeeeeeeed game" to expect someone to quit cold turkey.

Dude, who said anything about "neeeed" in the whining sense of entitlement you're implying? Making available academic information fairly freely among universities has been established for decades. This may not all be work created by Hopkins, they might just be the ones maintaining a database -- you know, the kind intended to improve access for everyone to promote open access for academic institutions. Almost every single university has library systems which will help you find information, that's how it works.

This was a research librarian at a reputable university who was looking for academic information in a database she has likely used numerous times. If there are fees associated, you can bet your ass they've paid them.

On the one hand, you're whining about valuing the free access to knowledge, and on the other, you're whining about people who also value it and wanted to access a database that Hopkins had previously allowed people to access. You can't have both. You're throwing in a completely specious inference that the users of this database are a bunch of whining morons with a sense of entitlement.

Ayn Rand, call your office.

Ah, yes. I should have known. OK, let me say this politely -- as someone who once drank that Kool Aid, and eventually got over it:

Ayn Rand is not the be all and end all of thought which can be defined as correct. The world is not nearly as black and white as she likes to think. Her positions are often completely so rabidly one-sided and based entirely in her epistemology as to border on the dogmatic, as are her adherents. People who are laboring under the belief they know the One Truly Correct Way of Thinking because they've read her works are sadly mistaken. She is not, and, never was, the last word on what is Right and Moral. She presents some interesting ideas, but she's not some sort of prophet who has given us a guidebook for life. Believing that she is infallible and everyone else is a wanker really only serves to make people stop listening to you.

Give yourself a few years, let life demonstrate to you that absolutist world view doesn't help you much, and maybe discover that human compassion and empathy (or, in fact, cooperation) isn't the evil you've been led to believe. People are social animals; eventually you may have to accept that fact.

In the mean time, Cheers

Re:Pathetic

[yali]

I would not dispute in many cases that in order to get things done, a large organization needs to be diplomatic and cannot take a stand on every issue of principle. But in this case, the large organization is a university, and the principle at stake is free and open access to information. Academic freedon is absolutely core to their mission. It is the one place, above all others, where a university should make a principled stand.

And what I proposed is not "a direct attack on Bush." I do not think they should have complied at all; but if they did, my suggestion was that they simply inform people, directly and openly, that the database is being censored and by whom.

Re:Pathetic

[hedwards]

Sadly, this is yet another example of the stunning closed-mindedness of the Bush administration. Censorship in the guise of politically mandated morality. Didn't we accuse the Taliban of doing that? Basically that's what's going on. And it's worse when you realize that it also stifles the ability to search for information which opposes abortion as well.

Not only does this sort of thing make it tough to get pro-choice information, but it also makes it tough to get information on how to reduce the number of abortions performed as well.

You'd be stuck with the less than apt term "Pro-Life" because searching for "anti abortion" or "abortion is immoral" and similar wouldn't get past the filter.

Re:Pathetic

[teflaime]

There's very little to be gained for a university to start making direct attacks on Bush.

Universities should be in the forefront of attacks on Bush. Universities are supposed to stand for freedom of information and the expansive distribution and aquisition of knowledge. In the last eight years, the Bush administration has forcefully attacked both of those things. Universities (at least the ones teaching real stuff as opposed to Creationism) should be vocally oppposing the Bush administrations totalitarian dictates.

Re:Pathetic

[Peter La Casse]

What I don't understand is, why are they doing this censorship so quietly and compliantly? It seems like the principled thing would have been to fight it on free speech grounds.

It sounds like USAID (or someone else) is funding abortions when they're not supposed to, and is trying to cover its tracks, and that Johns Hopkins is going along with it because they support abortion rights.

Re:Pathetic

[gstoddart]

Universities should be in the forefront of attacks on Bush. Universities are supposed to stand for freedom of information and the expansive distribution and aquisition of knowledge. In the last eight years, the Bush administration has forcefully attacked both of those things.

Generally, I agree with you.

In practice, this is a single database, maintained by a single department, of a single faculty (at least, I assume it is). If the regents of the university want to make it official policy that they will NOT bow to such things, and decide to push back, fine. But I bet the poor schmuck who turned off the search term isn't in a position to make that decision.

Not every single thing which happens inside of a university takes the form of a fight for truth and ideals with trumpets and flourish on white horses. Yup, if Academia isn't fighting bad policy, who will. But, not every act by ever person at a university has to be conducted with the gravity of a march on the gates of hell. It is up to bigger fish to decide when it's time for that.

Yes, censorship sucks. Yes, bowing to it sucks. But, there's likely a few more levels of detail and gray that always seem to accompany the specifics of a story like this. :-P

Cheers

Re:Pathetic

[khayman80]

I'm not sure they actually are blocking the term anymore. When I tried to search for the term "abortion" in the subject field at the website http://db.jhuccp.org/ics-wpd/popweb/basic.html , I got 13 hits. Perhaps they quickly realized how wrong this censorship was?

Re:Pathetic

[hey!]

It's the universal nostrum of the intellectually lazy: if you don't know what to do, then do some damage. Then you can tell yourself you are taking bold, vigorous steps, even if they happen to be in the wrong direction.

Is drug abuse to complicated an issue? Then lets have zero tolerance, at least for people who don't have the means to avoid the point at which we start applying it.

Don't know how to secure the borders? Then seize some people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time and send them out to be tortured.

Nuclear non-proliferation cutting into your brush clearing time? Start a war, which is much more interesting than intelligence gathering or diplomacy.

Most people just assume you know what you're doing. It'll probably take, oh, six or seven years for them to figure out how badly you've screwed things up, and by then it's almost not your problem any more. With luck the cleaning up your mess will be so painful people will blame your successor.

Re:Pathetic

[Speare]

Absolutely agreed. You can't legislate the non-existence of abortion. You can legislate funding to improve the education and lives of people to reduce their risk and their dependence on risky procedures. Show leadership, not censorship. Some Things Won't Go Away

Re:Pathetic

[ArsonSmith]

Because they are self censoring not being censored by the government. The government is fully right in funding what they feel is the right thing to fund and currently that is things that don't promote abortion. JH has decided that any mention of abortion could be judged as promoting it so they have self censored all of it.

They can have all the free speech they want, but they'll also lose out on the free money.

Re:Pathetic

[mapsjanhere]

Top 25 NIH-Funded Institutes
Johns Hopkins University - $566,516,255

I see 566 million reasons not to piss of the administration right there.
While funding is supposed to be based only on scientific merit, politics are 90% of the game.

Re:Pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with that is that it seems that almost nobody has, or at least believes s/he has, the authority to stand up for the university's mission... whereas every third-rate peon has the authority to undermine that mission by knuckling under to this kind of crap. It's just as much a matter of policy to submit as it is to fight... do you guess anybody asked for permission from the regents before submitting?

Re:Pathetic

[NoobixCube]

Censorship doesn't stop information from getting out, it's just the Government going "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING AND YOU CAN'T HEAR OVER MY LALALALALA!!!!". When you watch a TV show where they beep over a few words, you know what they said, and it's not like children have never heard them before. Personally, I'm very anti-censorship, though pro-classification. I don't think anyone should be barred from seeing anything, but people should at least know if there's excessive violence or sex scenes in something before they put the kids in front of everybody's favourite glowing babysitter. If we got rid of censorship, maybe parents would pay more attention to that big "AO" on the box when they buy a game. Argh... I drifted way off topic...

Re:Pathetic

[tkw954]

I'm not sure they actually are blocking the term anymore. When I tried to search for the term "abortion" in the subject field at the website http://db.jhuccp.org/ics-wpd/popweb/basic.html , I got 13 hits. Perhaps they quickly realized how wrong this censorship was?

Or maybe they wanted to kill two birds with one stone, intentionally using the Streisand effect to promote their database and point out the government's policies on funding and birth control.

Re:Pathetic

[couchslug]

Until you take one the Bible Nazis and other religious fanatics directly, they will remain a threat to all our freedoms. Bush is a symptom, not the problem.

Re:Pathetic

[couchslug]

I just tried "abort", 'abortifacient", and "abortion". Seems those terms are not blocked.

http://db.jhuccp.org/ics-wpd/popweb/

Re:Pathetic

[khayman80]

I think your explanation sounds more likely than mine.

Re:Pathetic

[Starcub]

Sadly, this is yet another example of the stunning closed-mindedness of the Bush administration. Censorship in the guise of politically mandated morality.

What? How is would this censorship in any way be the fault of the Bush administration? It was USAID that granted John Hopkins the funds. USAID is known for not always following the federal mandate that prevents funding organizations that perform or promote abortion. If John Hopkins performed or promoted abortions, or if JH had information in their database that indicated that other USAID funded organizations performed or promoted abortions, then it would seem to me that USAID is solely to blame for this. In any case, I find it hard to believe that anyone could reasonably blame Bush for this.

Why not sue?

[peipas]

Sure, they can get away with legislating other countries' policies (that moreover haven't even passed in the U.S.) by revoking funding, but why doesn't Johns Hopkins simply sue the federal government? Unless, of course, the administration claims once again that it is exempt from the basic legal tenets of the U.S.

Re:Why not sue?

[superwiz]

why doesn't Johns Hopkins simply sue the federal government? Two reasons: (i) you can't sue the Federal Government (ii) they have nothing to sue them for. The Federal government gives away money (in the form of loans with subsidized interest). It's the government's prerogative to decide on the criterion for receiving that money. To sue for money is to sue for damages. You can no more sue someone who decides to exclude you from their charitable donation than you can sue someone who choses not to pull you out of a burning building. In both cases, that someone is free not to help you.

Re:Why not sue?

[ArsonSmith]

For the same reason I can't sue you for not giving me money on what ever basis you don't give me money.

Re:Why not sue?

[peipas]

(i) you can't sue the Federal Government IANAL, but "sue federal government" on Google links to a great deal of news articles, including from LexisNexis, involving that very action.

(ii) they have nothing to sue them for. Where there's a will there's a way. Isn't that what punitive damages are for?

Just because somebody is employed "at will" doesn't mean an employer can terminate an employee due to his or her religious affiliation. Since this is government, censorship does apply, and censorship is censorship no matter the vehicle. You may have an opinion on the viability, but I am convinced there is a case to be made.

Re:Why not sue?

[superwiz]

IANAL, but I read.

IANAL, but "sue federal government" on Google links to a great deal of news articles, including from LexisNexis, involving that very action. These are not "torts" -- suits for damages. These are suits to clarify, interpret or strike a law for reasons that the law (as written) does not comply with the standards for writing of laws that we have established. You can't sue the federal government for damages.

Where there's a will there's a way. Isn't that what punitive damages are for? Punitive are a legal contraption. There are laws that allow for punitive damages to be awarded. A suit is a claim that you've been damaged and a request that a the counterparty be forced to compensate you for the damages it caused. There are laws which establish certain types of damages to be so egregious that they must be actively discouraged. Thus in addition to damages, you can request punitive damages. Since these are established by law and the federal law does not establish such types of damages against itself, you can't sue for punitive damages.

Just because somebody is employed "at will" doesn't mean an employer can terminate an employee due to his or her religious affiliation. I am not sure that religion is a protected class, but certainly you can be terminated for your political affiliation (otherwise, you'd be able to sue politicians for not hiring members of the opposing parties and such). You can argue that's censorship, I would disagree. Freedom of association cannot exist if there is no freedom of disassociation. The law (as it stands) does not always agree.

Since this is government, censorship does apply, and censorship is censorship no matter the vehicle. False and true. The vehicle of censorship does not matter, but dissassociating from an opinion is not censorship. This is as true for the government as it is for individuals. Censorship requires coercion. Chosing not to engage in an interraction with a party is not a coercion. If your arguement worked, then you'd be able to sue an organization for (for instance) boycotting a store. But you can't. And since the (elected!!!) government functions on the premise that it gets to represent the people, it can chose not to act in certain cases even though they are similar to the cases where it choses to act. To put it plainly, closing your ears while someone is talking is not censorship, but closing their mouth is. By not paying those who voice certain opinions, the government is closing its proverbial ears.

Re:Why not sue?

[superwiz]

For the same reason I can't sue you for not giving me money on what ever basis you don't give me money. Umm, but you can. You can sue for not being offered employment for the reason of being a member of one of the protected classes. Apparently NOT giving something which is yours to a complete stranger requires a reason that is compliant with the law.

It's funny. Laugh. It would be if you didn't let is sink in.

Re:Why not sue?

[superwiz]

(i) you can't sue the Federal Government IANAL, but "sue federal government" on Google links to a great deal of news articles, including from LexisNexis, involving that very action. Btw, there is a rather simple reason why a federal government cannot be sued for damages. It would give the courts a power to spend federal government's money. And the Constitution is very clear that the power of the purse will be with the Congress.

Re:Why not sue?

[ultranova]

For the same reason I can't sue you for not giving me money on what ever basis you don't give me money.

The difference being, of course, that my money is mine, but the Government's money is actually public funds, taxes gathered from everyone and used on their behalf. That's why every answer to every request for that money, be it yea or nay, needs to be based on law, rather than the personal preferences of some bureuecrat or politician.

Smaller government?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

What really irks me the most is that the political party waving the flag of "small government" is the one most willing to get involved in the private lives of ordinary citizens. This is not just some abstract "government is intruding too much in our lives" type of complaint. Here, in this situation, we have government changing the behavior of a university. Tangible, real change.

I don't mind raised "sin taxes" or even school vouchers. In either case, the citizen can still partake in their favorite activity or service. But in this case the government has essentially squelched something it doesn't like without passing a law and without due process. Needless to say, due process would be an expensive tack to take. So are we going to give up all of our freedoms for this type of idiocy just because we can't afford to defend ourselves?

Re:Smaller government?

[Duradin]

You know there isn't a cute cuddly widdle fully formed miniature baby in the womb the moment after conception.

If you think abortion is bad, I'd hate to tell you about the untold numbers of proto-babies that are cruelly disposed of monthly by their heartless mothers. Just thrown out or dumped into the sewers! The horror!

Seriously though, before the fetus would be viable outside of the womb it is essentially a parasite if not a medical condition of the mother. It's about as alive as that bacterial infection you take antibiotics for.

Re:Smaller government?

[bryanp]

What really irks me the most is that the political party waving the flag of "small government"

Neither party is actually in favor of small government. My favorite description of the difference is that Democrats want the .gov out of your bedroom and in your office while Republicans want them out of your office and in your bedroom.

Re:Smaller government?

[operagost]

What really irks me the most is that the political party waving the flag of "small government" is the one most willing to get involved in the private lives of ordinary citizens

It's not that simple, because public funds are being used. This is the same reason that people who claim "Dubya outlawed fetal stem cell research" are wrong, because he only ordered that federal funds not be used to create new lines.

Re:Smaller government?

[Notquitecajun]

So what? Why should we actively try and deny a baby at any stage of development the right to life, whether or not it is "alive" or not? Does that not infringe upon its rights?

This is what always irks me about libertarian-types. I agree in principle with most of their premises, but for some reason they can't extend the whole "your rights end where mine begins" to then unborn.

Re:Smaller government?

[operagost]

I'm pretty sure we're all smart enough to not equate unfertilized eggs with fertilized ones. Even vegans don't do that-- they just don't like to exploit the chickens.

Seriously though, before the fetus would be viable outside of the womb it is essentially a parasite if not a medical condition of the mother. It's about as alive as that bacterial infection you take antibiotics for.

Tell that to a woman who miscarried. Even better, tell that to the potential father and see what kind of injuries you have when you wake up in the hospital.

Re:Smaller government?

[Toandeaf]

I'm sorry, but by the logic you stated there is no non-arbitrary line between abortion and using a condom. Define what gives a non-viable fetus the full right to life that a person has and a sperm or egg does not have.

Re:Smaller government?

[Toandeaf]

Ah, so use emotional reasoning? I'm sorry, I believe that is known as a logical fallacy. Define why before you make such a claim as absolute fact.

Re:Smaller government?

[RingDev]

The problem with your argument is that abortion, at least specific types of abortion, are not murder. Your opinion that all abortion is the moral equivalent is nice and all, you are entitled your opinion, but it is not a law.

IF congress passed a bill and the president signed it into law stating that all abortions were murder, and the Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional, then yes, your argument would be valid. But at this point, your argument is nothing but an opinion.

-Rick

Re:Smaller government?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we should ban women from not being constantly pregnant. If they had a period in their life, they've killed a baby!

Who get's the job of inseminating the 10 year old girls?

Re:Smaller government?

[Notquitecajun]

I am talking about actively "destroying a fetus" or "killing a baby" or any way you want to put it. There's a difference between that and the passivity of your example.

Re:Smaller government?

[Notquitecajun]

No, I am talking about actively "destroying a fetus" or "killing a baby", or however you believe it to happen, not the passivity of miscarriage or preventative measures.

Re:Smaller government?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, they don't extend those rights to any non-citizens (See also: Gitmo, Abu Ghraib). The Constitution is fairly clear that you must either be born in the United States or naturalized to become a citizen.

I'm being trite, I suppose, but a line must be drawn somewhere between parental biology (the parent's business) and the child's biology (the child's business) which is difficult when the two are basically merged for a period of time -- a period which is uncomfortable, frequently painful, and sometimes dangerous for the parent. The government does not have the right to randomly inflict pain or injury on its citizens, and must otherwise go through proper procedures (such as a trial or the draft) before putting them at forced risk of injury or death.

I'm sure you disagree, but that's the point: people *do* disagree over this issue, quite strongly. The libertarians take the approach that because people disagree, it is sensible for the government to err on the side of less intrusiveness.

Re:Smaller government?

[Anonymous Coward]

The comedy that is your posts + your sig is just sublime...

Re:Smaller government?

[hey!]

Oh, you don't need big government to poke your nose into the affairs of average citizens. They don't have the money to fight you.

It's only if you want laws to apply to the powerful that you need to have agencies like the EPA or Labor or the FDA. A Department of Sexual Morality would be, relatively speaking, cheap.

Re:Smaller government?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Don't fall for Duradin's incendiary comments. He is only trying flame bait the pro-lifers.

The real issue is not reproductive freedom, but freedom of speech. Searching for database records do not directly result into an abortion.

Re:Smaller government?

[superwiz]

But in this case the government has essentially squelched something it doesn't like without passing a law and without due process. Needless to say, due process would be an expensive tack to take. So are we going to give up all of our freedoms for this type of idiocy just because we can't afford to defend ourselves? This is precisely how subsidies creates slaves. If the colleges weren't addicted to the federal money, they would be charging tuitions affordable to students (as they used to before federal student loans) and do research that is useful to the industry (as they do in most computer science cases and few life sciences cases). Free federal money is not an essential freedom -- it is a burden from which we should protect ourselves. Actually, something good might come out of this debacle -- JH might find private donars that will have a say (some say -- not full say) in what information the database must gather (based on the real-world consideration of what information is useful).

Re:Smaller government?

[Notquitecajun]

I agree...limiting the search isn't bright. It just adds to the fire that those of us who are pro-life are whacky extremists.

Re:Smaller government?

[tbannist]

Your critics have (correctly) understood that there is no functional difference between a condom and a morning after pill.

The only difference is in the mystical view point over when it is a baby and when it is not. All eggs and all sperm have the potential to eventually become a person. Fertilization is just one of many steps on the road of development. You obviously don't consider an unfertilized egg to be a person. Why not?

I mean, in reality, if every fertilized egg were truly a person, well then God must be the biggest mass murderer in history, because last time I checked, the stats said somewhere over 66% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant correctly. That means that over two thirds of all people are never born. That's just not right. I submit the problem is your defining something as a person long before you should. It's common practice among women (and you might not know this), to not discuss a pregnancy (except with a doctor/midwife) before the first trimester is over. Mostly it's to avoid making the devastation of a miscarriage any worse than it already is. They're that common, that most of the time, if a woman miscarries, you would never even know about it.

Now, to me, it doesn't make any sense to refer to a fetus as a baby, or consider it worthy of having human rights, until it has a functional brain. Once the brain is there are working, it is now possible for it to sustain life and become a person. There's a certain symmetry there between life and death. You're not alive until you have a brain, and not alive after you've lost it.

Re:Smaller government?

[amRadioHed]

Actually you're also talking about embryo's which are not the same as fetus's and are certainly not in any way baby's.

If you think that a fetus's has a right to live do you agree to extend that right to after it's born and will you pay the associated expenses or are you not concerned if it's born into poverty with parents incapable of providing for it?

Re:Smaller government?

[Spetiam]

If anything, this is a rare example of the government NOT getting involved in the lives of citizens.

You think I should be paying for other people to have abortions, or pay for organizations to promote abortion? Well, Reagan didn't, and Bush doesn't, and that's fine with me. It should be fine with you, but I'm guessing you'd rather have me pay for things that violate some of my most dearly held beliefs. (Please accept my apologies if you don't.)

Just because some people think promoting abortion is ok doesn't mean taxes aren't forcing me under threat of imprisonment to pay for it. Compulsory worship of the State is not freedom of religion.

Re:Smaller government?

[deadtree9]

It's the typical fanatical pro-lifer's viewpoint. Don't kill anything in the womb. Kill 'em once they're out.

Re:Smaller government?

[Dolohov]

But more public funds are used to screen out the search term than would be used to not screen the search -- they had to pay someone to go in and deliberately cause the database to not allow searches on that term, and that person probably had to insert custom code for the job.

Re:Smaller government?

[Anonymous Coward]

Three words: Humans. Are. Flawed.

While I might disagree with abortion to some degree, from a taking responsibility for ones own actions point of view, I've always accepted that not all abortions are created equal. Yet for a time I supported the gov'ment getting involved and making laws against such things. But as I have come to understand just how flawed humans are, I too have come to understand that no one human, or even groups of humans, should be deciding what is and is not an acceptable abortion. That should be left up to the individual person.

I still feel strongly about people should take personal responsibility for their own actions, but as I can only see the world through my own eyes, I cannot ever hope to truly know the reasons one does something. I can only hope they had their own reasons which were not of a selfish nature.

Re:Smaller government?

[genesus]

That, and saying "Nuke'em til they glow, then shoot-em in the dark", that's pretty whacky AND extreme

Re:Smaller government?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

It's not the funding or loss of funding that I'm primarily concerned about in this case. Rather, I feel that the government, having decided to provide the funding in the first place ought not be involved in the micromanagement of the usage of those funds, especially to encourage or discourage certain special interests, should provide the funds as a blanket payment and leave the specific spending management to the institution it is helping.

Whether the government should be involved in funding education is another issue altogether (an issue to which I believe should be resolved in the affirmative). But once having decided to provide Federal funding to educational institutions, the government ought not be involved in the day to day decisions of the school. IMO.

Re:Smaller government?

[magus_melchior]

You think that's bad? How about ignoring even seemingly innocuous treaties with Canada—despite being at peace with them for over a century? How about kicking immigrant widows out, and giving the finger to courts that dare say "You can't do that"? It's all about the administration's demonstration of unitary executive power. There are numerous examples of this, but this radio show demonstrates how meticulously it pursues any challenge to the President's, and by extension, the administration's authority—no matter how small.

I say there's a new Godwin's Law. As a discussion's posts increases, the probability that the 2001-2009 George W. Bush administration or 1930s-40s Germany gets mentioned approaches 1.

Re:Smaller government?

[iamacat]

Do you think I should be paying for other people to go and kill men, women and children in a country halfway across the world that never attacked us? Do you think John Hopkins also blocks terms like "Christianity" or "pro-life" in their database? I definitely think there is a case for paying taxes for medically necessary abortions or wars fought in response to an invasion. Elective abortions and "preemptive" wars, not so much. But medical research that merely DISCUSSES effects of abortion or prayer without actually doing either on federal dime? I think it's ridiculous to block knowledge as opposed to actions.

Re:Smaller government?

[Spetiam]

"Do you think I should be paying for other people to go and kill men, women and children in a country halfway across the world that never attacked us?"

Honestly, I don't care if you don't. If you genuinely object, then I'd say we shouldn't force you to do so.

I know, I know, that was a rhetorical question, and you really don't give a damn about forcing people to violate their beliefs. I get it.

Re:Smaller government?

[iamacat]

Honestly, I don't care if you don't. If you genuinely object, then I'd say we shouldn't force you to do so. It's too bad that the political party that you probably support does not share your sentiment.

I know, I know, that was a rhetorical question, and you really don't give a damn about forcing people to violate their beliefs How did you reach this conclusion?

Personally, I don't think 300 million people of US should all be forced to follow beliefs of a single person currently in power, rich white men, 51% of population and so on. Each community should determine it's own laws, apart from issues like environment that will inherently affect their neighbors. There should be enough communities and free migration so that any given person can choose to live in an appropriate one for his/her stage in life.

Re:Smaller government?

[Spetiam]

"the political party that you probably support"

You assume too much.

I reached that conclusion because (a) it was a rhetorical question (i.e., it was used to make a point/statement), and (b) you indicated your support for forcing people to pay for abortions (via taxes) in spite of my immediately preceding objections.

Regarding your last comment, I mostly agree.

Re:Smaller government?

[iamacat]

I am just talking about community assistance in any emergency - that is a circumstance beyond individual's control and threatening to life, health or causing massive preventable destruction of property. If you don't want to cover abortion for a woman with a dead fetus who will likely die herself otherwise, fire department should let your house burn down with you trapped inside. Women who want elective abortions or people who build houses in extreme fire/flood hazard zones should arrange for their own funding or insurance, although rescue mission to save lives in a disaster should be still done first and culprits billed later.

Re:Smaller government?

[Spetiam]

"If you don't want to cover abortion for a woman with a dead fetus"

If the baby's already dead, then it's not abortion...

Re:Smaller government?

[iamacat]

Ok, a woman whose fetus is medically certain to die in womb or shortly after birth. A woman who must for health reasons keep taking medication which will severely harm the fetus and for which no safer alternative is available. A partial abortion for a sextuplet pregnancy which otherwise likely to end in complete miscarriage. A confirmed statement from two independent psychiatrists that the women is so distraught by the pregnancy she is likely to harm herself and the fetus and/or end up in looney bin for the rest of her life, and there is no effective treatment that doesn't run into the second scenario. As in every other case, if a legitimate medical professional says that the procedure is medically necessary, it's reasonable to cover it with tax money as a form of collective insurance from which anyone can potentially benefit.

If people want to do abortions (or plastic surgery, gender reassignment, performance-enhancement drugs, alternative medicine, life support for brain-dead patients) for the heck of it, they should come up with their own finances. This is separate from the question of legality, but in US there is such a bitter disagreement on all these issues that it will HAVE to be decided on state-by-state basis.

I have no problem, in principal, with people opting out of specific uses of their own tax money as long as they still pay the same or more tax overall. However, in practice this will cause widespread cheating and enormous accounting problems. Money earmarked for government worker lunch program may end up being used for launches in a public clinic that happens to do abortions, freeing more money from other people on the procedure itself.

Re:Smaller government?

[Spetiam]

"A woman who must for health reasons keep taking medication which will severely harm the fetus and for which no safer alternative is available."

If she's taking them for acne, then no. If she's taking them for something serious and isn't given the drug to cause the death of the baby, then fine.

That takes care of your last scenario.

The rest of your scenarios are just euthanasia.

Anything that's designed or directly intended to end an innocent person's life, no matter the reason, should not be paid for with my money.

"as long as they still pay the same or more tax overall"

They should pay less tax (since their money is funding fewer government activities), otherwise it's a penalty on the practice of religion.

"widespread cheating and enormous accounting problems."

Which is (a small) part of the reason why taxes simply shouldn't be used to fund abortion, etc.

Re:Smaller government?

[iamacat]

Anything that's designed or directly intended to end an innocent person's life, no matter the reason, should not be paid for with my money. So basically 1) You wouldn't pay taxes for WW II effort, since air bombing of Berlin (not to mention Hiroshima!) killed way more innocent civilians than soldiers and 2) you expect to get the money as a tax refund rather than redirecting it to some other government program as a contentious objector. Interesting. My religion is opposed to road maintenance.

You may think aborting 2 fetuses in a sextuplet pregnancy to get the other 4 a chance to survive is worth than waging a war where some civilians might get hurt to supposedly save lives of more civilians. I disagree, and perhaps we should each get a chance to opt out of funding respective programs. But personally benefiting from such decisions financially casts serious doubts on a person's motive and on why the society should accommodate that person's inconvenient beliefs.

Re:Smaller government?

[Spetiam]

1) Not a valid analogy, as the ostensible direct intent of the air bombing was to cripple the military. And I would object to the use of weapons that aren't even sort of discriminating.

2) I expect the government not to finance abortion. That's a pretty cute comment about road maintenance.

There wouldn't be any financial benefit to me or anyone else if government didn't fund it in the first place. But what you're suggesting is essentially a "religion penalty." People being forced to pay proportionally more because of their beliefs IS what you're suggesting.

Re:Smaller government?

[iamacat]

If you really look at all the facts regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, you will see that there were many more factors in at least the choice of targets than crippling Japanese military and ending WW II. Japan was ready to negotiate peace with Soviet Union. The cities were specifically chosen because they were NOT military targets and were undamaged by prior conventional bombing. A whole lot of folks, including unborn fetuses conceived long after the bombing, were harmed or killed simply for the sake of experimentation with new weapon technology and showing the world who is the boss.

Regarding tax, would you prefer everyone to pay for the cost of accounting involved in making sure your taxes are not directly and indirectly used for financing abortions? I can make a case for religious objections to road maintenance. We are destroying God's creation by refusing to walk to our job, restaurant or grocery store. Besides carbon pollution, dying of preventable obesity or heart attack is a kind of suicide. Would you allow people not to pay any taxes at all by claiming that their fringe religion objects to ANY government programs? I think America will experience a sudden rise in spirituality, but a dramatic fall in living standards. I would rather have either a) a democratic allocation of spending or b) having people who opt out pay for the cost of accounting of their particular tax returns.

Well, if it's federally funded

[johnny0099]

shouldn't they be filtering "christian" instead of "abortion?" For those that don't remember, removing this international family planning funding was the first thing d*ckhead did after his inauguration.

Re:Well, if it's federally funded

[Anonymous Coward]

On the very same day he was sworn into office.

Re:Well, if it's federally funded

[tsm_sf]

And of course the irony is that if proper family planning was part of every person's education the instances of abortion would plummet.

It's not about abortions, it's about controlling women.

Re:Well, if it's federally funded

[deadtree9]

FUD

Re:Well, if it's federally funded

[Qzukk]

"it's natural to have sex when you are 12, it's good to be gay, it's great to be promiscuous and "experiment", it's best to stick to oral/anal/manual so you don't suffer the consequences (and here are come booklets to teach you about that), or just use these free condoms/dams here; don't listed to your parents and hide your activities from them. And yeah, we can give you free IUDs/pills/abortions so long as you won't let your parents know"

[citation needed (other than NAMBLA)]

and the nazi eugenics programs of yore.

Condoms existed before the nazis. Try harder, your lies suck.

Re:Well, if it's federally funded

[deadtree9]

What, nothing from Ann Coulter??

Re:Well, if it's federally funded

[megaditto]

Nothing from Maher or Randi Rodes/Air America either.

I gave you the link to Edwin Black's book (who is a respected author, wrote other critically acclaimed books such as IBM and the Holocaust, quite famous, and balanced enough). What else do you want?

Re:Well, if it's federally funded

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about abortions, it's about controlling women. Eh? How so?

The real difference between Repubs and Dems

[Enlarged to Show Tex]

Republicans: Spend and don't tax
Democrats: Tax and spend

In order to get a true smaller government in the US these days, you have to choose a third party, such as the Libertarians or the Constitution Party...

Re:The real difference between Repubs and Dems

[mweather]

I have a better idea, let's choose individual candidates that support our views. In fact, remove party affiliations from the ballot altogether. If you can't remember their name, you shouldn't be voting for them.

Re:The real difference between Repubs and Dems

[TrebleJunkie]

The only real difference between Republicans and Democrats, or the Right and the Left, whatever you want to call them, is where they place their faith. The Right rules by faith in god, The left rules by faith in the greater good, the state, etc. Mysticism or Muscle.

Debating that point is so much red herring, however. We really don't need to spend all day debating and defining exactly what each side places its faith in -- we need only recognize that each side operates from a faithful premise, rather than a factual one. That's the real scary point that nearly everybody misses.

Re:The real difference between Repubs and Dems

[ArsonSmith]

Republicans: We support censorship of the term because someone might be encouraged to have an abortion
Democrats: We support censorship of the term because someone might be discouraged to have an abortion

Take heart, America...

[TrebleJunkie]

...POPLINE searches for "Republican" and "Nazi" still return records!

What a closed-minded, shame this set of circumstances is. The Christian Right won't be happy until we've bred ourselves back into the dark ages. (This particular vision they share with their Islamofacist brethren. Whichever one wins the race, lovers of freedom and liberty are doomed.)

Re:Take heart, America...

[Zeer0]

Oh hello Mr. Godwin, how I've missed you!

Is abortion murder, or just killing?

[spun]

All religions recognize the difference between socially sanctioned killing, and murder. Killing other humans can be socially sanctioned for many reasons including self defense, punishment, and warfare. The distinguishing factor is, does the killing do more harm than good, from that society's point of view?

So the question is not, "Is a fetus a person?" but rather, "Is it in society's best interest to sanction this type of killing?" I think it is both a benefit to society and a blessing to the unborn. Being raised in a family that doesn't want you is worse than death, and creates the type of person who is neither happy and fulfilled, nor a net benefit to society.

Re:Is abortion murder, or just killing?

[Duradin]

And the sad thing is this isn't about sanctioning the act, it is about denying the knowledge of the act.

We've let far too many people into positions of power that want to "un-eat" that damned apple. They want the Simplification from A Canticle for Leibowitz.

Knowledge itself isn't evil or dangerous. It just is. And shouldn't be censored. (How you act on that knowledge is a different issue.)

Re:Is abortion murder, or just killing?

[Notquitecajun]

The problem lies in several things: the miseducation of our youth about birth control, consequences of actions, and morality in general. Each of these problems lies in poor opinions from both sides of the aisle - right and left. Society is getting these things wrong - from parenting to the schools - and it's leading to more abortions.

Your argument also bears a VERY precarious slippery slope when it comes to unborn disabled children. There is also a dearth of newborns for good parents who want to raise children well and cannot.

Re:Is abortion murder, or just killing?

[spun]

Abortions are not birth control and shouldn't be used as such. I've never met a woman who has had one who took it lightly at all. They are emotionally traumatic even for those who really want them.

There is a slippery slope to all moral arguments simply because there is no objective morality. All morality is subjective. There is no real bedrock on which to base such a system. Life would be a lot simpler if there were, but all we have are appeals to authority or self interest. Even 'God says this is good and this is bad' is simply an appeal to authority, and the choice of weather to accept such a position really comes down to self interest.

I wish I could RTFM for life, I really do. But there is no such thing, unfortunately. We have to make it up as best we can.

Re:Is abortion murder, or just killing?

[Peter La Casse]

So the question is not, "Is a fetus a person?" but rather, "Is it in society's best interest to sanction this type of killing?" I think it is both a benefit to society and a blessing to the unborn. Being raised in a family that doesn't want you is worse than death, and creates the type of person who is neither happy and fulfilled, nor a net benefit to society.

Those sound subjective to me. Mary Ellen Wilson, the first person in the US to be removed from a home because of child abuse, went on to live an apparently happy and fulfilling life. I don't know that we are qualified, or have the right, to judge who will or won't benefit society; lots of people born poor do well in life. Genetics doesn't care how much money your parents have.

The strongest non-moral argument against abortion in my opinion is that of demographics: population growth is necessary to maintain Western social welfare systems like Social Security. The second strongest is genetic: we don't know how many Einsteins we're losing (not only through abortion, but through high death rates of children in third world countries.)

This has come up in some interesting discussions about Battlestar Galactica: if you have the only 40,000 humans left anywhere, a case can be made for banning all birth control, or even forcing women to have as many children as they can, though I wouldn't support that.

Re:Is abortion murder, or just killing?

[Notquitecajun]

There is a slippery slope to all moral arguments simply because there is no objective morality. All morality is subjective. So, what do you base that on? But then again, I believe in an absolute morality (outside of which, if there isn't one, I can't fathom how anything matters at all).

And yes, I have a self-interest in whether or not my actions measure up to a higher authority.

Re:Is abortion murder, or just killing?

[spun]

If there is no absolute authority, then each person is free to create their own meaning in life. This is the only real freedom we have.

I base my morality on enlightened and compassionate self interest. Enlightened meaning I look at the larger picture, and compassionate because compassion feels good to me.

Would your self interest extend to measuring up to a higher authority that did not have your self interest at heart? Would any old dictator do? If not, how do you determine what authority to trust? Isn't that decision, in the end, completely subjective?

Trusting in a higher authority is the easy path. One can stop asking questions and just take things on faith. Unfortunately, history shows that doing so is incredibly dangerous. And in the end, one can not even blame said higher authority for the consequences. You make the decision to trust based on your own life experience, as that is all anyone has to go by. One does not have access to perfect information, and therefore, one can not ever be certain whether one's chosen absolute is really absolute at all.

It is a painful and frightening state of affairs, granted. But that is the reality of life as a finite being. Everything else is comforting illusion, and based on nothing more than a personal choice. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, and I have no real hope that you will believe me, but that is what I believe, based on my life experience and choices.

Re:Is abortion murder, or just killing?

[Gutboy]

There is also a dearth of newborns for good parents


As of 2006, there were 16,142 children in foster care in Oregon. Where are all the adoptors?

Re:Is abortion murder, or just killing?

[d34thm0nk3y]

Each of these problems lies in poor opinions from both sides of the aisle - right and left. Society is getting these things wrong - from parenting to the schools - and it's leading to more abortions.

False: U.S. ABORTION RATE CONTINUES LONG-TERM DECLINE, FALLING TO LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 1974;

Re:Is abortion murder, or just killing?

[genesus]

Who is your "higher authority", Mars or Thor?

Re:Is abortion murder, or just killing?

[fermion]

The problem with all of these arguments is they ignore all practicality and morality. If children are sacred, and are to be created and protected at all costs, then birth control and abortion should be illegal. Likewise, there should be no bitching about the costs to society about caring for children or teen age pregnancy or welfare moms. There is nothing sacred about the family unit, and the contrivance is just a way to maintain the fiction of the value of a child without having to put our money where our mouth is.

A middle ground may to promote abstinence as an option, various forms of birth control to allow people to have sex without overloading the social payments system, disallow abortion, accept that occasional mother is going to terminate the child after the birth as happened maybe twice in texas last week, and fund childcare as much as needed. This values the child at a level asserted by most people in the United States. However, seeing how we can't even get 100% health care for children, and conservatives love to bash those very people that carry pregnancy to term no matter what, and the EPA will not regulate the environment to keep children healthy, preferring instead to sacrifice some children for the sake of economic growth, I am not holding my breath for the middle ground.

So we have the current system in which infants are allowed by terminated pre-birth rather than have the situation where a mother kills a baby in desperation, or a baby is allowed to die slowly due to lack of funds. IN both cases we say the mother should not have gotten pregnant, but the government is forgiving in other cases, as shown by the repetitive bailout of fraudster, so why not mothers who provide society with the most precious resource? But we do not, and history says no society have every been that generous, so abortion is the compromise. Sometimes this discriminate against children that do not match our expectations, but so does society. I do not know of any school or hospital or anywhere that really has the funding to adequately care for these children. Rhetorically the question could be asked how many of us would write our congressperson to end the war on terror and divert the funds to provide 100% care for such children in need. Certainly conservatives might be expected to fund such projects, as there would then be no reason for evil lawyers to sue the good hearted doctors for malpractice just so the family can pay other doctors to care for the child.

In the end, like most things, people tend to simplify the issue so they can be proven correct, rather than engaging a full exploration that ends with a practical, but less palatable, solution.

Go on strike? Force the issue in court?

[davidwr]

If they shut down the database for 1 day, it would make an impact.

Another idea:
See if there are any federal laws that require them to not censor, then sue.
The judge will have 3 choices:
Order them to comply with the no-censorship, and violate the anti-abortion rule.
Order them to comply with the anti-abortion rule, and violate the no-censorship rule.
Order them to comply with both rules in the only way possible: Not use federal money.

The latter may result in the project being shut down, which will generate the necessary political heat to get this problem solved in a reasonable manner.

Further evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Further evidence of Slashdot trying to be DailyKos and become an echo chamber for lefties rather than the tech site that it used to be.

In the effort to remain relevant, why not alienate more users in an effort to promote a political agenda rather than do what you set out to do? Welcome to the MSNBC of the tech world.

The only surprise is that Keith Dawson didn't post this under the enlightenment topic like he used to.

More of the same for the great Johns Hopkins

[himurabattousai]

That Johns Hopkins would be involved in censorship activities of this sort doesn't surprise me. This private university has a nice history of this type of behavior. Read this and see for yourself: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/schools/2493. I don't know if the Popline database and the school itself have any common administrators, but the university is not big enough to be suffering from "right hand not knowing what the left is doing" disease. Withholding funds because of speech the administration doesn't like is just an end run around the first amendment, and given the affinity Johns Hopkins has for violating that ammendment, I feel sorry for them in no way, shape or form.

Personally, I don't think that abortion falls under "family planning;" family planning connotes a conscious plan to limit or eliminate the possibility of pregnancy. And yes, I do think it's wrong, but I would never physically prevent someone from undergoing the procedure or attempt to negate its existence. The kind of attitude that attempts to censor something into nonexistence is more appropriate for a three-year-old dealing with monsters under his bed than the leader of the world's (for now) most powerful country and supposed bastion of freedom. I like to think that we, as individuals and as a country, have grown beyond that. Sadly, it appears we have not.

The Plot continues

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who are scheming to kill off 99% of the human species, in a Malthusian Catastrophe, while making lying claims about how much they are in favor of human life, have struck again!

I'm skeptical

[cretog8]

"... who replied in an April 1st e-mail that the university had recently begun blocking the search term because the database received federal funding."

Not true

[cretog8]

I don't suggest slashdotting the popline system, but if you go test it, a simple query for "abortion" returns 52 results.

This looks like a lagged April Fool. Should kill or revise the post.

Re:Not true

[deadtree9]

I assure you it's not a joke or hoax. My wife works within the public health sector and will attest to the fact that it's real. I tried it and netted 0 results. Even if you had 52 results returned, it's still off. You should have gotten waaaaaay more than that. Oddly enough, according to friends that work at Hopkins, if you are within their walls you can see all 25k+ results. Leaving the walls and attempting the search nets 0 results.

Re:Not true

[cretog8]

My bad, it seems.

I just found the idea so far-out, plus the April 1st, that I was prone to doubt, and then when I searched I got some results. But now I've seen the official protest note, and I believe it.

I believe it, but it is nearly unbelievable. Gah!

Anyway, I just tried the search again and got 19476 results. Maybe things have been set right.

Self censorship or bias with an excuse?

[Pinky's Brain]

I think there's someone with an agenda in John Hopkins pushing for this, otherwise I don't see them making this change because of some nebulous governmental directive without provocation.

Moral absolutism ...

[Pinky's Brain]

I agree with you on moral absolutism ... my morality is correct, everyone else's is wrong.

Re:Moral absolutism ...

[spun]

Cute joke, but let me just point out where this line of thinking goes fundamentally wrong and misses the point. There is no correct or incorrect morality. These are absolute terms. Rather, one must judge morality by a set of relative criteria.

First, is it self consistent? If not, throw it out. Next, is it useful? A moral system based around the concept that "Fwab is the greatest good, and everyone should fwab," is completely useless unless perhaps one happens to know what fwab is. Is it shared? A personal morality made up of precepts no one else shares is not necessarily useless, and one that everyone agrees to is not necessarily useful, but its a good rule of thumb. Is it comprehensive? A moral system that only purports to govern the behavior of one legged eunuchs on alternate Thursdays is too limited to be useful. The more situations it governs, the better.

And remember, "There are no absolutes," is.... wait for it... an absolute. Within any finite framework, there are absolutes. One can theoretically say whether some action is good for a person or not. That is an absolute. But it does not necessarily apply to the larger system of the family, which has its own absolutes. These absolutes are relative in comparison to other families which make up a community, which has its own absolutes, and so on all the way up to humanity, life on earth, and even all life in the universe. But the bigger the category, the harder it is to determine what the correct absolutes are.

Because it's cheaper and more effective

[Bored MPA]

It's cheaper and has a better outcome for a powerless administrator that's being harassed over funding to implement the change and then either wait for someone to notice OR leak it to the press. Risk taking in cushy positions isn't encouraged and lawsuits about federal requirements tend to fail, but it DOES happen that public administrators will go along with something and then let the press act as an external pressure to get what they want. An angry public can be far more effective than a lawsuit or resigning from your position over a change.

I don't know if Johns Hopkins blindly went along with this, but I'd bet a shitload of money that a senior manager thought about the options and determined this was best in the short-term. If people are outraged enough, they'll get multiple press releases out of it which could impact the _overall_ program (and cause the most good). Alternatively, they could be left alone (waiver/whatever) and retain funding. Or they could end up with enough outraged folks that top tier school administration decides to apply pressure on their behalf and try a suit. Lastly, they could end up with some non-federal funding (this may not be realistic...I don't know their budget on the issue and it may be tied to the entire university and not just the project). In addition, the press on this is great for continued awareness of USAID policies.

I mean how many slashdot users remember our USAID policies or read ramblings by folks with an MPA?

It's not about censorship or "freedom".

[Chilled_Fuser]

I'm agnostic. And certainly don't have a dislike for abortion because of anyone or anything religious. But I believe that life starts at conception.

  If you believe that life starts at conception, you have to believe that birth control (convenience) abortions are wrong. Even Libertarians would have to fight for the rights of the unborn. They wholly believe in the absolute rights of the individual, even those who can not defend their own.

  The idea that any one person has the right to snuff a life just because it's wholly dependent on that person for survival, is lunacy. The government will charge you with two murders for killing a pregnant woman. Yet it's legal for her to have that child sucked into a sink.

  The position by the administration is to not spend tax dollars on providing information to support these actions.

  If you think it's okay to deny rights to unborn children, wtf makes you think any of us deserve them?

Re:It's not about censorship or "freedom".

[deadtree9]

That's interesting logic. The problem is, it's ill-informed. POPLINE is about PUBLIC health, not MEDICAL health. There's a huge difference. You see, POPLINE doesn't contain information on HOW TO have an abortion. It contains information on WHY, HOW MANY, and the METHEOD USED. These are qualitative and quanitative studies, not step by step directions.

Re:It's not about censorship or "freedom".

[Duradin]

The "government" will charge you with two murders because it does two things:

1. It it makes them look like they are "tough" on crime.

2. It makes them look like they are protecting "women and children". Kill men all you want, but oh boy, you kill someone with a Y-chromosome deficiency and are you going to get it.

Those things get people re-elected. People are afeared for their women-folk and politicians know to exploit the fears of the yokels.

Being on the books doesn't make it a just law or implementation of the law.

Re:It's not about censorship or "freedom".

[Trillian_1138]

I'm agnostic. And certainly don't have a dislike for abortion because of anyone or anything religious. But I believe that life starts at conception.

If you believe that life starts at conception, you have to believe that birth control (convenience) abortions are wrong. Even Libertarians would have to fight for the rights of the unborn. They wholly believe in the absolute rights of the individual, even those who can not defend their own. For what it's worth, I disagree with you that life begins at conception. But I think I do understand where you're coming from: if someone (you, for example) believes life does begin at conception, it logically follows that abortion is wrong.

The idea that any one person has the right to snuff a life just because it's wholly dependent on that person for survival, is lunacy. The government will charge you with two murders for killing a pregnant woman. Yet it's legal for her to have that child sucked into a sink. As I said, I understand where you're coming from but I think you're intentionally misrepresenting the pro-choice argument. See, I don't believe someone has the right to "snuff out a life just because it's wholly dependent on that person for survival," I believe women have the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies near the beginning of the pregnancy. How late women should be legally allowed to terminate pregnancies is, I agree, something that can and should be up for debate. But you misrepresent myself (and other pro-choice individuals) by saying we're in favor of having the child "sucked into a sink."

Likewise, from the minimal Google research I had the energy to perform, "the government" will not charge you with two murders for killing a pregnant woman. Some state governments may, but I was unable to find evidence the federal government will do so. Even if they will, I (like most pro-choice individuals) agree that there's a difference between a near-to-term pregnancy and a first trimester pregnancy, and I would be open to debate on whether the murder of a pregnant woman in such condition should be treated differently. I know the old adage, "You can't be a little bit pregnant," is true but the pro-choice argument is that the development of a fetus is, nevertheless, not a binary thing ("not human"/"human").

The position by the administration is to not spend tax dollars on providing information to support these actions. ...in contradiction of Supreme Court rulings on what is legal in the United States. If they want to (try and) outlaw abortion, do so through the appropriate channels, not by denying people access to information on the subject!

If you think it's okay to deny rights to unborn children, wtf makes you think any of us deserve them? Again, you misrepresent the pro-choice argument. I don't paint pro-lifers such as yourself as misogynistic, women-hating fundamentalists because it's not true. I doubt you're going to find any pro-choicers who are in favor of legalized abortion because they hate babies, just as I doubt you're going to find any pro-lifers who are against legalized abortion because they hate women. Don't pretend the debate is black and white, because it's not.
Trillian

Looks like they decided to remove their heads...

[Anonymous Coward]

from their rectums.

Taken from a recent press release:

Statement Regarding POPLINE Database

I was informed this morning that the word "abortion" was blocked as a search term in the POPLINE family planning database administered by the Bloomberg School's Center for Communication Programs. POPLINE provides evidence-based information on reproductive health and family planning and is the world's largest database on these issues.

USAID, which funds POPLINE, found two items in the database related to abortion that did not fit POPLINE criteria. The agency then made an inquiry to POPLINE administrators. Following this inquiry, the POPLINE administrators at the Center for Communication Programs made the decision to restrict abortion as a search term.

I could not disagree more strongly with this decision, and I have directed that the POPLINE administrators restore "abortion" as a search term immediately. I will also launch an inquiry to determine why this change occurred.

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of knowledge and not its restriction.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Klag, MD, MPH
Dean, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Re:Looks like they decided to remove their heads..

[deadtree9]

Ya know... we're always the fall guys. Sure, blame the admins for implementing your dumb policy.

for the humor impaired: this is a joke

[d34thm0nk3y]

You'd be stuck with the less than apt term "Pro-Life" because searching for "anti abortion" or "abortion is immoral" and similar wouldn't get past the filter.

Works for me. So can they file all the previous abortion results under anti-life?

Johns Hopkins has a history of kissing govt. ass..

[Ellis D. Tripp]

in exchange for funding.

Remember a few years back when Johns Hopkins researcher Dr. George Ricaurte put out a study (Government funded through NIDA) that claimed that a single dose of MDMA (ecstasy) posed a serious risk of death or permanent brain damage? Never mind that ravers in real life weren't having to step over dead bodies on the dance floor every weekend, the media and elected officials licked this crap up, and all kinds of draconian laws were passed (like the RAVE act).

A few non-government funded scientists raised a few questions about Ricaurte's methodology, and he was forced to admit his "mistake" in feeding his test monkeys not equavalent human dosages of MDMA, but whopping overdoses of crystal meth!

Whoops! Guess he'll try harder on his next NIDA grant, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retracted_article_on_neurotoxicity_of_ecstasy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ricaurte

Not all religions

[genesus]

Not all religions recognize the difference between socially sanctioned killing and murder. Some groups have dissent within the group as to the nature of their doctrines, for example Buddhists must abstain from the "destruction of life", not merely murder. This is also extended, by many sects, groups, ecclesia [sp?] within Buddhism to include all animal life. Jains never take life, human or animal. Many esoteric/gnostic/mystic groups also abhor the practice.

Re:Not all religions

[spun]

You are so right, and I thought about this while writing my post. But I thought, "Well, Buddhism is a philosophy," and that's about as far as I went, forgetting about the Jains and other groups, and perhaps thinking that people would read "religions" as "Abrahamic religions."

And as for the Buddhists, do you know the Shaolin monasteries in China were founded by a Buddhist?

Personally, my ethics of killing are somewhat complex, and probably not that defensible. I eat meat, support the rights of a woman to choose abortion, but abhor capital punishment. I believe in the right to kill in self defense, but also acknowledge that sometimes, choosing to die rather than defend oneself is the right choice. I also think suicide is an important right.

That's an awfully bold claim

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about abortions, it's about controlling women.

Ehhh, I disagree. Sometimes things are exactly that simple: it's about abortion. What you've actually touched on is more fundamental to human nature: the hesitance to accept an idea that is on its face contradictory, that we can say abortions are OK and then there will be less... it's just really hard to ask people to accept even if you have evidence.

Put simply, people would rather deal with a problem they understand than accept a solution they don't.

Re:Looks like they decided to remove their heads..

[Anonymous Coward]

POPLINE provides evidence-based information on reproductive health and family planning

Note the words "evidence-based information" that doesn't include opinion based information