A group of researchers say three of their studies showing the dangers of chemical abortion have been retracted by Sage publications — and they suspect ideology is the cause.
Among the works retracted was a 2021 study that found the rate of abortion-related emergency-room visits following a chemical abortion increased over 500 percent from 2002 through 2015. That study had been cited by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in his April 2023 decision to suspend FDA approval of mifepristone, which is used in chemical abortions. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the case next month.
In fact, the study was retracted one week after the Court announced it would hear oral arguments in the case.
As Michael New explained for NR:
Much of the rationale that Sage used to retract these studies does not withstand serious scrutiny. Sage claimed the lead author “declared no conflict of interest.” However, the pro-life organizations with which the authors are affiliated are clearly mentioned on the first page of each study. Sage also claims that an outside reviewer for each of the studies was a scholar affiliated with the Charlotte Lozier Institute. However, Sage’s review process is double-blind. Neither the authors nor the reviewer were aware of one another’s identity. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that any of these studies were accepted because of one supportive review. When a journal accepts a study, it is usually because there is a consensus among reviewers to publish the research.
Sage’s other justifications for retracting the study include a variety of technical arguments raised by an outside scholar. These include whether multiple emergency-room visits are evidence of abortion complications or rather of other preexisting health problems. Another issue raised involves the fact that Medicaid recipients are more likely to obtain health care from emergency rooms than is the general population. However, journals usually retract studies in response to scholarly misconduct. Examples of this would include either misrepresenting or falsifying data. They do not generally retract studies because of differences of opinion about the analysis or interpretation of data.
The lead author on the studies was James Studnicki, the vice president and director of data analytics at the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute. Co-authors of the studies were affiliated with CLI, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Elliot Institute.
The studies look at the patterns of abortionists in Florida holding and using hospital privileges; emergency-room utilization after mifepristone chemical and surgical abortions; and the prevalence of chemical-abortion complications being mistaken for miscarriage in the ER.
Tessa Longbons, a Charlotte Lozier Institute senior research associate who worked on the studies, told National Review that it was “concerning” when Sage appended an Expression of Concern on the 2021 study this past July after the researchers had already “fully explained and addressed” the concerns raised about the study.
After the three studies were retracted this week, Longbons called the decision “disappointing” and noted the situation is unfolding in an “increasingly politicized” environment.
“We have seen a lot of pushback on pro-life researchers and other research that cuts across the preferred narrative, and science is supposed to be driven by the facts, not by ideology,” she said. “It’s concerning that this is all happening at a time when that seems to be increasingly not the case, that instead so many academic institutions and journals are not being purely driven by truth, but instead are letting ideology shape what they do or what they decide to publish.”
Censorship of pro-life research compounds the long-term problem of a lack of data about the danger of abortion, she said. Longbons noted that there’s no national requirement that abortions be reported and some of the nation’s biggest abortion states don’t collect any abortion data at all.
“So we’re already dealing with these massive gaps in the data and what we know is going on. And that has only gotten worse after Dobbs at a time when we really need to know more about what’s happening,” she added.
That was why the Charlotte Lozier Institute researchers chose to look into doctors’ use of hospital admitting privileges. They hoped they could create a jumping-off point for other researchers to dig into the understudied area.
“So when we’re having to deal with this sort of pushback from journals, it’s disappointing because it removes these important studies from the record where they can be accessed by other researchers and by women who are looking for the facts,” the researcher said. “And I think it also discourages other researchers who would like to fill some of these gaps and fill in these understudied areas.”
When studies like the ones she was involved with are removed from the public record, women are left with even less information on the safety of abortion.
“The data shows that chemical abortion carries risks, that it’s riskier than surgical abortion, and that women are more likely to end up in the emergency room after a chemical abortion than after a surgical abortion. And policy-makers deserve to know that, and women deserve to know that. It’s important information that should be out there,” she said.
Studnicki, the lead author on the studies, said in a statement that there is a “sense of desperation among those in the abortion industry” to control the narrative.
“They’ve always had the literature to themselves,” he said. “All of the major health associations are pro-abortion, most of the journals are pro-abortion, all the academic departments in the universities are pro-abortion.
“It’s profoundly sad to me what is going on in science today,” he said. “I’m at a point in my life, at 80 years old, where they won’t damage me. But what if I was a mid-career faculty member or someone aiming for tenure or trying to raise a family? Right now, the science industry’s message appears to be — ‘if we can do this to Dr. Studnicki, who’s had a 50-year career without blemish, imagine what we can do to you.’”
When reached for comment, Sage directed National Review to a note on its website explaining the retraction.
“Sage was founded on the belief that rigorous scholarship can improve the world,” the note reads. “As an independent publisher, we prioritize academic integrity free from the pressures of shareholders, and, while upholding editorial independence, work with our journal editors to achieve high standards of scientific rigor and integrity. When we become aware that those standards have not been met, we take seriously our responsibility to investigate and correct the academic record when necessary — all in accordance with COPE guidelines.
“Our Research Integrity Team is dedicated to ensuring our processes are continuously reviewed and improved in support of publishing articles based on sound science that is rigorously reviewed by scholars who are experts in their fields,” it adds.