- Feb 5, 2002
- 166,616
- 56,252
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
On Feb. 5, in a shocking display of intellectual cowardice, a supposedly impartial medical journal announced that it was withdrawing three studies it had earlier published documenting the medical injuries that occur among women who take the abortion pill.
Why did Sage Publishing, which publishes a host of academic journals, instruct Health Services and Managerial Epidemiology to withdraw publication of these studies? It happened because a single abortion-rights activist complained about one of the three studies, triggering an investigation.
The central “flaw” that he flagged is the fact that the study was conducted by scientific researchers who work for pro-life organizations (as were the other two studies that have now been withdrawn).
The activist, who is a professor of pharmaceutical science, contended that working for a pro-life group somehow constituted a “conflict of interest” that should have disqualified their findings from being published by a scientific journal. It was also claimed that the study’s researchers had failed to disclose their pro-life connections, even though the study stated clearly at its conclusion that it had been funded by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.
The pro-abortion pharmaceutical professor wasn’t troubled by the reality that numerous other studies published by the same medical journal and by other Sage Publishing outlets have been authored by researchers who work for pro-abortion organizations, often without any disclosure of these affiliations. For this activist, as for the abortion lobby as a whole, “conflict-of-interest” considerations can arise in only one direction, when a scientist doesn’t share their own pro-abortion convictions.
The activist also cited some methodological issues that, in his view, undermine the studies’ findings regarding the substantial harms associated with use of the abortion pill.
Continued below.
www.ncregister.com
Why did Sage Publishing, which publishes a host of academic journals, instruct Health Services and Managerial Epidemiology to withdraw publication of these studies? It happened because a single abortion-rights activist complained about one of the three studies, triggering an investigation.
The central “flaw” that he flagged is the fact that the study was conducted by scientific researchers who work for pro-life organizations (as were the other two studies that have now been withdrawn).
The activist, who is a professor of pharmaceutical science, contended that working for a pro-life group somehow constituted a “conflict of interest” that should have disqualified their findings from being published by a scientific journal. It was also claimed that the study’s researchers had failed to disclose their pro-life connections, even though the study stated clearly at its conclusion that it had been funded by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.
The pro-abortion pharmaceutical professor wasn’t troubled by the reality that numerous other studies published by the same medical journal and by other Sage Publishing outlets have been authored by researchers who work for pro-abortion organizations, often without any disclosure of these affiliations. For this activist, as for the abortion lobby as a whole, “conflict-of-interest” considerations can arise in only one direction, when a scientist doesn’t share their own pro-abortion convictions.
The activist also cited some methodological issues that, in his view, undermine the studies’ findings regarding the substantial harms associated with use of the abortion pill.
Continued below.
Cancel-Culture Science: Medical Journal Withdraws Studies That Document Abortion-Pill Harm
EDITORIAL: For the abortion lobby as a whole, ‘conflict-of-interest’ considerations can arise in only one direction.
