I heard this one on NPR this morning.

An inquiry into why the world's largest database on reproductive health blocked searches using the term "abortion" has found the restriction was put in place because of articles from an abortion advocacy magazine available on the site.

The block was an "overreaction," says Michael Klag, the dean of Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, which maintains the POPLINE database. When Klag learned that the search function for abortion had been removed, he ordered it restored. The block was taken down Friday afternoon.

Restored or not I'm still shocked that this happened at all.

The federal agency that funds POPLINE, the U.S. Agency for International Development, cannot by law support abortion activities. Sandra Jordan of USAID says abortion statistics and research are acceptable. But she says the agency did have problems with some materials on the site.

Setting aside USAID's apparent attempt to remain a neutral (?) on reproductive rights, the discrepency seems to be between the idea of supporting abortion activities and reading journals that support abortion activities. I can see the same thing happening with information on terrorism. If I read a website that shows how to build a bomb, talks about building bombs for terrorist activities, does that mean I support the concept of building bombs for terrorism, that I support terrorism, or that I'm simply doing research so I can write a paper about terrorism.

Kudos to the librarians that caught this. Yeesh.