Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Johns Hopkins Bows To USAID Censorship Push

Posted by kdawson on from the you-no-need-to-know-that dept.

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."

9 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. Pathetic by scubamage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Pathetic by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Pathetic by yali · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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).

    3. Re:Pathetic by yali · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Pathetic by khayman80 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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?

  2. Smaller government? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  3. Re:The real difference between Repubs and Dems by mweather · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:Well, if it's federally funded by tsm_sf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  5. Looks like they decided to remove their heads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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