Hypocrisy On Abortion
The MCPS citizens advisory committee had a strange moment a couple of years ago when we were discussing the new sex-ed curriculum. There was a point where the question came up, shouldn't the curriculum talk at some point about what to do if you find you're pregnant? It seemed like the elephant in the room to me, such an obvious thing.
The answer is, you can do one of three things. You can have the baby and keep it, you can have the baby and put it up for adoption, or you can have an abortion.
Even as the words came out of our mouths we knew it would never happen. Even though all those choices are legal and are selected every day by responsible people, we knew the school district would never allow the word "abortion" to be used in a health class in a non-negative way. To me it's so discouraging to see the hypocrisy we have insitutionalized, that we let our society be held hostage by a small gang of pseudomoral thugs.
Look what happened online:
Wow, I never used this before, but it's great: PopLine.
You could find information on any other medical procedure, disease, whatever, having to do with reproduction, but they just took that one word out as a search term.
This article is careful not to say that the government ordered them to remove that search term, but the idea is not exactly squashed, either.
He knows of course that he is risking losing an important grant. It is in the university's interest to stay on good terms with the people who hand out the money for projects like this. It doesn't need to be Johns Hopkins, I'll bet you there are other universities with the competence to manage a medical database.
True, that. Did government people request this change? Who would be surprised if they did?
Interestingly, librarians have been some of the biggest supporters of the Internet since it started. I remember even back in the days before we had a graphical interface to hyperlinked content, that is, web browsers, the librarians had big servers with all kinds of categorized information. It's also interesting that the medical community has been so slow at adopting this kind of technology. And then you see this sloppy obeisance to the hint of authority and the almighty dollar and it starts to make sense.
A pregnant woman does have the three choices I gave above, and any of the choices may make the most sense given the situation. Some people may not approve of some of the options, but it turns out those same people sometimes find themselves in a situation where it's the only thing they can realistically do. Yes, evangelical women get abortions, too, and Catholic women. It would make sense to learn what you can about the procedure to inform your decision about having it done. It is irresponsible to have that information in a format that can make it easily available to the public, and then hide it.
The answer is, you can do one of three things. You can have the baby and keep it, you can have the baby and put it up for adoption, or you can have an abortion.
Even as the words came out of our mouths we knew it would never happen. Even though all those choices are legal and are selected every day by responsible people, we knew the school district would never allow the word "abortion" to be used in a health class in a non-negative way. To me it's so discouraging to see the hypocrisy we have insitutionalized, that we let our society be held hostage by a small gang of pseudomoral thugs.
Look what happened online:
WASHINGTON — Johns Hopkins University said Friday that it had programmed its computers to ignore the word “abortion” in searches of a large, publicly financed database of information on reproductive health after federal officials raised questions about two articles in the database. The dean of the Public Health School lifted the restrictions after learning of them.
A spokesman for the school, Timothy M. Parsons, said the restrictions were enforced starting in February.
Johns Hopkins manages the population database known as Popline with money from the Agency for International Development.
Popline is the world’s largest database on reproductive health, with more than 360,000 records and articles on family planning, fertility and sexually transmitted diseases. Health Database Was Set Up to Ignore ‘Abortion’
Wow, I never used this before, but it's great: PopLine.
You could find information on any other medical procedure, disease, whatever, having to do with reproduction, but they just took that one word out as a search term.
This article is careful not to say that the government ordered them to remove that search term, but the idea is not exactly squashed, either.
Mr. Parsons said the development agency had expressed concern after finding “two articles about abortion advocacy” in the database. The articles, he said, did not fit database criteria and were removed.
Employees who manage the database instructed their computers to ignore the word “abortion” as a search term.
After learning of the restrictions on Friday, the dean, Dr. Michael J. Klag, said: “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.”
He knows of course that he is risking losing an important grant. It is in the university's interest to stay on good terms with the people who hand out the money for projects like this. It doesn't need to be Johns Hopkins, I'll bet you there are other universities with the competence to manage a medical database.
Dr. Klag said the school was “dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of knowledge, and not its restriction.”
Ted Miller, a spokesman for Naral Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group, said: “The public has a right to know why someone would censor relevant medical information. The Bush administration has politicized science as part of an ideological agenda. So it’s important to know if that occurred here.”
True, that. Did government people request this change? Who would be surprised if they did?
Librarians at the Medical Center of the University of California, San Francisco, expressed concern about the restrictions this week after they had difficulty retrieving articles from Popline.
In an e-mail response on Tuesday, Johns Hopkins told the librarians that “abortion” was no longer a valid search term.
“We recently made all abortion terms stop words,” Debra L. Dickson, a Popline manager, wrote. “As a federally funded project, we decided this was best for now.”
Ms. Dickson suggested that instead of using “abortion,” librarians could use other terms like “fertility control, postconception” or “pregnancy, unwanted.”
Gail L. Sorrough, director of medical library services at the medical center in San Francisco, said it was absurd to restrict searches using “a perfectly good noun such as ‘abortion.’ ”
Under the rule, Popline ignored the word “abortion,” just as it ignores terms like “a” and “the.” Ms. Sorrough and a colleague, Gloria Won, reported their experience on an electronic mailing list, and librarians protested the restrictions.
Interestingly, librarians have been some of the biggest supporters of the Internet since it started. I remember even back in the days before we had a graphical interface to hyperlinked content, that is, web browsers, the librarians had big servers with all kinds of categorized information. It's also interesting that the medical community has been so slow at adopting this kind of technology. And then you see this sloppy obeisance to the hint of authority and the almighty dollar and it starts to make sense.
“We sent this out on a listserv, and it just exploded,” Ms. Sorrough said. “Eliminating this term essentially blocks access to reports in the database and ultimately to information about abortion. Unwanted pregnancy is not a synonym for abortion.”
Items on Popline include articles on “demand for abortion by unmarried teenagers” and federal judges’ abortion rulings.
A pregnant woman does have the three choices I gave above, and any of the choices may make the most sense given the situation. Some people may not approve of some of the options, but it turns out those same people sometimes find themselves in a situation where it's the only thing they can realistically do. Yes, evangelical women get abortions, too, and Catholic women. It would make sense to learn what you can about the procedure to inform your decision about having it done. It is irresponsible to have that information in a format that can make it easily available to the public, and then hide it.
31 Comments:
Dr. Klag was a classmate of mine. I will give him my best at our 30th reunion next month in Philly.
Andrea- not anon
The gov't within its own offices has different seach and email blocks. It is childish- for instance, there are agencies where the word "sex" apparently cannot come through- it will be blocked. Of course, for science and health agencies - that would make submissions and email about work impossible.
"Even as the words came out of our mouths we knew it would never happen. Even though all those choices are legal and are selected every day by responsible people, we knew the school district would never allow the word "abortion" to be used in a health class in a non-negative way. To me it's so discouraging to see the hypocrisy we have insitutionalized, that we let our society be held hostage by a small gang of pseudomoral thugs."
So the family life committee was hypocritical if they don't tell kids what legal options they have to do bad things?
I don't think so. Neither do most.
How small is this gang? If small, how did they gain so much influence? Could it be that they have influence because most people agree with them and believe it is wrong to kill the innocent?
I think so. So do most.
I think it would be great to teach the boy children that they don’t have to worry about being careful and do not need to use a condom because the girl children can have an abortion. After all if the girls can get rid of the babies, the boys will not have to be responsible to that child, according to the law. No baby, no support. They can be taught the message that if girls, with the help of the boys, make a “mistake” of getting pregnant, you can just kill this tiny baby, after all, this tiny “thing” is just that, a “thing” to get in the way. Why let this “mistake” (Obama’s word) interfere with another person’s life? The message is that killing is OK to achieve one’s happiness.
Telling teens not to use a condom for oral, anal or vaginal sex is the equivalent of asking them to expose themselves to STI's like HIV/AIDS. You are crazy to think that "would be great."
Ms. Dickson suggested that instead of using “abortion,” librarians could use other terms like “fertility control, postconception” or “pregnancy, unwanted.”
Ms. Dickson went on to suggest that librarians should prepare to substitute the term “medical procedure” with other terms like “things that a doctor does on your body,” or “necessary, pain, scalpel.”
Why is it crazy?
You die of AIDS or you die being aborted.. After all doesn’t sex have its consequences?
Wow. Once again, I am sickened by your stupidity, AnonFreak.
HIV/AIDS is still a great problem that the world faces: for ALL GOD'S CHILDREN (GAY OR STRAIGHT).
The good thing is that we have many medications nowadays that help people LIVE a full term of life. People are not LIVING with HIV and NOT dying of HIV (in the U.S.).
So, no, actually, AnonFreak, not everyone dies from HIV anymore. AIDS and HIV are in different categories. I feel like I am talking to someone from the 18th century when I talk to you...you are so behind in scientific research and up-to-date literature.
It's, more than anything, representative of your friends at CRC/G and the Westboro Baptist Church.
And you wonder why you people keep losing court battles, one-right-after-another.
Stop your hatin' and start appreciatin'.
Derrick
That wasn't the person you usually call AnonFreak, Derrick. It might be a TTF decoy but, in any case, try another name like AnonGeek.
Doubtful, AnonFreak.
"Hypocrisy On Abortion"
Interesting how closely the terms, "hypocrisy" and "abortion" are related. There is probably no issue where the hypocrisy of liberals in America is more pronounced. Generally, the same people who oppose the death penalty and the Iraq war will support the taking of untold millions of innocent lives who were deemed to inconvenient for society to protect and sustain.
Funny, Anon, I see it just the opposite. I believe people should be free of governmental tyranny, they should be able to walk down a Baghdad street without being molested by foreign soldiers, they should not worry about being tortured or bombed in their homes or about being convicted and executed for being the wrong race while committing a crime.
Conservatives, on the other hand, want to execute more people, bomb more innocents in foreign lands, torture and hold people without charges or representation, and at the same time whine that an embryo is a human life and that the choice of abortion is equivalent to murder and that that particular form of murder is immoral while the others are not.
You will find most liberals would not want to see a fetus aborted, it is a sad choice to have to make, but everybody knows there are times when it is necessary, and it should not be up to some bureaucrat or politically-appointed stranger to decide. Conservative women need abortions as well as liberal ones; when you get into that situation it's not a religious or political or moral decision, it's a very intense personal one, and the less the government is involved, the better, as far as I'm concerned.
JimK
Anyone who believes it is wrong to execute a convicted murderer but believes it's fine to kill an innocent child whose life may be inconvenient is far worse than a hypocrite.
Anyone who believes it is wrong to kill terrorists in battle but believes it's fine to kill an innocent child whose life may be inconvenient is far worse than a hypocrite.
Anyone who believes it is wrong to take down a dictator who tortures and capriciously kills minority groups in his country but believes it's fine to kill an innocent child whose life may be inconvenient is far worse than a hypocrite.
Anyone who believes it is wrong to stop an agressive country from invading its neighbors and funding worldwide terror but believes it's fine to kill an innocent child whose life may be inconvenient is far worse than a hypocrite.
Far worse.
Anon, I don't believe for an instant that you give a damn about "innocent children." You use the language of political "pro-lifers" who are, as Jim has pointed out, anything but pro-life. A blastocyst is an "innocent child"? Mindless logorrhea from you and yours.
To you and yours, embryos are a very convenient, now 30-year-old whipping tool with which to attack America and project your desire for a radical religious takeover of this country. You don't care about real children, and you care even less about the women who bear them and then are left to raise them without the assistance of "real men" such as you. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I don't suppose I'll ever see that day.
Anonymous:
Can we all here assume that you have been an active adopter of parentless or homeless children or that you are actively involved in raising funds and providing homes for the thousands of orphans or children rejected by heterosexual "families"? Talk about hypocracy!!!
RT
"Anon, I don't believe for an instant that you give a damn about "innocent children.""
Well, how about you? You give a damn about them?
"You use the language of political "pro-lifers" who are, as Jim has pointed out, anything but pro-life."
Right. They don't support killing innocent children so they must not be pro-life. Have you been talking to George Orwell in your sleep again?
"A blastocyst is an "innocent child"? Mindless logorrhea from you and yours."
Catch up with science, "doctor".
"To you and yours, embryos are a very convenient, now 30-year-old whipping tool with which to attack America"
Protecting innocent children is attacking America? Most of America agrees they should be protected.
"and project your desire for a radical religious takeover of this country."
Most religions value life, not just mine. Nothing radical about it.
"You don't care about real children, and you care even less about the women who bear them and then are left to raise them without the assistance of "real men" such as you."
Oh yeah, because if I really "cared", I support killing them because it's better to be dead than disadavantaged. Is that what you're saying, "doctor"? Hypocritical if not Hippocratic.
"You should be ashamed of yourself, but I don't suppose I'll ever see that day."
Shame on me. I favor children and other living things.
Andrea - not anon
"I favor children and other living things"- so you are opposed to the current war in Iraq. Good for you!
Anon, I said my piece, and I stand by it. I will not spend any more time discussing this issue with you.
I don't blame you, Dana. Who would want to defend such barbarism?
""I favor children and other living things"- so you are opposed to the current war in Iraq."
News flash to Andrea:
beep-beep-beep
Americans sent more troops last summer.
The more they sent, the lower the fatalities.
This is because America wasn't causing all that killin'.
The Iraqis realize this and joined with Americans in chasing out the foreigners.
Democrats want America to lose and withdraw immediately, which will cause tremendous death and suffering.
Again, Republicans are pro-life.
Sorry to rain on your parade but...
beep-beep-beep
AnonFreak-
Just like G.W. Bush you are out-of-step with mainstream America.
It isn't all fun and games being part of a minority group in this country, is it? Empathy is understanding-- so is respect. Earn it, do it, show it.
Er...Earth to Derrick
Come in, Derrick
McCain leads Obama and Clinton in polls
Brrr..buzz..pop
Americans have never supported a presidential candidate who advocated surrender in wartime
pop...buzz...beep
Obama aide was fired who told truth
Obama won't withdraw troops
buzz...whoosh...beep
Kerry tried to run against America too
plan failed
beep..beep..beep..beep
you are a bleeping idiot
beep bleep....
AnonFreak-
as per usual, you're off topic.
It doesn't matter, though. It just makes you look stupid. Not surprising-again.
We are not here to play games, AnonFreak; we are talking about the lives of men, women and children on this blog and your insensitivity to the topic at hand is rude, disgusting and down right sickening.
The bleeping idiot is the Anon who said I think it would be great to teach the boy children that they don’t have to worry about being careful and do not need to use a condom
That comment was made by an Anon who supports the CRWhatever and that part of Anon's comment sounds like it came right out of the Yearning for Zion Ranch instruction manual, where the menfolk (the few that are allowed to remain part of the group) are encouraged to impregnate young, innocent, uneducated females in order to win entry into the "Celestial Kingdom." That religious sect keeps their females so ignorant some of them can't even spell their last name and don't know their own their own date of birth.
That Anon's remarks indeed idiotic, Bea, and not the usual Anon. Probably a TTF decoy although if you go back and look at some of the comments surrounding, it might have been someone attempting sarcasm.
"as per usual, you're off topic"
au contraire, bleeping idiot, you mentioned the mainstream, those will reject the Democratic party once again this fall
consider Obama, who opposed the now sucessful surge strategy and now recommends a withdrawal that will be disastrous for both America and Iraq
you really think the mainstream will want to support that
beep...beep...beep
Wow, AnonFreak. You seem angry for some reason. Hating minorities is exhausting, is it? Well, you deserve it. :-)
All that hate is diminishing your vocabulary. All you can say is "beep".
HATE IS NOT A MONTGOMERY COUNTY VALUE!!
Anonymous: You said, among other innanities, "Again, Republicans are pro-life." (so much so that you support the anti-war movement because you want to stop the futile and immoral loss of lives in Iraq?), "Most religions value life, not just mine. Nothing radical about it." (Most religions? name one that doesn't), "Americans sent more troops last summer. The more they sent, the lower the fatalities." (HUH??), and "au contraire, bleeping idiot, you mentioned the mainstream, those will reject the Democratic party once again this fall." Perhaps you are interested in buying a bridge in Brooklyn?
As usual, your comments prove that you are a resident of "Cloud Cuckoo-Land". I love your constant quoting of polls...any poll taken at this point that compares potential presidential candidates and predicts a winner in a November election in April is highly suspect and only encourages the shallow understanding of voters such as yourself. Overall...despite your wishful prognostications (and you have a below-average record thus far) it will be a LANDSLIDE win for the Democrats on every level. The American people are sick and tired of the lies about Iraq, the economy, the condition of the health system, the bailing out of Republican cronies in their stock ventures, etc.etc. being pumped out of the White House (and if you want to quote polls, at least cite the polls on these topics). Remember the election of 2000? "It's the economy, stupid".
Diogenes
It is a political error for a candidate to believe that voters who agree with him will always end up supporting him.
There is little doubt that Americans generally feel that the initial use of military force in Iraq was a mistake. Recent, paradoxical polls show a dramatic increase in the number of people who believe that the war is now going well alongside a hardening majority who believe it should not have been begun. Barack Obama's strongest argument on Iraq is increasingly about the past.
But presidential elections tend to focus on the future. In spite of their past failures, whom do you trust more to conduct a flawed, messy war in the years ahead? Lincoln or McClellan? Nixon or McGovern? Bush or Kerry? McCain or Obama?
At some point, most foreign policy debates, especially during a war, come down to a binary determination: Is a candidate strong or weak? Voters can disagree with a nominee on many things and still find him stronger than his opponent.
So far, Obama has not taken this challenge with sufficient seriousness. His Iraq approach comes down to three points. First, he has voted twice against funding U.S. troops in the field -- a political necessity in the Democratic primaries but a blunder with the broader electorate. No matter what subtleties Obama attempts to develop in his Iraq position, this will be seen as a symbol of impulsive radicalism, unbecoming in a commander in chief.
Second, Obama advocates a specific timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops to pressure the Iraqi government to take its responsibilities more seriously. (In fact, according to Obama's January 2007 Iraq plan, all combat troops would already be out of Iraq.) But it seems increasingly unfair to denigrate the efforts of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government, which has moved forward on 12 of 18 benchmarks set by Congress and has recently engaged Shiite militias in a fight the United States has been demanding. In many cases, the Iraqis seem to lack capacity, not will -- which is precisely Gen. David Petraeus's argument for continued American engagement.
Third, Obama promises to personally negotiate with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Iran's destabilizing support and training of Shiite militias. What might seem a bold strategic maneuver from a Nixon or Kissinger smacks of dangerous naivete from a fourth-year senator.
Obama -- the most reflective of candidates -- displays little self-knowledge when it comes to these political challenges. When questioned recently about his choice for vice president, he responded, "I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I am not as expert on. I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more commander in chief-like. . . . Ironically, this is an area -- foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."
The question here is not self-confidence but public confidence. And Obama's political judgment is exactly wrong. He will have enormous advantages on domestic policy in the coming campaign, on which he seems both more activist and interested than McCain. But McCain is ahead on measures such as "strong leader." Obama needs to seem, and be, more commander in chief-like.
McCain has challenges of his own. The fortunes of his campaign remain tied to events in Iraq, as they have been from the beginning. And despite undeniable progress against Sunni radicalism, events in Iraq are still inseparable from the actions and attitudes of Shiite militias armed and directed by Iran -- an influence that America failed to confront for many years. Maliki's uncoordinated attack on the Shiite militias in Basra seems to indicate that while the Iraqi spirit is willing, the flesh remains weak. But the failure of the Shiite uprising to spread more broadly shows that the extremists may be weaker than in the past. And, as Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute points out, Moqtada al-Sadr was forced to cave in at the end. "By going after al-Sadr," he says, "Maliki forced the Iraqi political parties to take sides, and every single one sided with him [Maliki]."
The situation in Iraq, as Gen. Petraeus insists, is "fragile and reversible." But the debate has moved far beyond a candidate's initial support for the war. This has led to an odd inversion of the generational battle. Young Obama's strongest arguments are focused on the failures of the past. The older man, by insisting on victory, is more responsible and realistic about the future.
The entire entry above was stolen. We don't want Citizens Link crap and we don't want Gerson's crap either.
Not responding to the issue, B. Jim has said pro-lifers who support the continued presence of American troops are hypocrites because that is causing loss of life.
Sane people, including Iraqis, know the opposite is true. The departure of Americans will cause massive loss of life and hurt America's image and interests. Democrats, meanwhile, catering to organized labor, destroy our relationships with our friends by attacking fair trade.
In Iraq, Democrats favor a path that will lead to tremendous suffering and loss of life. They are, as they are so often, anti-life. Obama will lose next November.
Maybe he can start a book club with Kerry, Dukakis and Gore.
Pro-lifers who support the Iraq war are hypocrites. Rational people know over 1 million Iraqis have died since our neocon nincompoop launched his disaterous and unprecedented preemptive war against Iraq. Rational people know 2.2 million exiles have fled the country and another 2 million are exiled inside the war-torn country.
The nincompoop in chief treats our troops like they are disposable commodities. Rational people know Army suicides are up 20% in 2007 over 2006 and combat Marine suicides are up even higher.
Pro-lifers who support the war want unwanted babies born to ensure there will be enough grunts to do the dirty work so they won't have to do it themselves. Maybe you can start a book club with combat avoiders like Bush and Cheney.
B, B, B...
The past was a blast but it didn't last. We need change and we need it fast.
Americans will always look to the future. Tomorrow, lives will be saved if:
1. Lifestyle convenience abortions are banned
2. America continues to monitor the peace in Iraq
Meanwhile, this is one of boldest statements of evil I've ever read:
"Pro-lifers who support the war want unwanted babies born to ensure there will be enough grunts to do the dirty work so they won't have to do it themselves."
Post a Comment
<< Home