Memory wipe

The U.S. administration's assault on women's rights continues unabated.

Day after day I stumble on story after story from south of the border about yet another attack on women's reproductive rights. Like the bill in Missouri that would classify the morning-after pill as ''abortifacient'' and allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense it. Or the potential violation of some 2,000 women's medical privacy. Or the senate candidate who legally changed his name to ''Pro-Life.'' Or the hijacking of the hit Dr. Seuss movie, Horton Hears a Who, by anti-abortion activists. (And, speaking of Whoville, what is the deal with the sexism injected into the movie?)

Here in the Great Pink North, we have Bill C-484, now before Parliamentary committee.  Officially titled "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence)" it is usually called "The Unborn Victims of Crime Act."

Its supporters say it protects pregnant women from violent attacks which harm or kill their fetuses. But it does nothing of the kind.

Meanwhile, women's groups recognize it for what it is...the beginning of the end of a woman's right to choose.

Those who oppose a woman's right to control her body and destiny are all for the bill. Those who believe women have the right to choose are against it.

Which says plenty.

But not nearly as much as something going on in the feminist cybersphere. There's a ''call-out'' going on, a challenge to anti-abortion bloggers to come up with a single legitimate ''established organization working against violence against women that publicly endorses this bill.''  So far, nada.

So all this is the context for today's treeware column, about the wipeout of ''abortion'' as a search term in a major database on reproductive health. (I have added some links.)

If you think that some of the Bush administration's conservative politics – and Orwellian moves – in the U.S. can't affect Canada, then you have some research to do.

Ten days ago at the University of California in San Francisco, librarian Gloria Won was running through POPLINE (POPulation information onLINE), billed as "the world's largest database on reproductive health." Maintained by Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University, and freely available to medical schools, health organizations and the public, it is funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Won was stymied. Entering the keyword "abortion," she kept getting the message "No records found." Odd, because she had done a similar search in January and found thousands of scholarly and peer-reviewed articles on the subject. When she emailed POPLINE, database manager Debra Dickson replied: "We recently made all abortion terms stop words."

Which means that, just like "the" and "and" and other words databases and browsers such as Google ignore, POPLINE would not recognize "abortion."

Because?

"As a federally funded project, we decided this was best for now," explained Dickson, who suggested that Won search with "fertility control" or "postconception" instead.

George Orwell would have called this a "thoughtcrime."

That's because, on his very first full day as U.S. president in 2001, George W. Bush resurrected the "global gag rule," which makes nongovernmental organizations certify that they "will not perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning" if they want USAID funding.

First enacted under Ronald Regan and briefly rescinded by Bill Clinton, it's estimated that this restriction has cost the lives of some 70,000 women who have sought out back-alley abortions.

By late last week, censorship was the talk of the librarian community. And no wonder. This is the kind of thing China does when you search "Tiananmen Square."

Now, if you read the whole thing, and I hope that you do, you will learn that nobody ordered the POPLINE people to make ''abortion'' a stop word. It was an overreaction to a call from USAID, which took exception to two -- out of some 25,000 -- articles in the database.

Because they were advocacy materials, they did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the database. The agency informed POPLINE administrators who removed them from POPLINE.

<SNIP>

POPLINE administrators took the additional step of temporarily restricting "abortion" as a search term while the database was examined for other information that might not have been consistent with USAID guidelines.

USAID did not request this action, although the agency was informed that it had been taken. POPLINE administrators did not inform management of the Bloomberg School of Public Health of their decision.

The word has been restored, and the Johns Hopkins people stepped in quickly to denounce its excision exorcism.

Such is Bush's America where you have to watch what you say – and where women have to watch what they do.

And so, rather than risk losing its funding, an organization dedicated to health research and medical information would send "abortion" down the memory hole.

But there's more than a word at stake here – it's an indicator of how, both in Canada and the U.S., women's reproductive choices, are also threatened with erasure.

Comments

[arthurdecco]

It was a compelling treeware piece this afternoon and its an even more compelling blog post tonight, Antonia.

Bravo.

[C Martin]

The fact that no one from USAID requested "abortion" be excluded from the database and that it happened anyway is extremely eerie. It reminds me of the Nebraska judge who wouldn't allow a woman to refer to the sexual attack against her as "rape" in court. It's as though some think controlling the language will erase abortion and rape themselves. I do believe the trickle down effect of such incidents helps to create a society in which women feel they can't exercise reproductive choice (even as it remains legal to do so) and that there's no point in reporting sexual violence against them.

[johnnykap]

"Day after day I stumble on story after story from south of the border about yet another attack on women's reproductive rights." Really, Antonia? Imagine how many you'd come across if you actually made a concerted effort to find them.

"Meanwhile, women's groups recognize it for what it is...the beginning of the end of a woman's right to choose." Or, phrased in a different way, the light at the end of the tunnel for those innocent feti who now have a shot at life. Why do you Canadian feminists care more about clubbing baby seals than you do about the helpless, soft babies?

"There's a ''call-out'' going on." You guys ripped that off pro-wrestling. You know, like when Hulk Hogan "calls outs" say, The Undertaker. (What's ironic is that they always have the guy's music who's being called out cued up. That was what finally convinced me that wrestling is fake.)

"Such is Bush's America where you have to watch what you say – and where women have to watch what they do." Yeah, I still donate money to all the librarians who were jailed after the Patriot Act went into effect.

You feminists need to lighten up a bit. The pendulum always swings both ways. Now, the pro-life side is making some progress. It'll swing back your way, naturally, over the course of time. Don't worry about it.

[sooey]

Hm. I think we'll work on it not swinging all the way back to no reproductive rights, anyway, thanks.

[April Reign]

Call out originated with Pro Wrestling???!!

Imagine if people thought you really were that misinformed!

[arthurdecco]

"(What's ironic is that they always have the guy's music who's being called out cued up. That was what finally convinced me that wrestling is fake.)" johnniekap

It took cued music to convince you? Wow...

I realized wrestling was fake the first time I watched a television bout with my grandfather, who was a shouting fruit loop of a fan. I was 4, jk, and I remember mostly watching my grandfather...

I figured anything that could do that to a person usually so stern and sensible couldn't be real.

It was Made Up Magic in my 4 year old brain.

[Sarah]

This article ties in with an issue my friends and I were discussing just last night, about the lack of information provided when first having been issued birth control. We discussed the lack of questioning, and information provided when recieving your first pack; alone in your family doctor's office, say, at the young age of 16. I remember first going on birth control, and I had my blood pressure taken, and was quickly prescribed the pack, with no brochure or further discussion. My main source of information was sadly, the package insert.

One of many other related incidents surrounding the use of birth control were brought up, the first having been about a friend who smoked on the pill, understanding from what she read on the package insert that the effect of smoking while on the pill would at worst, reduce the pills effectiveness. This girl was also aware one of the side effects was blood clotting, but was thinking that what this meant, was again, at worst, maybe a bruise or two on her leg as the result. This girl ended up having a stroke in her eye, which she was later told, by an eye specialist (the official title escapes me..) that this stroke was directly related to the fact that she was smoking while on the pill. She lost some of her vision for a short while, and luckily the eye repaired itself in a few months time, but the scary thing is, a mature female in her late teens, early twenties made this mistake -- because she was not properly informed.

Another issue we discussed briefly, was the advertising campaigns for the new HPV vaccine. My one friend commented how she heard young girls who were questioned on camera, as to what they thought the benefits were...and many had replied that the vaccination prevented them from STD's. Are young girls going to go out misinformed, thinking that by having this vaccination, that they will not be able to get STD's?? Why is this vaccine being pushed when it seems not enough time has been taken to do proper testing??

I imagine the majority of young women out there having sex are using birth control methods like the patch or the pill....why then is there not a moral or legal obligation to have a brochure with hotlines, numbers, and any and all important reproductive health information handed out with this prescription?? In discussing this issue with my friends last night I couldn't come up with a rationale for why so many girls say the same thing: "I was not given any information about birth control, I had to search for that information for myself".

All of these minor details in the lives of so many women appear to be connected loosely to this issue of the erasure of information related to women's reproductive options, of which, sadly I was unaware of before reading this article, posted by a friend. This article has opened my eyes to the possibility that this information was not available because of neglect, or because it's importance is simply overlooked....it does in fact seem as if this information was withheld, for specific reasons.

Not having done any bulk of research before reading this article, and having only the package insert and a few short discussions with my mother about concerns as my source of information, I cannot yet say that I agree with the position that you have taken on this issue.
However, I am now realizing that these are obviously not isolated incidents, and I am now entertaining this possibility that you are in fact, correct. I will look at everything I read with more scrutiny, and will do my own research before deciding. Thank you very much for raising my awareness on this issue. -Sarah