“Retracted Studies Highlight Undeclared Conflicts of Interest in Medication Abortion Case, Sage Announces”

– Study cited by Texas judge in abortion pill case retracted
– Study cited by Texas judge in abortion pill case retracted, abortion restrictions.

Accident – Death – Obituary News : BREAKING: Two Key Studies Supporting Medication Abortion Restrictions Retracted Due to Undeclared Conflicts of Interest and Unreliable Findings

In a major development, Sage, an academic publisher, announced on Monday that it has retracted two key studies that have been cited by plaintiffs and judges advocating for the pulling of medication abortion from the market or imposing heavy restrictions. The retraction was made due to the discovery of undeclared conflicts of interest and unreliable findings.

Last year, States Newsroom was the first to report about Sage’s investigation into research featured prominently in the initial Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration case, which is scheduled to go before the U.S. Supreme Court next month. The case revolves around mifepristone, a crucial component of a two-drug regimen used for terminating pregnancies and managing miscarriages.

Sage retracted three studies published in its journal “Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology.” These studies were funded and produced by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, an influential organization dedicated to electing anti-abortion lawmakers at the federal and state levels.

The retracted studies are as follows:

1. “A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Emergency Room Utilization Following Mifepristone Chemical and Surgical Abortions, 1999–2015” (2021)
2. “A Post Hoc Exploratory Analysis: Induced Abortion Complications Mistaken for Miscarriage in the Emergency Room are a Risk Factor for Hospitalization” (2022)
3. “Doctors Who Perform Abortions: Their Characteristics and Patterns of Holding and Using Hospital Privileges” (2019)

James Studnicki, the lead author of each study and the vice president and director of data analytics at Charlotte Lozier Institute, was a member of the editorial board of “Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology” when the studies were published.

According to Sage, the decision to retract the studies was made in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. The retraction was based on the discovery of undeclared conflicts of interest and the expert reviewers’ assessment that the studies lacked scientific rigor, thereby invalidating or rendering unreliable the authors’ conclusions.

The Sage statement highlights that while the lead author initially declared no conflicts of interest upon submission, it was later revealed that all but one of the article’s authors had affiliations with pro-life organizations such as Charlotte Lozier Institute, Elliot Institute, and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. These organizations explicitly support judicial action to restrict access to mifepristone. AAPLOG, one of these organizations, is a plaintiff in the Alliance v. FDA lawsuit.

In response to the retraction, James Studnicki and Tessa Longbons, senior research associate, issued a statement calling it a “baseless ideological attack” on their scientific research and experts. They criticized Sage for bowing to outside partisan pressures and accused a biased faction within the medical community of suppressing research that challenges their pro-abortion narrative.

The retracted studies played a significant role in the ongoing legal battle over mifepristone’s accessibility. One of the studies, the 2021 “Longitudinal Cohort Study,” was cited by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk as evidence supporting the standing of anti-abortion doctor-plaintiffs in their lawsuit. The paper claimed that adverse events from chemical abortion drugs could overwhelm the medical system and create enormous pressure and stress on doctors during emergencies and complications. However, concerns were raised by pharmaceutical sciences professor Chris Adkins, who contacted Sage highlighting misrepresentation of conclusions and the exaggerated magnitude of the data.

Independent post-publication peer reviews conducted by epidemiology and public health experts supported Adkins’ concerns. The reviews identified fundamental problems with the study design and methodology, unjustified or incorrect factual assumptions, material errors in data analysis, and misleading presentations of the data in the 2021 and 2022 papers using the same dataset. The 2019 article, which used a different dataset, was found to contain unsupported assumptions, misleading presentations of findings, and a lack of scientific rigor, rendering its conclusions unreliable.

Experts have consistently highlighted the safety and efficacy of mifepristone, with over 5.6 million recorded uses over the past two decades. While the FDA has reported 28 deaths, it has explicitly stated that the drug cannot be identified as the cause of these deaths.

This retraction significantly impacts the ongoing legal debate surrounding medication abortion and raises questions about the integrity of research conducted in support of restricting access to mifepristone. The U.S. Supreme Court’s forthcoming consideration of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration case will undoubtedly be influenced by this retraction and the doubts it casts on the credibility of the studies involved.

To support independent journalism like this, please consider donating to Ohio Capital Journal or subscribing to their newsletter for daily morning headlines delivered directly to your inbox..

1. “Study cited by Texas judge in abortion pill case retracted”
2. “Texas judge retracts study cited in abortion pill case”.