After an academic journal retracted two scientific papers this week that are central to the pending Supreme Court case on the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, the authors are calling the move a purely political corruption of science.
“[Scientific journals] are unfortunately allowing themselves to become a political arm,” lead author James Studnicki told the Washington Examiner. “In the long run, it really destroys the confidence that anyone should have in the quality of the science.”
Two papers written by Studnicki and colleagues affiliated with the Charlotte Lozier Institute and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists were cited in April 2023 by U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in his order to suspend the FDA’s approval of mifepristone.
Sage Journals, an academic publisher, retracted the two studies cited by the judge, as well as a third paper written by the same authors. The authors said the journal did not follow standard practice for issuing retractions.
The timing of the retractions is the more obvious explanation, they said, given that two of the studies are cited in a case pending before the Supreme Court that could result in limitations on access to the abortion pill. The authors claimed many journals fall in line with the political goals of the abortion industry.
“I detect a sense of desperation,” Ingrid Skop, co-author of all three retracted papers, told the Washington Examiner. “We’re seeing journals that should have quality scientific standards jettisoning their standards in order to promote abortion.”
The primary study, published in Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology in 2021, used long-term Medicaid data to track emergency room visits for patients who had received either a chemical or surgical abortion. Studnicki and colleagues found that from 1999 to 2015, a patient was 22% more likely to visit the ER for any reason after a chemical abortion than after a surgical abortion.
The authors also found that more than 60% of all abortion-related ER visits in 2015 were incorrectly coded as spontaneous miscarriage when, in reality, the patient was experiencing complications from the abortion pill. This accounted for nearly 9% of the total emergency room visits that year.
Studnicki and his colleagues published a follow-up research letter in 2022 examining the miscoding problem, finding that not identifying that a patient has recently had a chemical abortion may be “a significant risk factor for a subsequent hospital admission.” This letter was also cited by the judge.
Shortly after Kacsmaryk’s ruling, pharmaceutical professor Chris Adkins of South University contacted Sage Journals, questioning the integrity of the primary study. Sage launched an investigation that resulted in a retraction this week. Adkins did not respond to a request for comment from the Washington Examiner.
The primary study from Studnicki and colleagues was cited in three amicus briefs filed to the Supreme Court, all of which were sent well before the retraction on Monday. The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case on March 26, leading the authors to question the timeline of the academic journal issuing the retraction.
Sage cited conflict of interest concerns and misrepresentation of data as the justification for pulling both studies, as well as a third written by Studnicki and colleagues on the hospital admitting privileges of abortion providers. Although the authors disclosed their affiliation with CLI and AAPLOG, as well as the financial support from CLI for the research, such affiliations were not disclosed in the “conflict of interest” section of the papers.
Skop explained that retractions are usually “a step of last resort” when there are uncorrectable “serious and fundamental flaws” with a publication.
Due to the severity of retractions, journals often give authors the opportunity to publish a revised article instead of entirely pulling the work. Skop and Studnicki confirmed they were not given the opportunity to publish revisions.
The study authors contend there is a stark double standard for studies supported by those who do not support abortion rights than for studies funded by the abortion industry. Studnicki explained the inconsistency comes from a large portion of the medical community feeling like it must “conform to the abortion industry narrative on safety of abortion,” adding that many members of the medical community consider abortion to be “settled science.”
Last month, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a research letter written by Planned Parenthood representatives estimating the number of pregnancies as a result of rape in states with abortion bans. Although anti-abortion physicians questioned the integrity of this study, its methodology has not been publicly questioned by JAMA.
However, the timing of its publication was also questioned by critics who say academic journals are elevating shoddy science in pursuit of political goals. The research letter on pregnancies from rape landed in an election year as multiple states eye ballot measures aimed at expanding access to abortion.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
JAMA put out a call last year for “papers on health and the 2024 election” with the intention of swaying public opinion on matters of public health, saying, “Information about these health issues is critical for decision-making and to answer pressing public and global health questions affecting the U.S. and the world.”
The journal said those matters include medical “misinformation,” abortion, and gender transition procedures. Skop questioned why a medical journal would “need to have a series of pro-abortion editorials to influence an election.”