[16days_discussion] Google's Ad Policy re Info on Abortion Clinics

16 Days Campaign 16days at cwgl.rutgers.edu
Tue Jul 14 13:39:30 EDT 2009


>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Date: 	Sun, 5 Jul 2009 17:07:36 +0200 (CEST)
>
> 	
> From: 	Marieme HELIE LUCAS
>
>
>
>>
>> It seems Google is stopping access to details of abortion clinics 
>> through its web system, a very powerful anti-abortion gesture. The 
>> letter below is to protest this and as many signatories as possible 
>> are needed. If you wish to sign it, please write to 
>>
>> Rebecca Gomperts at gomperts at womenonwaves.org <x-msg://32/??>
>>
>> with your name, organisation and contact details. And forward it to 
>> as many colleagues as possible. 
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* rebecca gomperts [ mailto:gomperts at womenonwaves.org 
>> <mailto:gomperts at womenonwaves.org>] 
>> *Sent:* 24 June 2009 13:36
>> *To:* Worldbytes
>> *Subject:* [worldbytes] signatures for letter to google
>>
>> Dear worldbytes members,  
>>
>> The Health Equity and Law Clinic of the University of Toronto wrote 
>> the following letter for Google on behalf of Women on Waves. 
>>
>> It concerns the recent Google policy to restrict adds for abortion 
>> related information and services in certain countries. 
>>
>> We are looking for reproductive right organizations who would like to 
>> co-sign the letter in order to increase the impact of the letter to 
>> google. 
>>
>> If you would like to sign, please email me your name, organization 
>> and country
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thanks a lot
>>
>>  
>>
>> Rebecca Gomperts 
>>
>> On behalf of Women on Waves
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> June 24, 2009
>>
>> *                                                                                                                                                
>> *
>> Google Inc. Legal Department
>>
>> 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
>>
>> Mountain View, CA 94043
>>
>> Google AdWords, Google Ann Arbor
>>
>> 201 S. Division St., Suite 500
>>
>> Ann Arbor, MI 48104        
>>
>> To:     The Google AdWords Team and the Google Inc. Legal Department
>>
>> *Re:     Google AdWords Advertising Policy Update: Restricting 
>> Advertisements that Promote Abortion Services 
>> *
>> We are writing on behalf of Women on Waves (“WOW”), a non-profit 
>> organization providing health services and sexual education to 
>> prevent unwanted pregnancy and unsafe abortions, and the Health 
>> Equity and Law Clinic, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, an 
>> academic clinic specializing in reproductive and sexual health law 
>> and policy. This letter concerns a change to Google Adwords policy 
>> respecting the advertising of abortion services.
>>
>> On September 17, 2008, WOW received notice of a /Google AdWords 
>> Advertising Policy Update/ (“Revised Policy”).[ii][i] Under 
>> the /Revised Policy/, Google AdWords will: 
>>
>> no longer accept ads that promote abortion services and that target 
>> any of the following countries: Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, 
>> Hong Kong, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, 
>> Poland, Singapore, Spain, or Taiwan. 'Abortion services' include, but 
>> are not limited to, abortion clinics and abortion counselors.
>>
>> While we acknowledge much consideration was given to your decision on 
>> the advertising of abortion services and the potential effect of 
>> the /Revised Policy/, we request the policy be reviewed for the 
>> following reasons: 
>>
>> 1.     The effects of the /Revised Policy/ for persons other than 
>> Adwords advertisers. We are concerned about the adverse effect of 
>> the /Revised Policy/ for women seeking safe and lawful abortion 
>> services. By restricting access to information, 
>> the /Revised/ /Policy/ may contribute to unsafe abortion in a manner 
>> inconsistent with human rights principles.
>>
>> 2.     The justification for the /Revised Policy/. We understand that 
>> Google may refuse or terminate any advertisement at any time and for 
>> any reason. Given the adverse impact of the /Revised Policy/ on human 
>> rights to safe abortion, a reasoned justification in this instance is 
>> warranted but lacking.
>>
>> We believe these reasons merit the rescission of the /Revised Policy/.
>>
>> Google plays an important role in the protection of human rights. 
>> Through participation in the /Global Network Initiative/ and other 
>> programs, Google has demonstrated its commitment to protect access to 
>> information as a human right consistent with internationally 
>> recognized laws and standards. These include the human rights 
>> outlined in the /International Covenant on Economic, Social and 
>> Cultural Rights*[iii]*[ii]/ among other international treaties. 
>>
>> Given the impact of the /Revised Policy/ on human rights to safe 
>> abortion, we respectfully request the policy be reviewed and 
>> rescinded. If following your review, Google decides there are reasons 
>> to maintain the /Revised Policy/ we request these reasons be publicly 
>> disclosed. Justification for the /Revised Policy/ avoids an adverse 
>> inference that Google is acting without concern for the human rights 
>> impact of its policies.
>>
>> *1. The Adverse Impact of the /Revised Policy/ on Human Rights to 
>> Safe Abortion
>> *
>> We are concerned about the adverse effect of the /Revised Policy/ for 
>> women seeking safe and lawful abortion services. By restricting 
>> access to information, the /Revised/ /Policy/ may contribute to 
>> unsafe abortion in a manner inconsistent with internationally 
>> recognized human rights. 
>>
>> Unsafe abortion is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity 
>> worldwide. Every year an estimated seventy thousand women die and 
>> five million more women suffer with disability from unsafe 
>> abortion.[iv][iii] Many women who resort to unsafe abortion live in 
>> countries where abortion is lawful under certain conditions, such as 
>> where necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or to protect 
>> her physical and mental health. Women resort to unsafe abortion 
>> because they cannot access safe services to which they are lawfully 
>> entitled within the health system.[v][iv] Unsafe abortion is a 
>> consequence of access barriers to safe and lawful services. 
>>
>> Access to health services without discrimination is an essential 
>> component of the rights to health and equality under international 
>> law.[vi][v] Women’s right to health includes an entitlement to access 
>> services specific to their health needs. It is discriminatory under 
>> international law to restrict the promotion or provision of 
>> appropriate health services for women, including those related to 
>> reproductive health, and to obstruct action taken by women in pursuit 
>> of their health goals.[vii][vi] Given the /Revised Policy/ restricts 
>> advertising on abortion services, sex-specific health care, its 
>> adverse impact is borne exclusively by women thereby raising equality 
>> concerns.
>>
>> Access to information – the right to seek, receive and impart 
>> information on health issues – is a key determinant of access to 
>> health care.[viii][vii] This is especially true respecting access to 
>> abortion services. Many women seek unsafe abortion because they lack 
>> access to information on the legal status of abortion and the 
>> availability of services. 
>>
>> Women and health providers in many countries are uninformed about the 
>> legal status of abortion, the conditions under which it is 
>> lawful.[ix][viii]  Many wrongly believe that abortion is prohibited 
>> by criminal law in all circumstances. Despite satisfying the 
>> conditions for lawful abortion, women are unfairly denied services 
>> and/or seek unsafe services in clandestine settings.[x][ix] 
>>
>> The stigmatization of abortion, attributable in part to its criminal 
>> regulation, also deters women from inquiring about the availability 
>> of services. Women may be reluctant to request services for fear of 
>> health provider judgment or refusal, and public disclosure and 
>> retribution from families and communities. Many women for this reason 
>> do not consult their regular health providers and seek care outside 
>> their communities. They are without traditional sources of health 
>> information. Recognizing the vulnerability of women seeking 
>> inter-jurisdictional access to abortion services, the European Court 
>> of Human Rights has emphasized the right to impart and receive 
>> information on abortion services as essential to ensuring women’s 
>> health and well-being.^[xi][x]
>>
>> Advertisements on abortion services can be a valuable source of 
>> information on both the legal status of abortion and the availability 
>> of services, and thus a crucial measure to mitigate access barriers 
>> to safe and lawful abortion. International law recognizes 
>> advertisements as a protected media for the exchange of 
>> information.[xii][xi] 
>>
>> The United States Supreme Court, in holding a law that restricted 
>> advertisements promoting abortion services as unconstitutional, 
>> recognized that such advertisements contained factual material of 
>> public interest.[xiii][xii] The advertisement did not merely inform 
>> readers of available commercial services, valuable information 
>> itself. Viewed in its entirety, the advertisement conveyed 
>> information about the subject matter including the law on abortion. 
>> The mere existence of the services, the possibility that the 
>> advertiser was typical of other organizations and the availability of 
>> the services, was important information. Recent reform in the United 
>> Kingdom on television advertisement of abortion services was 
>> similarly motivated by the public health need for access to full and 
>> complete information on abortion services.[xiv][xiii] 
>>
>> The internet is a primary health information source. It is of 
>> particular importance to individuals who lack access to traditional 
>> sources of health information, require confidential and timely access 
>> to information and seek services outside of their communities. Online 
>> advertisements that promote abortion services can improve access to 
>> information on the legal status of abortion and the availability of 
>> lawful services, and can thereby reduce recourse to unsafe abortion. 
>>
>> Vehicles such as a /Google Adwords/ moreover increase the credibility 
>> of information sources, defined in terms of their expertise and 
>> trustworthiness. The service facilitates access to relevant 
>> information by isolating the advertisement and the availability of 
>> services from a string of search engine results, which in the case of 
>> a political and social issue such as abortion may be overwhelming for 
>> an individual woman seeking services.[xv][xiv] 
>>
>> By restricting access to information on safe and lawful abortion, 
>> the /Revised Policy/ may thus contribute to unsafe abortion in a 
>> manner inconsistent with human rights under international law.
>>
>> *2.  Justification for the Revised Policy and its Adverse Human 
>> Rights Impact
>> *
>> Given the human rights impact of the /Revised Policy/, we believe 
>> that a reasoned justification for the policy is warranted. Google’s 
>> decision on the advertising of abortion services may have been 
>> informed by the following considerations:
>>
>> A.   the criminal regulation of abortion,
>>
>> B.    abortion as a high-risk health service,
>>
>> C.    legal restrictions on the advertisement or promotion of 
>> abortion services, and
>>
>> D.   government or other political pressure.
>>
>> Careful analysis demonstrates these considerations cannot justify 
>> the /Revised Policy/ and its adverse human rights impact.
>>
>> _A. The Criminal Regulation of Abortion
>> _
>> The /Revised Policy/ may have been informed by the criminal 
>> regulation of abortion in the target countries, and the concern that 
>> acceptance of advertisements promoting abortion services may be 
>> construed as promotion or the aiding and abetting of criminal activity.
>>
>> Rather than illicit activity, counseling and information about 
>> abortion services, even where criminally restricted, is regarded as 
>> an important component of harm reduction and safe abortion 
>> initiatives. The Ministry of Health in Uruguay, for example, has 
>> enacted guidelines that allow health providers to provide information 
>> and counseling about abortion to women ineligible to receive lawful 
>> services.[xvi][xv]
>>
>> More importantly, in all target countries of the /Revised 
>> Policy/ abortion services are lawful under certain 
>> conditions.[xvii][xvi] A blanket restriction on advertisements that 
>> promote abortion services for reason of their criminal status is 
>> therefore unjustified. Women are entitled by law to access abortion 
>> services albeit under a set of regulated conditions. The target 
>> countries in this respect cannot be distinguished from the many 
>> countries, such as the United Kingdom, to which the /Revised 
>> Policy/ does not extend. Abortion is a lawful and legitimate health 
>> service in all of the target countries. 
>>
>> _B. Abortion as a High-Risk Health Service 
>> _
>> The /Revised Policy/ may have been informed by evidence of maternal 
>> mortality and morbidity related to unsafe abortion, and thus concern 
>> about accepting advertisements that promote a high-risk health 
>> service. It is necessary, however, to distinguish between unsafe and 
>> safe abortion. 
>>
>> Unsafe abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by 
>> individuals without the necessary skills or in an environment that 
>> does not conform to minimum medical standards, or both.[xviii][xvii] 
>> When appropriately regulated and provided by skilled persons under 
>> conditions that meet medical standards, abortion is a safe, low-risk 
>> procedure, safer than pregnancy and childbirth.[xix][xviii] 
>>
>> The /Revised Policy/ may have been directed to particular concerns 
>> about online abortion services, the sale of abortifacients or 
>> medicines for use in pregnancy termination. As a non-invasive 
>> alternative to surgical abortion, medication abortion is widely 
>> regarded as having significantly improved access to safe abortion. It 
>> is safe and effective, with few serious complications and success 
>> rates of 95–98%.[xx][xix] 
>>
>> Medication abortion, moreover, is an especially important innovation 
>> for safe abortion because it may be delivered by a more diverse set 
>> of providers in a range of health settings. Research demonstrates 
>> that outcomes of services provided through telemedicine (provision of 
>> medicines, counseling and information through the internet) are 
>> comparable with results reported in studies on medication abortion in 
>> outpatient settings.[xxi][xx]
>>
>> A restriction on advertisements that promote abortion services for 
>> reason of safety is therefore unjustified. The /Revised Policy/ is 
>> over-inclusive insofar as it restricts access to information on safe 
>> health services. It is also under-inclusive. Safety concerns about 
>> the online sale of medicines is not limited to abortion services, but 
>> of equal relevance to all health services. Ensuring the safe 
>> provision and use of online health services is a legitimate concern, 
>> and we encourage Google to develop a tailored policy directed to this 
>> objective.
>>
>> _C. Legal Restrictions on the Advertisement or Promotion of Abortion 
>> Services
>> _
>> The /Revised Policy/ may have been implemented because of domestic 
>> laws or policies respecting the advertisement of abortion services in 
>> the target countries. Some (e.g. Brazil and France) but not all 
>> target countries have laws specific to the advertisement of abortion 
>> services. No target country, however, absolutely prohibits the 
>> advertisement of abortion services. Advertisements are permissible in 
>> Brazil, for example, where the conditions under which abortion is 
>> lawful are appropriately indicated.[xxii][xxi] This policy recognizes 
>> that under certain conditions abortion services are lawful and should 
>> be treated without distinction from other health services. Rather 
>> than an absolute prohibition against advertisements that promote 
>> abortion services, the/Revised Policy/ should reflect a similar 
>> flexible standard. The /Revised Policy/ in this respect is 
>> inconsistent with Google Adwords’ general policy on advertisements 
>> subject to legal regulation, which states that it is the 
>> responsibility of the advertiser to ensure that its advertisements 
>> are in full compliance with the applicable domestic law.[xxiii][xxii] 
>> There is no clear reason why the same approach cannot be applied to 
>> abortion service advertisements, which may be subject to different 
>> legal regulation across jurisdictions.
>>
>> _D. Government or other Political Pressure
>> _
>> The /Revised Policy/ may have been informed by government policies 
>> that abortion, even when lawful, should not be promoted as a health 
>> service. Such policies are often based on the mistaken assumption 
>> that greater access to information and services will increase 
>> abortion rates. Evidence confirms that increased access to safe and 
>> lawful abortion does not increase the number of abortions nor lead 
>> women to use abortion as an alternative to contraception for family 
>> planning. Rather it ensures that a greater number of abortions are 
>> safe abortions.[xxiv][xxiii] 
>>
>> Such policies are more importantly inconsistent with human rights 
>> principles. Individuals should not be denied access to information as 
>> a measure to change health-seeking behaviour. Women are entitled as 
>> of right to information about all safe and lawful health services, 
>> including those related to reproductive and sexual health. We believe 
>> that Google shares this conception of access to information as a 
>> fundamental human right.
>>
>>  
>>
>> The lack of reasoned justification for the /Revised Policy/ given its 
>> impact on human rights to safe abortion merits its rescission. We 
>> thus respectfully request in light of Google’s demonstrated 
>> commitment to protect access to information as a human right that 
>> the /Revised Policy/ be reviewed and rescinded. If Google decides 
>> there are reasons not addressed in this letter to maintain 
>> the /Revised Policy,/ we would appreciate your sharing these reasons 
>> with us.
>>
>> We look forward to your response and appreciate your time and 
>> consideration. 
>>
>> Sincerely, 
>>
>>
>>
>> Rebecca Gomperts
>>
>> gomperts at womenonwaves.org <mailto:gomperts at womenonwaves.org> 
>>
>>
>> Women on Waves Foundation
>>
>> P.O. Box 15683, 1001 ND Amsterdam, The Netherlands
>>
>> Phone: +31 20 465 0004, Fax: +31 20 465 0004
>>
>>
>>
>> Joanna Erdman
>>
>> joanna.erdman at utoronto.ca <mailto:joanna.erdman at utoronto.ca> 
>>
>> Susan Newell
>>
>> susan.newell at utoronto.ca <mailto:susan.newell at utoronto.ca>
>>
>> Health Equity and Law Clinic
>>
>> Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
>>
>> 78 Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C5
>>
>> Phone: 416-946-3755, Fax: 416-978-2648
>>
>> *The undersigned organizations support this letter and its request 
>> that the /Revised Policy/ be reviewed and rescinded. 
>> *
>> 1.  Name, Organization, Contact Info
>>
>> 2.  Name, Organization, Contact Info 
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> [i][i] Email Communication from The Google AdWords Team to Women on 
>> Waves (September 17, 2008) (on file).
>>
>> [ii][i] Email Communication from The Google AdWords Team to Women on 
>> Waves (September 17, 2008) (on file).
>>
>> [iii][ii] /International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural 
>> Rights/, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, (/entered into force /Jan. 3, 
>> 1976).
>>
>> [iv][iii] World Health Organization (WHO). /Unsafe abortion: global 
>> and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and 
>> associated mortality in 2003. /(Geneva: WHO, 2007).
>>
>> [v][iv] WHO. /Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health 
>> Systems. /82 (Geneva: WHO, 2003). See Concluding Observations of U.N. 
>> bodies that monitor compliance with international human rights 
>> conventions, e.g. /Concluding Observations of the Committee on the 
>> Elimination of Discrimination against Women: Colombia, /CEDAW, UN 
>> Doc. CEDAW/C/COL/CO/6 (2007): While noting the decriminalization of 
>> abortion under certain conditions, the Committee remained “concerned 
>> that, in practice, women may not have access to legal abortion 
>> services” (para. 22); /Concluding Observations of the Committee on 
>> the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: Saint Lucia/, CEDAW, 
>> UN GAOR, 61st sess., supp. no. 38 (A/61/38) part II (2006) 114: While 
>> welcoming legal reform that permits abortion under certain 
>> circumstances, “[t]he Committee notes with concern the persistence of 
>> unsafe abortions in the country. It also notes with concern that no 
>> information was provided about measures to provide safe abortion 
>> services where those are permitted by law” (paras. 154, 181).
>>
>> [vi][v] U.N. Comm. on Econ., Soc. and Cultural Rights, /General 
>> Comment No. 14. The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of 
>> Health/, UN doc E/C.12/2000/4 at para. 12 (Aug. 11, 2000).
>>
>> [vii][vi] U.N. Comm. on the Elimination of all Forms of 
>> Discrimination against Women, /General Recommendation No. 24: Women 
>> and Health/, UN Doc. A/54/38/Rev.1 at paras. 11, 14, 23 (1999)
>>
>> [viii][vii] /Supra/ note 5.
>>
>> [ix][viii] See e.g. Chelsea Morroni, Landon Myer & Kemilembe 
>> Tibazarwa. “Knowledge of the abortion legislation among South African 
>> women: a cross-sectional study” (2006) 3 /Reproductive Health/ 7; 
>> Lisa A Goldman, Sandra G García, Juan Díaz & Eileen A Yam, “Brazilian 
>> obstetrician-gynecologists and abortion: a survey of knowledge, 
>> opinions and practices” (2005) 2/Reproductive Health/ 10; Davida 
>> Becker, Sandra G. Garcia & Ulla Larsen “Knowledge and Opinions about 
>> Abortion Law among Mexican Youth” (2002) 28(4) /International Family 
>> Planning Perspectives/ 205-213.
>>
>> [x][ix] /See Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: 
>> Argentina, /HRC, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/70/ARG (2000): “[T]he Committee is 
>> concerned that the criminalization of abortion deters medical 
>> professionals from providing this procedure without judicial order, 
>> even when they are permitted to do so by law” (para. 14).
>>
>> [xi][x] /Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman v. 
>> Ireland/ [1992] 15 EHRR 244.
>>
>> [xii][xi] /International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights/, 16 
>> December 1966, GA Res. 2200A (XX1), art. 19.
>>
>> [xiii][xii] /Bigelow v. Virginia/, 421 U.S. 809 (1975).
>>
>> [xiv][xiii] U.K., Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) 
>> and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), /The BCAP Code Review: 
>> Consultation on the Proposed BCAP Advertising Standards Code/ (2009).
>>
>> [xv][xiv] See Mike Benigeri & Pierre Pluye, “Shortcomings of health 
>> information on the Internet” (2003) 18 /Health Promotion 
>> International/ 381. Article analyzes the rising number of Internet 
>> sites providing medical information and services and the lack of 
>> available assistance in sorting through this information. See also: 
>> Berland et al., “Health Information on the Internet: Accessibility, 
>> Quality and Readability in English and Spanish” (2001) 285 /JAMA/ 2612.
>>
>> [xvi][xv] Uruguay, /Ordenanza/ 369/04, 6 de agosto del ano 2004.
>>
>> [xvii][xvi] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social 
>> Affairs, Population Division. /World Abortion Policies 2007./ (New 
>> York, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 
>> Population Division, 2007). 
>>
>> [xviii][xvii] WHO. /The prevention and management of unsafe abortion. 
>> Report of a Technical Working Group. /3 (Geneva: WHO, 1993).
>>
>> [xix][xviii] D. Grimes et al. “Unsafe abortion: the preventable 
>> pandemic” (2006) 368 /Lancet /1908-19, 1908.
>>
>> [xx][xix] C. Fiala & K. Gemzell-Danielsson. “Review of medical 
>> abortion using mifepristone in combination with a prostaglandin 
>> analogue.” (2006) 74 /Contraception/ 66–86.
>>
>> [xxi][xx] R.J. Gomperts et al. “Using telemedicine for termination of 
>> pregnancy with mifepristone and misoprostol in settings where there 
>> is no access to safe services” (2008) 115 /BJOG: An International 
>> Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology/ 1171-5.
>>
>> [xxii][xxi] Sandra Coliver, Article 19 International Centre Against 
>> Censorship, /The Right to Know: Human Rights and Reproductive Health 
>> Information/ (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995).
>>
>> [xxiii][xxii] Google AdWords, “Advertising Policies” (2009).
>>
>> [xxiv][xxiii] G. Sedgh et al. “Induced abortion: estimated rates and 
>> trends worldwide” (2007) 370 /The Lancet/ 1338-1345.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://email.rutgers.edu/pipermail/16days_discussion/attachments/20090714/9c2b32e0/attachment-0001.htm


More information about the 16days_discussion mailing list