By Samantha KammanChristian Post Reporter Saturday, February 10, 2024

Pro-life researchers are questioning an academic publishing company's decision to retract studies that suggested significant health risks associated with taking chemical abortion drugs as the US Supreme Court prepares to hear a case related to the abortion pill.

Sage Publishing announced On Monday, it retracted three studies, citing undisclosed conflicts of interest and problems with the researchers' conclusions. Sage Publishing claimed that the study authors did not disclose their ties to pro-life organizations, such as the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

In its withdrawal notice, the publishing company also claimed that an independent reviewer evaluated the studies in response to a reader's complaint about the presentation of data in the studies. The reviewer reportedly determined that some of the data presentation could affect the conclusions.

Sage said that he was aware that “a peer reviewer who analyzed the [2021] article for initial publication” was also affiliated with the Charlotte Lozier Institute, ruling that the “peer review for initial publication was unreliable.” Sage says the same reviewer also peer-reviewed two other articles by the same lead author in 2022 and 2019.

Sage's “independent post-publication peer review” of the three articles found problems with “the study design and methodology”, “unwarranted or incorrect factual assumptions”, and “material errors” in the author's analysis of the data.

The three studies retracted by Sage Publishing were cited by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in an April 2023 ruling suspending the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of the chemical abortion pill.

In a Wednesday statement given to The Christian Post, Jim Studnicki, vice president and director of data analysis for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, believes that the Dobbs ruling in June 2022 may have played a role in the decision. Studnicki is one of the authors listed in the three studies.

“I think Dobbs has really accelerated this; there is a sense of desperation among those in the abortion industry,” Studnicki stated. “They've always had the literature to themselves. All the major health associations are pro-abortion, most of the journals are pro-abortion, all the academic departments in the universities are pro-abortion.”

In an interview with The Christian Post, Tessa Longbons, another of the authors listed in the three studies and a senior research fellow at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, said the publication's decision was “disappointing” and “disappointing.” According to Longbons, she and her colleagues addressed each of the concerns that the publication brought to their attention.

As for the allegation that the study authors failed to disclose their ties to pro-life organizations, Longbons maintained that she and her fellow researchers never hid this fact.

“We have fully disclosed who we are affiliated with,” the senior researcher told CP. “We all have our registrations listed, and we reported that the studies were funded by the Charlotte Lozier Institute.”

“And in addition, we included biographies for each author that provided more detail about who we are, where we work, and the type of work we do,” Longbons continued. “So all the information has been provided upfront to the magazine and presented so that readers can also see who we are and what we're working on.”

In response to an inquiry by The Christian Post, Sage declined to comment and directed the outlet to his Monday statement announcing the retractions.

According to the timeline of events that led to the recall, science professor Chris Adkins complained to Sage in April 2023 about the 2021 to study that found the rate of emergency room visits after chemical abortion increased by more than 500% from 2002 through 2015. Adkins argued that the study authors exaggerated their findings and represented them in a way he described as “grossly misleading.”

The webpage outlining the authors' research also questioned why Sage retracted the pro-life studies for “undisclosed conflicts of interest,” citing examples of the publication allegedly not holding researchers affiliated with pro-choice institutions to the same standard.

The pro-life researchers did not receive word about the reported problems with the studies until Sage sent them an email in June 2023. After the Charlotte Lozier Institute responded on July 13, 2023, Sage issued an expression of concern that same month, announcing that it had started an investigation.

Finally, in November 2023, Sage informed the researchers that it was retracting the three studies. In addition, on November 14, Studnicki was dismissed from the editorial board of the journal Health Services Research and Administrative Epidemiology. The HSRME is a journal owned by Sage.

On November 16, researchers asked for more time to respond to the criticism, with Sage responding on November 21 and giving them until November 29. The researchers provided the publication with a rebuttal, which Sage acknowledged receiving on December 6. The publication went on to retract the three studies on February 5, 2024.

Longbons defended the research, citing problems with abortion data in the United States as the reason why the November 2021 study used Medicaid data. The pro-life researcher stated that the methodology of the study is “very clear”.

“As chemical abortion has increased in the United States, we just wanted to see what was happening,” Longbons said. “And how does the safety of a chemical abortion compare to a surgical abortion?”

“And there really hasn't been any other study that has done this so comprehensively, looking at all ER visits and then all ER visits specifically related to pregnancy,” she continued. “So, we wanted to fill that research gap.”

While Longbons acknowledged that there are opportunities to focus on questions about the specific types of emergency room visits and the reason women visit the emergency room, the researcher argued that this is not indicative of a flaw in their study.

“That's just an opening for future research that we'd like to do and that we'd like other people to do,” she said.

The researcher argued that academic journals and institutions seem to have become more politicized in recent years, promoting ideology instead of science. Longbons stated that this latest trend is “concerning”.

“When we listen to scientists, we trust them to give us the facts,” she stated. “We trust that they give us the truth. And not just their own points of view.”

Michael New, an assistant professor of social research at the Catholic University of America and a senior associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, told The Christian Post on Thursday that he believes Sage is prioritizing politics over public health.

“Indeed, much of the rationale Sage used to retract these studies does not stand up to serious scrutiny. Contrary to Sage's claims, the authors explained their affiliations with various pro-life groups,” the pro-life researcher said. “Furthermore, the fact that one of the reviewers of these studies was a Lozier Institute scholar is irrelevant.”

New claims that Sage's review process is “double-blind,” meaning that the authors and the reviewers were unaware of each other's identities. New also expressed doubt that a study would be accepted based on one supportive review.

“Sage's other justifications for retracting the study include various technical arguments raised by outside academics,” New continued. “However, journals usually retract studies in response to scientific misconduct. Examples of this would include either misrepresenting or falsifying data.”

“They generally don't retract studies because of differences of opinion about the analysis or interpretation of data,” he added.

Instead of retracting the studies, New believes that the publication should have allowed the authors' critic to publish a response, stating that this would have created a dialogue between scholars. As a result, the scientific community could decide who it thought had the more convincing argument.

“Unfortunately, instead of facilitating debate among academics, Sage has decided to effectively weaponize academic publishing and take a clear stance in favor of legal abortion,” New stated. “Unfortunately, this is further evidence that many journals are now prioritizing the promotion of left-wing causes over the dissemination of high-quality research.”