Scientists Sue Over Retraction Of Abortion Pill Danger Data
Recently, ten scientists filed a lawsuit against Sage Publications over the retraction of three studies related to mifepristone, a commonly used abortion drug. This legal action comes just as the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to hear a significant case regarding mifepristone. The studies, which reportedly highlighted serious health risks associated with the drug, including a reported 500% rise in abortion-related emergency room visits, were initially well-received, passing peer review without issue.
The retractions followed a reader’s complaint alleging that the authors had conflicts of interest due to their affiliations with pro-life organizations. The researchers argue that the retractions are unjust and detrimental to their professional reputations, leading to media attacks and challenges in getting their new research published.
Legal representatives for the scientists assert that Sage’s actions have caused irreparable harm and violated various legal protections, including contract and civil rights laws. The Charlotte Lozier Institute, which supported the research, has defended the authors, stating that all required disclosures were made. In February 2024, the controversy surrounding the retracted studies garnered significant media coverage, particularly in outlets emphasizing skepticism towards the original findings and their implications for ongoing legal arguments regarding mifepristone’s safety and regulation.
Scientists are suing an academic publishing company for retracting three key studies exposing the dangers of the nation’s most popular abortion drug regimen shortly before the U.S. Supreme Court was slated to hear arguments in a landmark mifepristone case.
Ten of the researchers responsible for producing the three scientific papers filed a petition to compel arbitration this week against Sage Publications for issuing what they called “pretextual and discriminatory” retractions of their findings on the abortion pill. One of the studies in question, which the lawsuit notes is “the second most-read article” in the journal’s history, specifically determined mifepristone is responsible for a 500 percent increase in abortion-related emergency room visits.
The 2019, 2021, and 2022 papers originally passed peer review for publication without a hitch. The editor-in-chief of Sage’s Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology (HSRME) journal even emailed Dr. James Studnicki, the lead author of the 2021 and 2022 papers, to commend him for his “fine contribution[s],” according to the petition.
In February 2024, however, Sage’s tune changed over a “reader’s concern” that the authors’ links to pro-life organizations “present conflicts of interest that the authors should have disclosed as such in the article.”
Abortion activist researchers publish plenty of papers on the topic without scrutiny. Yet Sage, after what it called an “independent review,” ultimately followed through with the retractions.
“Sage’s wrongdoing has been causing enormous and incalculable harm to the Authors’ professional reputations, as Sage intended. Because of Sage’s retractions, the Authors and their research have been attacked by the media and by other authors, and the Authors have had new research proposals inexplicably turned away by other publications that now fear associating with them. The Authors have years — even decades — of fruitful research ahead of them, but they are now being treated as pariahs,” the lawsuit, shepherded by Alliance Defending Freedom and Consovoy McCarthy PLLC attorneys, states.
The publisher even removed Studnicki from his position on the HSRME journal editorial board, which the lawsuit alleges “violated California contract, tort, and civil rights law.”
Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI), whose scholars were responsible for the suddenly scrutinized paper, rejected Sage’s accusations, noting that the publisher has “no valid objection to their findings and has shown no evidence of any major errors, miscalculations, or falsehoods.”
“The authors fully complied with Sage’s conflict disclosure requirements,” CLI said in a statement. “They reported their organizational affiliations, as well as CLI funding of the study, as part of the submission for publication. In fact, the ER study includes 10 mentions of CLI and the authors’ professional status or relationship there.”
CLI’s objections to the “unprecedented attack on our research,” however, didn’t stop pro-abortion corporate media from quickly amplifying Sage’s decision. Many outlets used it to cast doubts on U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s April 2023 ruling declaring the Food and Drug Administration wrongfully approved mifepristone for chemical abortions for widespread use without studying the detrimental and fatal effects it has on women and babies.
The researchers have tried for months to obtain arbitration, but the lawsuit alleges Sage has deliberately delayed the process with extra-contractual demands.
“Even more concerning, Sage has used its intransigence as a weapon to try to pressure the Authors into unilaterally surrendering their discovery rights. Sage’s egregious actions require this Court’s intervention to compel arbitration,” the lawsuit concludes.
The petition comes shortly after corporate media and Democrats including Vice President Kamala Harris tried to blame pro-lifers and pro-life policies for the deaths of women caused by complications linked to the abortion pill.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
