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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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: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.

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?

[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.

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.

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: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

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: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.

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