T

he new director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reached out to alarmed agency staff over the weekend to tamp down fears incited by a report that the Trump administration has banned the CDC from using words like “fetus,” “evidence-based,” and “diversity” in its budget submissions.

Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, who has led the agency since July, sent an all-hands email to the agency’s staff assuring them that the CDC is committed to its mission as a science- and evidence-based institution. She later posted it on Twitter.

“As part of our commitment to provide for the common defense of the country against health threats, science is and will remain the foundation of our work,” Fitzgerald wrote.

advertisement

“CDC has a long-standing history of making public health and budget decisions that are based on the best available science and data and for the benefit of all people – and we will continue to do so.”

Fitzgerald’s email to staff did not refute the Washington Post’s article reporting that CDC staff had been given a list of seven banned words by CDC budget analysts. The other words on the list were “science-based,” “vulnerable,” “transgender,” and “entitlement.”

She did, however, quote from an HHS statement calling the report “a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process.”

And Fitzgerald tweeted on Sunday — pinning the tweet to the top of her feed — that “there are no banned words at CDC.”

 

A Health and Human Services official who asked not to be named told STAT it was not accurate to say that CDC had been ordered not to use the seven words. Instead, he said, agency budget analysts were told that some words and phrasing might be more likely to win support for the CDC’s budget in the current Congress.

“The meeting did take place, there was guidance provided — suggestions if you will,” he said. “There are different ways to say things without necessarily compromising or changing the true essence of what’s being said.”

“This was all about providing guidance to those who would be writing those budget proposals. And it was very much ‘you may wish to do this or say this’. But there was nothing in the way of ‘forbidden words.’”

Newsletters

Sign up for our Morning Rounds newsletter

Please enter a valid email address.

It is not unknown for budget guidance on phrasing like this to be transmitted. STAT has been told a previous administration indicated to the CDC that it preferred the term “unborn child” to “fetus,” but that that was a suggestion, not an order.

The Post published its article late Friday and followed up Saturday with a report that a second HHS agency has been instructed not to use the words “entitlement,” “diversity,” and “vulnerable.”

The news touched off a firestorm. The Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health said that if true, the edict was “an Orwellian attack on scientific integrity.”

In a letter to Mick Mulvaney, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, the organization demanded that the policy be withdrawn.

“The reported policy flatly contravenes the mission of the agency, grossly violates the agency’s pledge to the American people, and represents an appalling act of censorship,” wrote Laura Magaña, president of the association. “Leaving this policy in place would disrupt the agency’s critical work and, as a result, threaten the health of U.S. communities across the country.”

“Among the words forbidden to be used in CDC budget documents are ‘evidence-based’ and ‘science-based.’ I suppose one must not think those things either. Here’s a word that’s still allowed: ridiculous,” said CEO Rush Holt.

Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, said discussion of words that are banned or to be avoided sends a dangerous message to the agency. “There’s as much of a risk of self-censorship that comes out of this than actual direct censorship,” he told STAT. “This is the part that’s much more pernicious than any direct pronouncement.”

“So of course the administration and its defenders are going to argue that this is only about what goes into the budget,” Jha noted. “But we know that the signal to the agency is much stronger than that. And it’s going to change behavior of people who work there. And that’s much more damaging than any direct censorship.”

There is evidence that type of self-censorship is already underway at the agency. Earlier this year the CDC cancelled planned conferences on the health of transgender youth, and on the health effects of climate change.

This story has been updated to add reaction from a Health and Human Services official.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • The “alternative” language, like trump’s alternative facts, are at least as frightening as the planned censorship itself.

    “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.’’

    Over generations, we have seen FAR too many instances when “community standards” and “community wishes” has meant consideration of the standards and wishes of the most retrograde and/or most financially affected members of the community.” Which part of the community/communities are CDC, NIH, etc. supposed to listen to? There are still powerful people opposed to other people practicing birth control other than abstinence or the rhythm method, opposed to pollution control measures, opposed even to consideration of gun-related casualties.

  • Unlikely on several counts. First of all CDC is not in DC – it is in Atlanta. Second, as I have remarked, CDC has been showing signs of being willing to let opinion trump data since long before Trump tried to trump facts. Thus third, I am not holding my breath in anticipation of any confrontation. Why do you think he did not ask Frances Collins to issue the same edict at NIH? There he would have faced a general strike.

  • Welp , I see a “Range war looming along the Key Bridge and over to “K” Street now . Too bad I’m not living in Dee cee to see the blood bath first hand .

    It’s the Evangelicals vs the People’s republic of the CDC this afternoon folks . All eyes will be o the King, Donald Trump as he tweets out messages to his Frozen chosen followers . It’s gong to be a real Duzy of a ball game folks , now a word from our sponsor this hour ……

  • I found the most telling and chilling thing that in this “guidance” the CDC
    is this truly outrageous and indefensible “guidance.” From the Boston Globe:

    In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of ‘‘science-based’’ or ‘‘evidence-based,’’ the suggested phrase is ‘‘CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.’’

    That is truly frightening. If the community doesn’t wish to discuss anything about sexuality then the CDC will not use its science to address such issues as HIV, teen pregnancy, LGBTQ concerns, etc., etc. If the particular community finds drug addiction distasteful then the CDC will just ignore those issues? WHAT THE HELL??
    Forgive me but I’m now pretty mad, as well any rational person ought to be.

  • CDC has proven itself to be unable to study the most vulnerable populations – for example, they are unable to study fetal deaths (aka “spontaneous abortions”, and, as they blithely refer to them “non-live births” associated with Tdap vaccination during pregnancy. Since they have proven they can’t do it, someone who can should. Like NIMH, perhaps. See more details on these facts here: https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2017/12/18/why-its-not-insane-to-restrict-cdc-funding-based-on-words/

  • Budget submission blueprint:
    ….. blah blah GOD blah blah LORD blah blah PRO-LIFE blah blah ……

    100% success guaranteed, or you will get back your soul!

  • Helen Branswell, Thank you for writing a decent article.

    Lena Sun at WP and CNN–at it again… Come on! Doesn’t democracy die in the dark, right? Twisted propaganda isn’t what this country needs right now!

  • “Instead, he said, agency budget analysts were told that some words and phrasing might be more likely to win support for the CDC’s budget in the current Congress.”

    That is just what we need – a public health watchdog becoming increasingly politically sensitive. To paraphrase: We did not tell staff not to use those words, we just pointed out that if they do, it will likely cost them their livelihood.

    Frankly, CDC has edged so far away from science to popular politics that defunding them increasingly makes sense. The past several years they have been churning out opinionated junk science and alarmist public warnings and assertions of fact based on flimsy studies with findings inconsistent with other published literature.

    • I found the most telling and chilling thing that in this “guidance” the CDC
      is this truly outrageous and indefensible “guidance.” From the Boston Globe:

      In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of ‘‘science-based’’ or ‘‘evidence-based,’’ the suggested phrase is ‘‘CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.’’

      That is truly frightening. If the community doesn’t wish to discuss anything about sexuality then the CDC will not use its science to address such issues as HIV, teen pregnancy, LGBTQ concerns, etc., etc. If the particular community finds drug addiction distasteful then the CDC will just ignore those issues? WHAT THE HELL??
      Forgive me but I’m now pretty mad, as well any rational person ought to be.

  • Can you get the person who described the “suggestions if you will” to describe the suggestion for transgender? I’m still not clear on what the suggested replacement is for that. I am very curious about what the “different ways to say things without necessarily compromising or changing the true essence of what’s being said” is for transgender. And why.

    • Here are two technical descriptions that get you in the intersex/transgender arena without using “trans” in a sentence:

      – People with gender-related genomic abnormalities
      – People suffering from genotype-phenotype inconsistencies.

Sign up for our Morning Rounds newsletter

Your daily dose of what’s new in health and medicine.

Privacy Policy