It turns out the Popline kerfuffle was, in fact, an excellent example of the "chilling effect." That's what happens when a subject becomes forbidden by those in power to talk about -- all of a sudden, people restrain themselves even further than necessary just so that they don't accidentally cross the line of rhetorical doom. So, for example, if your dad sends you to your room if you talk about Uncle Fred's drinking, then maybe you avoid talking about drinking, Christmas dinner, or Uncle Fred altogether. Or if it's illegal to assert that someone isn't a good employee because they are a woman, you refrain from criticizing any women employees even if a particular one's actions are grossly incompetent, just so that you avoid any chance of the accusation.
In the case of Popline -- an academic reproductive health database that decided to ban the word "abortion" from its search terms -- it turns out that it wasn't on order from the Administration (Popline is funded via USAID, which is forbidden by executive order from anything that smacks of advocacy of abortions), but the database administrators being overly sensitive to the whole affair.
Apparently, someone at USAID inquired about two articles in the database that actually seemed to be advocacy pieces in favor of abortion. The administrators not only removed the two documents from the database, but, just to play it safe, deleted the search term as well.
Publicity about the case brought it to the attention of the Dean of the John sHopkins School of Public Health, which runs the database. He's weighed in that the "solution" was improper.
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.
And bravo for that.
Still, it's telling that (a) USAID is busy ferreting out items that "don't fit POPLINE criteria" (since I suspect strongly that the "inquiry" was based on the ideological dictates of the Administration), and (b) the administrators of Popline were so concerned over their funding that they took this improper action, doubtless just to be "on the safe side."
Sandra Jordan, director of communications in USAID's office of population and reproductive health, could not identify the documents that prompted her office's complaint, but said the publications were one-sided in favor of abortion rights.
"We are part of the Bush administration, so we have to make sure that all parts of the story are told," says Jordan. "The administration's policy is definitely anti-abortion, and the administration does not see abortion as a part of family planning policy."
Jordan says that the Johns Hopkins database administrators blocked the word "abortion" on their own, and had misunderstood USAID's request.
That's the chilling effect. And that's why making X illegal often has a greater consequence than its supporters (openly at least) will argue.
Filed under :: Health - Science :: Politics & Law :: ZT & PC