A key study in the Supreme Court case against the FDA’s approval of abortion drugs has been retracted from an academic journal, with its authors calling the move an “gratuitous partisan attack” on scientific research.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on March 26 in a case challenging access to abortion pills and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory approval process. Following last year’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, the FDA took several steps aimed at making mifepristone pills easier to access and use.
The legal argument for the FDA’s push cites a study published in 2021 that found the rate of abortion-related emergency room visits after chemical abortions increased by more than 500% from 2002 to 2015, according to an analysis of Medicaid claims data. are doing. The study was published by academic publisher Sage Publishing.
But on Monday, Sage announced it had retracted that study and two others in 2021 because the study authors failed to list their involvement with pro-life organizations as a conflict of interest.
Supreme Court sets date to hear abortion pill challenge
Mifepristone, also known as RU-486, is a drug that is typically used in combination with misoprostol to produce medical abortions and manage early miscarriages during pregnancy. (Getty Images)
Dr. Jim Studnicki, author of the emergency room study, is a Johns Hopkins-trained associate director for data analysis at the Charlotte Rozier Institute (CLI). He has had a 50-year career conducting scientific research and has 70 peer-reviewed studies of his indexed in PubMed.
CLI is the nonprofit research arm of the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America Group, one of the nation’s most successful pro-life advocacy organizations. CLI is a network of over 70 associate academics who are “qualified professionals in medicine, statistical analysis, sociology, science, bioethics, public health, law, and social work for women and families.” It states that there is.
Approximately two years after the study was published, an initially anonymous reader reported that the graphs and numbers in the study belied the data and that Dr. Studnicki had not properly disclosed his affiliation with a pro-life organization. I sent a letter to Sage expressing my concern that there was no such thing. CLI responded to the concerns by saying, “We have not identified any errors, miscalculations or fraud.”
CLI also said, “The paper documents the affiliations of all authors. In addition, each author’s biographies are included in the paper. Funding for the research from CLI is also disclosed.” Stated.
AGS in 20 states warns CVS, Walgreens that distribution of abortion pills violates state and federal laws
The U.S. Supreme Court will see it on November 15, 2023. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)
CLI points out in its response that it is part of COPE. [Committee on Publication Ethics] The definition of a conflict of interest is: “anything that is not completely obvious but could affect the judgment of an author, reviewer, or editor” and “anything that is not completely obvious but could affect the judgment of an author, reviewer, or editor,” and “anything that is not completely obvious to a reasonable reader.” “Anything that makes you feel misunderstood or deceived.”
“All relevant information has been fully disclosed,” CLI said.
In its response to Sage, CLI continued, “This paper is the most read paper in the journal Health Services Research and Management Epidemiology. “This paper has enriched the scientific debate on kinship.” Safety of chemical abortions. ”
“Most importantly, it is good science and its methods and findings are uncontroversial. Ideologically motivated and unfounded ‘concerns’ should not be used to describe this work and its authors. We respectfully request that your reputation not be harmed,” they said.
Four months later, after little contact during that period, Sage notified CLI that it was withdrawing three studies.
In response to inquiries from Fox News Digital, Sage Publishing cited a retraction notice citing “undeclared conflicts of interest” and “lack of scientific rigor.”
However, an attorney representing CLI told the publisher that “the motions filed in support of the retraction are not only procedurally flawed, they are without merit, and Sage’s actions are unlawful.”
Missouri attorney general sues Biden administration for approving mailing of chemical abortion pills
A box of the drug mifepristone sits on a shelf at the West Alabama Women’s Center on March 16, 2022 in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. (AP Photo/Allen G. Breed, File)
“Your decision also reflects an unfortunate pattern of using scientific publications as a sword against unpopular research results, regardless of their objectivity. This further undermines public trust in the scientific community. , it undermines your mission of ‘advancing knowledge,’” said CLI attorney David. In a letter to Sage in November, A. Shaneyfelt wrote:
“Our clients have spent their careers building credibility and committing to objective scientific discovery. Your decisions to retract articles, repeated breaches of confidentiality, and blatant breaches of contract have already resulted in This is causing clear damage to their reputation,” Shaneyfelt wrote.
He also argued that the timing of the retraction was “concerning” given the study’s connection to the Supreme Court case Hippocratic Medical Alliance v. FDA.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“I think Mr. Dobbs really accelerated this,” Dr. Studnicki said in a statement to FOX News Digital. “There’s a sense of desperation among people in the abortion industry. They’ve always kept the literature to themselves. Major health organizations I’m all for it,” he said. Regarding abortion, most magazines are pro-abortion, and all university departments are pro-abortion. ”
“What’s happening in the scientific community today is very sad to me. I’m 80 years old and at a point in my life where science doesn’t hurt me,” he said. “But what if I’m a mid-career faculty member, or someone who’s aiming for tenure, or someone who’s trying to support a family? Right now, the message from the scientific community seems to be: “If Dr. Studnicki with a 50-point grade could do this” – someone with a long and unblemished career, just imagine what we could do for you.”
Tessa Longbonds, senior research fellow at CLI, said: “This case is indicative of a larger new phenomenon: many of our scientific institutions and publications are no longer champions of open research.” said.
“Rather, we are seeing biased elites across the medical community do everything in their power to suppress research that runs counter to their endorsed pro-abortion claims,” she said.
“Scientific research and publishing should be based on science, not driven by ideology,” she added.
The study’s authors told Fox News Digital that they will take appropriate legal action.
