Johns Hopkins Bows To USAID Censorship Push 122
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."
Pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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 o
Re:Pathetic (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 [aaup.org]. 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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 totalitari
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
They can have all the free speech they want, but they'll also lose out on the free money.
Self censorship or bias with an excuse? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
for the humor impaired: this is a joke (Score:2)
Works for me. So can they file all the previous abortion results under anti-life?
Re:Pathetic (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
http://db.jhuccp.org/ics-wpd/popweb/ [jhuccp.org]
Why not sue? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
(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 co
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Because it's cheaper and more effective (Score:1)
Smaller government? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
The real difference between Repubs and Dems (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Democrats: We support censorship of the term because someone might be discouraged to have an abortion
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither party is actually in favor of small government. My favorite description of the difference is that Democrats want the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 priva
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 ca
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the baby's already dead, then it's not abortion...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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 y
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Tell that to a woman who miscarried. Even better, tell that to the potential father and see what kind of injuries you have whe
Re: (Score:1)
Is abortion murder, or just killing? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 c
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, I have a self-interest in whether or not my actions measure up to a higher authority.
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Moral absolutism ... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 m
Re: (Score:1)
As of 2006, there were 16,142 children in foster care in Oregon. Where are all the adoptors?
Re: (Score:2)
False: U.S. ABORTION RATE CONTINUES LONG-TERM DECLINE, FALLING TO LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 1974; [guttmacher.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those sound subjective to me. Mary Ellen Wilson [americanhumane.org], the first person in the US to be removed from a home because of child abuse, went on to live an app
Re: (Score:2)
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 choo
Re: (Score:2)
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
Take heart, America... (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Go on strike? Force the issue in court? (Score:2, Interesting)
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 th
More of the same for the great Johns Hopkins (Score:2)
I'm skeptical (Score:1)
Not true (Score:1)
This looks like a lagged April Fool. Should kill or revise the post.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's not about censorship or "freedom". (Score:1)
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 li
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 h
Looks like they decided to remove their heads... (Score:3, Interesting)
Taken from a recent press release: [jhsph.edu]
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: (Score:1)
Johns Hopkins has a history of kissing govt. ass.. (Score:2)
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 s
Re:Well, if it's federally funded (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about abortions, it's about controlling women.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed (other than NAMBLA)]
and the nazi eugenics programs o
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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?