Meta acknowledges anatomy-video removal error amid women's health complaints

Meta wrongly removed an educational Instagram video about vulval anatomy, according to a decision published by the Oversight Board on 13 October. After the board raised the case, Meta accepted that the video did not breach its rules and restored it behind a sensitivity warning. The ruling documents an error in one case; it does not show how often similar mistakes happen. [5]

The decision comes as charities and businesses describe different difficulties with women's health content on social media. The Eve Appeal, a UK gynaecological cancer charity, says Instagram removed an annotated anatomical diagram it posted in May. Its appeal was initially rejected, and the image later reappeared behind a sensitivity warning. The charity's chief executive, Athena Lamnisos, told the BBC she feared important health information was not reaching people who needed it. The board's decision concerned a different account and video, not the charity's post. [4] [1] [5]

Irene Breen, who runs the pregnancy-pillow business BellaMoon, told the BBC that restrictions on its Instagram adverts began in January 2025. She said Meta told her during a call that the word “pregnancy” was a problem, prompting the company to remove it from product names and website addresses. Breen said the restrictions were eventually lifted after 10 months and had dealt the business a significant financial blow. She had also described the dispute to The Independent in November 2025. Meta did not give the BBC an explanation of BellaMoon's individual advertising decisions. [1] [6]

Another distinction matters in the case of fertility company Hertility. Deirdre O'Neill told the BBC that a video featuring a woman discussing endometriosis had been removed by Meta. But the notice shown alongside the report says an *advert* for the video was rejected under rules covering social issues, elections or politics. That notice does not establish that an ordinary post was taken down. [1]

Campaign group CensHERship says 96% of respondents to its latest research had experienced censorship or suppression in the preceding year, while 65% said they censored themselves. An account of the research describes an ongoing collection of responses from 187 people and organisations in more than 20 countries. Its earlier survey began with an open call and had 115 responses by May 2025, when 53% reported self-censorship. Those figures describe the respondents, not all women's health publishers, and do not establish a sector-wide rise. [7] [3]

Meta told the BBC that it allows women's health content and permits adverts for reproductive products and services subject to restrictions; it said it was consulting women's health organisations. In March, the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee urged the UK government to hold platforms to account for inappropriate restrictions on women's health information. The acknowledged video-removal error gives that concern a concrete example, while the scale and causes of restrictions beyond the reported cases remain unclear. [1] [8]