Once a bastion of objective inquiry and empirical evidence, scientific research has become the latest casualty of cancel culture. This is evidenced by the retraction of three research studies by an academic publishing company, Sage, which do not align with the pro-abortion political narrative.
The most prominent of these studies considered whether women who have undergone induced abortions are more likely to require emergency care. To address this pressing question, a team of credentialed physicians and researchers meticulously examined and analyzed state Medicaid claims data. The results were striking. The study revealed that the rate of abortion-related emergency room visits among Medicaid-eligible women who underwent the abortion drug regimen increased by over 500 percent between 2002 and 2015.
In light of the findings’ significance, the authors submitted the study to Sage. In their submission, the study authors disclosed their organizational affiliations and agreed to a double-anonymized review of their work, which meant that neither the authors nor the reviewers knew each other’s identities. Only Sage was aware of this information.
Following the approval of the study by multiple peer reviewers selected by Sage, Sage agreed to publish the findings in November 2021. For over a year and a half, the study contributed to productive discourse surrounding the health of women and the question of safety with abortion drugs. During the aforementioned period, the study did not encounter any challenges from members of the medical community, nor was it identified as a cause for concern.
This changed in April of the previous year, following the citation of the study by a federal judge in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food and Drug Administration. This case concerns the safety of the abortion drug mifepristone. It is noteworthy that in the same month, an individual who was not identified at the time made a complaint to Sage regarding the representation of data in the article and the supposed author conflict of interest.
This complaint sparked eight months of back-and-forth between Sage and the study authors, in which each and every criticism of the research was directly refuted. Despite these good faith efforts by the researchers, this month Sage retracted the ER study and two other studies by the same lead author. The retraction came just one week after the U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food and Drug Administration.
Sage says the researchers had a conflict of interest because they were affiliated with the Charlotte Lozier Institute and other pro-life organizations. Despite this, the affiliations were clearly mentioned in the articles. The authors of the three studies also followed Sage’s disclosure rules when they submitted the articles.
Although there is no apparent conflict of interest with these papers, the publishing company appears to have a double standard. Many authors employed at pro-abortion organizations have not had their papers retracted due to conflicts of interest. For example, Sage has not retracted a published study by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute or a study led by an abortionist affiliated with the Bixby Center for Population, Health, and Sustainability, despite each group’s self-proclaimed abortion agenda.
Sage’s disparate treatment of pro-abortion researchers in comparison to those affiliated with the Charlotte Lozier Institute represents a double standard that is not only contributing to the decline in the scientific community but is impeding the public’s ability to engage in open and honest discourse on a number of vital topics, including abortion drugs.
It is imperative that scientific research and publications be grounded in scientific evidence and not driven by ideology. If the academic elite is permitted to make decisions based on the prevailing political winds, we run the risk of suppressing and censoring information that is essential for women’s health and safety. Furthermore, there is a risk of alienating credentialed and reasoned scientists, academics, and researchers who are unable to conduct scholarly work freely due to concerns about being censored.
At the Charlotte Lozier Institute, we take great pride in our commitment to scientific inquiry. We are unwilling to have decades of exemplary work by our staff and scholars negated and the contributions of leading doctors and scientists denigrated by those espousing a pro-abortion perspective. We will persist in our efforts to prevent the politicization of the scientific community and to eliminate censorship through retractions.
Regardless of one’s position on the issue of abortion, it is evident that the assault on science must cease.
Editor’s Note: Genevieve Plaster is a contributor to the Charlotte Lozier Institute. This article was originally published on Townhall.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
