CDC now banned from using "evidence based" and other words per White House

[babyNP.]

The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation's top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases - including "fetus" and "transgender" - in any official documents being prepared for next year's budget.

Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based" and "science-based."

CDC gets list of forbidden words: fetus, transgender, diversity - The Washington Post

....

This is an attack on our very society itself. I could not believe it when I read it. I feel like a revolution may be inevitable if this trend continues. To ban the words "evidence-based" is beyond words for me to write.

ETA: The other words banned are: "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," and "science-based." No less horrendous.

[AutumnApple]

Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time seeing the point of it. If any crime has been committed here, it's that *this* is what they came up with to improve the healthcare process. It'll have no effect one way or another.

So a few choice words are banned from documents. So what.

People with opposing viewpoints on whatever issue will just get their point across with different words is all. Three months from now, no one will even talk about all this. In six months, no one will be able to quote what words were banned. In a year, hardly anyone will even remember this happened.

My time is too valuable to be spent debating whether a bad attempt at looking busy is effective or not. People of average intelligence could have been more productive with their time than they were, and could have duplicated these results in less than five minutes. So, I don't know what they were doing in those meetings but, they weren't discussing *the issues*.

I've already wasted enough time on this too lol.

[Tenebrae, BSN, RN]

1984 was meant to be a warning, not a blueprint.

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."

― George Orwell, 1984

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

― George Washington

I'm thinking more "The handmaids tale" Margaret Atwell

[Ddestiny, BSN, RN]

i'm just wondering why you weren't so shocked when Obama banned words like Christmas...

You must be mistaken. For someone that "banned words like 'Christmas' he sure said them a lot himself, on camera. MSNBC trolls Trump with video montage of Obama saying ‘Merry Christmas’ | TheHill

Either way, you're attempting to move us off topic.

[Tenebrae, BSN, RN]

Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time seeing the point of it. If any crime has been committed here, it's that *this* is what they came up with to improve the healthcare process. It'll have no effect one way or another.

So a few choice words are banned from documents. So what.

It always starts with a few words. "its time to cut the tall trees" were the few words that lead to the death of almost a million Tutsis during the Rwandan genocide.

We should all be concerned when our governments start dictating what is acceptable language

People with opposing viewpoints on whatever issue will just get their point across with different words is all. Three months from now, no one will even talk about all this. In six months, no one will be able to quote what words were banned. In a year, hardly anyone will even remember this happened.

I doubt it

I've already wasted enough time on this too lol.

Yet you had the time to write a fairly lengthy post to tell us why we are all being drama queens and wasting our time on something so trifling.

Seriously people. Words have power. If you arent concerned you should damm well be so. You have a reality game show host holding the highest office in your country, and a leader of the free world. Who seems to formulate his policy when sitting on the dunny

[CelticGoddess, BSN, RN]

i'm just wondering why you weren't so shocked when Obama banned words like Christmas...

Link please?

[AutumnApple]

It always starts with a few words. "its time to cut the tall trees" were the few words that lead to the death of almost a million Tutsis during the Rwandan genocide.

We should all be concerned when our governments start dictating what is acceptable language

I doubt it

Yet you had the time to write a fairly lengthy post to tell us why we are all being drama queens and wasting our time on something so trifling.

Seriously people. Words have power. If you arent concerned you should damm well be so. You have a reality game show host holding the highest office in your country, and a leader of the free world. Who seems to formulate his policy when sitting on the dunny

Meh, I guess were different with this issue then. I'm not convinced it's anything more than posturing so that we believe they're hard at work. And I can't think of anything that anyone wants to say that can't be said using other, non-banned words.

My father is an avid hater of cussing. He calls it "inarticulate". He was also military. Bad mix. His friends, doing their best to keep the peace, said "F'ing" instead of the curse word. It annoyed him but, they at least avoided a lecture about it all.

Same thing is going to happen here. People are still going to say what they have to say. They just won't used the banned words. Releasing that list of banned words was, again, pointless.

[TriciaJ, RN]

I don't believe it was done by trump admin..it just a way to discredit his administration

I'd need a few more sources than the Washington Post before I believed anything.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time seeing the point of it. If any crime has been committed here, it's that *this* is what they came up with to improve the healthcare process. It'll have no effect one way or another.

So a few choice words are banned from documents. So what.

People with opposing viewpoints on whatever issue will just get their point across with different words is all. Three months from now, no one will even talk about all this. In six months, no one will be able to quote what words were banned. In a year, hardly anyone will even remember this happened.

My time is too valuable to be spent debating whether a bad attempt at looking busy is effective or not. People of average intelligence could have been more productive with their time than they were, and could have duplicated these results in less than five minutes. So, I don't know what they were doing in those meetings but, they weren't discussing *the issues*.

I've already wasted enough time on this too lol.

It's simple you take away the words that are the de facto standards when discussing scientific studies.

The GOP doesn't want to pay for research on Zika virus, so lets not talk about effects of Zika virus on fetuses. How do you tone down the rhetoric on that if you don't want to discuss it simple ban the word fetus in the CDC budget proposal.

You don't want to hear that climate change is evidence based or science based then just ban those words. Then you can more easily argue that it isn't scientific facts or evidence that supports climate change but opinion and opinions can be argued and deflected a lot easier than facts.

GOP overall believes homosexuality and transgender is just mental illnesses. Don't want to discuss transgenders then just delete the word.

Vulnerable populations are usually poor or other populations that the GOP/Trump administration doesn't want to hear about because if they acknowledged these vulnerable populations then they may have to actually do something about these populations instead of making tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals that cannot be paid for without completely gutting social welfare programs.

Diversity do you really think this administration wants to hear about diversity. The Trump administration is about the extremely rich and WASPs, if you don't fall in one or both of those categories this administration does not care about you.

[TriciaJ, RN]

There were times in the past I didn't feel free to express my opinions

I don't feel all that free to express them now. It is 1984 and not because of Donald Trump.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

I'd need a few more sources than the Washington Post before I believed anything.

I guess the HHS statement wasn't enough for you either?

[AutumnApple]

It's simple you take away the words that are the de facto standards when discussing scientific studies.

The GOP doesn't want to pay for research on Zika virus, so lets not talk about effects of Zika virus on fetuses. How do you tone down the rhetoric on that if you don't want to discuss it simple ban the word fetus in the CDC budget proposal.

You don't want to hear that climate change is evidence based or science based then just ban those words. Then you can more easily argue that it isn't scientific facts or evidence that supports climate change but opinion and opinions can be argued and deflected a lot easier than facts.

GOP overall believes homosexuality and transgender is just mental illnesses. Don't want to discuss transgenders then just delete the word.

Vulnerable populations are usually poor or other populations that the GOP/Trump administration doesn't want to hear about because if they acknowledged these vulnerable populations then they may have to actually do something about these populations instead of making tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals that cannot be paid for without completely gutting social welfare programs.

Diversity do you really think this administration wants to hear about diversity. The Trump administration is about the extremely rich and WASPs, if you don't fall in one or both of those categories this administration does not care about you.

I do get what you mean. And I would further that the attitude that leads to banning such words from discussion is a concern. I'm just not confident they are going to be effective in their attempts to control the debate with banned words. But thats just me.

Vulnerable becomes "at risk".

Evidence based becomes "research supported".

So on, so forth.

I guess what I mean is, they can ban all the words they want. Their opponents will step around that very small obstacle. As they said in Hunger Games, "It's all moves and counter moves."

*For me* the concern is that they spent all this time coming up with that list. What a waste of time. If I performed so poorly at my job, the outcome would not be good for me.

I also believe it may be a bit of a distraction. I see politicians sitting around a buffet of lobster and wine laughing. They are laughing because, while we get our panties in a bunch about this, debate freedom of speech and everything else.......they are slipping god awful tax laws under our nose.

I just find this list of banned words hard to take seriously. Not because the ideals that are (supposedly) banned are of no importance but because I honestly can't see how anyone wanting to say anything about whatever is hindered from doing so.

[guest52816]

I guess the HHS statement wasn't enough for you either?

Right on! Why believe a statement from the agency itself, or the NY Times for that matter.

And certainly why believe the newspaper that gave us the Pentagon Papers and helped to bring down a corrupt Richard Nixon.

Yeah, the Washington Post certainly has no track record. I suppose Fox News is supreme?