Scholars with the Charlotte Lozier Institute have entered into arbitration against the publisher of a medical journal that published three of the scholars’ scientific studies about abortion but later retracted them after receiving complaints from pro-abortion advocates.
In their arbitration demand, the scholars claim that Sage Publications Inc. pursued a political agenda in retracting the articles after previously praising them for their scientific rigor.
The articles were published in 2019, 2021 and 2022 in the peer-reviewed journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology.
The 2019 article reported that nearly half of doctors who performed abortions lacked hospital admitting privileges, which would be important if an abortion procedure were to result in a medical emergency.
The 2021 article reported on a study that found emergency room visits were significantly more likely following the use of mifepristone, the so-called abortion pill, than following a surgical abortion—an important finding in light of the fact that the abortion pill now constitutes more than half of all abortions and is touted by abortion advocates as completely safe.
The 2022 article reported that many abortion-related emergency room visits were being miscoded as miscarriages, leading to “sub-optimal care” and “an increased likelihood of hospital admission.”
In each case, the journal conducted a double-blind peer review of the article, and in each case, the reviewers recommended publication.
But when the articles, particularly the second and third ones, began to be cited in various court cases concerning the abortion pill, pro-abortion advocates began to criticize the articles and the scholars’ pro-life affiliations. Major news outlets such as The Washington Post began to characterize the 2021 article as “flawed science.”
The scholars contend that Sage Publications “made up its mind to retract the articles—and ruled out any lesser measure—before it even began the retraction process.” They add, “Sage did not want to provide a platform for researchers whom it perceived to be pro-life or advancing pro-life views or causes, or whose articles could be used by courts and litigators to protect women from unsafe abortion procedures or otherwise advance pro-life positions.”
The scholars claim that Sage acted in bad faith in retracting the articles, never replying to the scholars’ detailed, scientific responses to issues that others claimed to see with the articles. They further point out that their publishing agreement with Sage explicitly ruled out retractions of the articles except for a few specific conditions, none of which were met.
In addition to casting doubt on the studies’ validity, the scholars say the retractions have caused “enormous and incalculable harm” to their reputations and their ability to publish research and scholarship. They are asking for compensatory relief, statutory damages and an injunction requiring Sage to rescind the retractions.
“Putting politics over publication ethics, Sage retracted three important studies by Charlotte Lozier Institute scholars that are scientifically sound,” said James Studnicki, the lead author of the studies. “There was no legitimate reason for retracting the papers, and Sage did this without offering a valid objection to their findings.
“Good science is open science, and it does not follow a pre-approved narrative. Our scientific institutions must defend principles of open inquiry and commitment to science, not just when it’s convenient for them. Sage’s actions should be of great concern to the entire research community. We remain committed to that pursuit regardless of all attempts to silence and ban our studies and our network of scholars.”
Photo: Adobe Stock