Medical journal retracts studies showing risks of abortion pill

Daniel Payne   By Daniel Payne for CNA

February 7, 2024 Catholic News Agency News Briefs 1 Print

 

null / ivanko80/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Feb 7, 2024 / 13:45 pm (CNA).

A major medical publisher has retracted several studies that demonstrated the risks associated with using abortion pills, a move the authors are calling “baseless” and politically motivated.

Sage Journals this week posted a notice on its website that it had retracted three articles from 2019, 2021, and 2022, all of them originally published in the journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology.

Those articles identified what the authors asserted were risks associated with the usage of the abortion pill, including the finding that “ER visits are at greater risk to occur following a chemical rather than a surgical abortion.”

James Studnicki, the vice president and director of data analytics at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and Tessa Longbons, a senior research associate there, said in a joint statement to CNA on Wednesday that the retractions were “a baseless attack on our scientific research and studies.”

“To date, Sage has advanced no valid objection to their findings and no legitimate reason for their retraction,” they said. “Instead, Sage’s actions undermine an organization whose research has been cited in major pro-life legal victories, such as the Dobbs decision and the AHM v. FDA case.”

Sage Publishing said a reader filed a complaint about allegedly “misleading” data in the 2021 article. An “independent reviewer” subsequently determined that data presented in the article led to an “inaccurate conclusion” about the study’s findings.

Sage also alleged a conflict of interest due to nearly all of the authors of that article being affiliated with either the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the Elliot Institute, and/or the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, all of them pro-life groups.

One of the article’s peer reviewers was also reportedly associated with the Charlotte Lozier Institute. That individual also peer-reviewed the 2022 and 2019 articles, Sage said.

Sage wrote that “two subject matter experts undertook an independent post-publication peer review of the three articles anew.” Sage claimed the reviewers discovered alleged “fundamental problems with the study design and methodology” of the studies, as well as purported “unsupported assumptions and misleading presentations.”

“Based on the results of the investigation, the post-publication peer reviews, and [Committee of Publication Ethics] standards, Sage and the journal editor retracted these articles,” the notice said.

“Sadly, this incident points to a larger, newer phenomenon, which is that many of our scientific institutions and publications no longer stand in defense of open inquiry,” the authors told CNA on Wednesday.

“Rather, we’re seeing a biased elite faction across the medical community with all the power attempting to suppress any research that cuts against their approved, pro-abortion narrative. Scientific research and publication should be grounded in science, not driven by ideology.”

Two of those studies were cited in U.S. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s April 2023 preliminary ruling that found the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not follow proper testing and safety protocols when it approved the abortion drug in 2000.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced last month that oral arguments in the abortion pill case will be heard on March 26. The decision in the case could determine whether mifepristone can be prescribed by telemedicine or sent through the mail.

In addition to Kacsmaryk’s April 2023 ruling, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August 2023 that the FDA must reinstate restrictions on abortion pills in place before 2016, most notably banning administering the pills through the mail or via telemedicine.

Enforcement of Kacsmaryk’s decision was quickly stayed by the Supreme Court pending the outcome of the legal battle. The August 5th Circuit decision was likewise stayed by the high court’s earlier order.

Numerous restrictions on the abortion pill have been lifted over the years, including the FDA’s 2021 ruling that it did not have to be dispensed in person.

Over the years, other restrictions on the drug have been removed. In 2016, the FDA determined that the drug can be used when a woman is pregnant with a child at 70 days’ gestation. Before 2016, the gestational limit was seven weeks. The FDA also decided in 2016 that non-physicians could prescribe the pill.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About Catholic News Agency 10382 Articles
Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com)

Related Articles

No Picture
News Briefs

Supreme Court allows ‘public burden’ rule for migrants, but Catholic leaders object

January 28, 2020 CNA Daily News 1

Washington D.C., Jan 28, 2020 / 01:15 pm (CNA).- A Trump administration rule defining more low-income immigrants as a public burden may go into effect, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week. Catholic leaders decried the ruling, saying it will harm families’ ability to secure basic services and that it represents a radical departure from American traditions.

“We implore the administration to reconsider this harsh and unnecessary policy and rescind it in its entirety,” Sister Donna Markham O.P., president and CEO of Catholic Charities USA, said Jan. 27. “By allowing this harmful policy to go into effect, the administration imposes a chilling effect on access to basic services, creating fear among eligible individuals threatening family unity and stability.”

“We will be judged on how we treat the hungry, the homeless and the stranger among us and this decision signals a watershed change of course from the best moments of our American heritage of welcoming immigrants and refugees,” Markham said.

The rule change expands the criteria under which immigrants would be ineligible for a green card, encompassing those who use public benefits on a more temporary basis than the previous standards.

Catholic Charities USA said the rule harms families, targets legal immigrants, and could prevent families from securing basic nutrition and housing assistance.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in a 5-4 vote on Jan. 27 to overturn a nationwide injunction against the rule. The justices did not comment on the merits of the case. However, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a concurring opinion objecting to the use of nationwide injunctions.

The decision means the new rule can go to effect in every state except for Illinois, a separate case. The rule will still face legal challenge in several courts across the country.

Immigrant advocates and several states had challenged the rule, saying it would impose costs on the states and penalize immigrants who rely on temporary government assistance. They objected that it limited access to green cards for low-income immigrants seeking legal entry to the U.S. or seeking to remain legally.

The concept of a “public charge” dates back to at least 1882, when federal lawmakers wanted to ensure that immigrants were independent and would not burden public services.

Since 1996, government regulations had defined a public charge as someone who is “primarily dependent” on government assistance, meaning this assistance supplies more than half their income through cash benefits, such as the Temporary Aid for Needy Families or Supplemental Security Income from Social Security, CNN reports.

Previously, fewer than 1% of applicants were disqualified on public charge grounds.

Under the Trump administration rules announced in August 2019, “noncash benefits providing for basic needs such as housing or food” count towards consideration of whether a person would be a public charge. These include most forms of Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers.

An immigrant who received one or more designated benefits for more than 12 months in a 36-month period could be designated a public charge. Use of two kinds of benefits in a single month would count as two months, the New York Times reports.

Lawyers for the private groups challenging the rule cited Department of Homeland Security estimates that the rule will cause hundreds of thousands of households to forgo benefits for which they are eligible “out of fear and confusion about the consequences for their immigration status of accepting such benefits.” The Department of Homeland Security warned of increased malnutrition, especially for pregnant or breastfeeding women and their infants and children; increased prevalence of communicable disease; and increased poverty and housing instability, the lawyers said in their brief.

New York Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood, whose state was among the plaintiffs to the legal challenge, said the new rule would “radically disrupt over a century of settled immigration policy and public-benefits programs.” The established consensus was that the phrase “public charge” was limited to mean “individuals who are primarily dependent on the government for long-term subsistence,” she argued.

U.S. Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, who defended the rule, asked the Supreme Court to lift the lower court injunctions. He argued that the new rule was a permissible interpretation of the concept “public charge.” It is a lawful goal to discourage immigrants seeking green cards from using public benefits, and enjoinment of the rule would cause “long-term harm” to the government, he said.

Francisco said if any resident aliens not subject to the rule disenroll from benefits for fear they would endanger their immigration status, then “such disenrollment is unwarranted, easily corrected and temporary.”

Susan Welber, a staff attorney at the Legal Aid Society, opposed the new policy. She told CNN the policy aimed to exclude “as unworthy and unwelcome anyone who is predicted to receive even a small amount of food, health or housing assistance at any point.”

“We are very disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision, and the irreparable consequences it will have for immigrants and their families across the nation, but we continue to believe that our legal claims are very strong that we will ultimately prevail in stopping this rule permanently,” she said.

In September 2018, when the initial changes to the rule were proposed, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops warned that the rule will be “very harmful to families” and cause fear among immigrant families who are “already struggling to fulfill the American Dream.” The proposed rule “further compounds strict eligibility guidelines already in place preventing many immigrants from receiving federal aid,” they said.
 

 

[…]

1 Comment

  1. Although I agree with Dobbs, I think passing the abortion decision to the states creates a patchwork dilemma. Today, when Politics enters the picture, havoc ensues.

    “U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not follow proper testing and safety protocols when it approved the abortion drug in 2000”. Just imagine that the credibility of the FDA is called into question. Could be true here.

    JAMA says… “When a drug’s approved, there’s lots that we don’t know,” they explained. “We don’t know if the drug is going to be as safe, or perhaps not as safe, as the FDA thought it would be on the basis of premarket clinical evidence. We don’t know if the drug is going to be as effective as the FDA thought it would be on the basis of premarket clinical evidence. So there is inherently some uncertainty that is there at the time of approval. And as drugs are used for longer periods of time, and in broader populations, sometimes we learn new information.”

    It appears that mifepristone is not the “morning after” pill.

    Being over 50, I should not be concerned, but I have children.

    God save the unborn.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*