abortion
Legal Showdown: Anti-Abortion Researchers Challenge FDA Over Retraction of Key Studies
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c86b9/c86b9097a422652a5b140e663f1c267b6f7c9a0d" alt="Anti-abortion researchers take legal action over retracted studies cited in FDA case"
Researchers behind studies aimed at restricting medication abortion are pursuing legal action against the academic publisher Sage after their papers were retracted. The retractions, made in February on methodological grounds, have sparked significant controversy.
Represented by conservative law firms, including Consovoy McCarthy and Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the researchers argue that Sage’s decision was politically motivated and unjustified. They claim the retraction has caused “enormous and incalculable harm” to their reputations and have asked the Ventura County Superior Court to compel Sage to engage in arbitration.
ADF senior counsel Phil Sechler emphasized that Sage’s actions have severely impacted the researchers’ careers. He stated, “Sage punished these highly respected and credentialed scientists simply because they believe in preserving life from conception to natural death.” The researchers seek not only retraction rescindment but also a remedy for the reputational damage incurred.
There has been no public comment from Sage regarding the pending litigation. Similarly, a representative for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which employs the researchers, declined to make any statements. This nonprofit organization functions as the research arm for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, an influential anti-abortion entity.
The studies at issue were published in the journal “Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology” from 2019 to 2022. Notably, two of these studies were referenced in a federal lawsuit aimed at restricting abortion pills, a case that the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately rejected this summer while it remains in lower courts.
Concerns about the studies first emerged when pharmaceutical sciences professor Chris Adkins alerted the journal about potential misrepresentation of findings. In a 2021 study, researchers examined Medicaid data and reported a dramatic increase in emergency room visits following medication abortions, a claim often cited in legal arguments regarding abortion pills. However, Adkins and public health experts later contested these findings, suggesting the researchers conflated emergency department visits with adverse events.
In response to these claims, Sage initiated an investigation and subsequently identified conflicts of interest with an associate scholar involved in the peer review process. To ensure impartiality, the publisher engaged new expert reviewers who cited a lack of scientific rigor and methodological flaws in the original studies, leading to the eventual retractions.
In a recent court filing, lead author James Studnicki and nine co-authors assert that Sage has unreasonably delayed arbitration, breaching California contract law. They report difficulties in publishing new research since the retractions and cite specific instances where their manuscripts were rejected due to the fallout from the Sage decision, exacerbating the damage to their professional reputations.
Studnicki, who until recently served on the journal’s editorial board, has seen his professional standing deeply affected by these events. Meanwhile, the discussion surrounding medication abortion continues to evolve, particularly in light of the 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned the federal right to abortion.
Despite claims from the Charlotte Lozier Institute about the dangers of medication abortion, evidence shows that the FDA-approved regimen, when administered up to nine weeks gestation, boasts a completion rate exceeding 99% and a very low rate of serious complications. Common adverse effects include bleeding and cramping, but serious outcomes are rare. Reports of complications have emerged, emphasizing the dangerous impacts of stringent abortion laws.