A group of professional researchers have issued a demand for arbitration over research they conducted on abortion outcomes that was redacted in what they are terming an “unprovoked and partisan assault.” A demand for arbitration is a formal request to have a dispute decided by an individual or panel of arbitrators in lieu of settling the matter in court.
Three of the researchers’ scientific articles, providing data on characteristics and risks of abortion, were retracted by the academic publisher Sage. These retractions came after commercial media called the articles “flawed science” and after one of the papers was cited in court regarding the dangers of abortion drug mifepristone.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
In April of 2023, federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk halted FDA approval of the abortion drug mifepristone in the FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine case, citing the 2021 scientific article. Mifepristone had become the primary means of abortion in the United States, accounting for approximately 63% of all abortions at that time according to pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, and likely higher today based on the incomplete reporting and trajectory.
Mifepristone is intended to block the nourishing hormone progesterone in a pregnant woman to cause fetal death. This first part of abortion pill regimen is followed up with misoprostol to induce contractions and expel the remains.
The 2021 article examined “emergency room use following chemical and surgical abortions” and found a noticeable increased risk of emergency room visits following chemical versus surgical abortions.
It noted: “adverse events following a mifepristone abortion are more likely to be experienced at home in the absence of a physician, increasing the likelihood of an ER visit.”
The study found that between 2002 and 2015, emergency room visits following surgical abortion increased 315% while visits following a chemical abortion increased 507%.
After the court cited the 2021 article, a then-anonymous abortion activist, Chris Adkins, wrote to Sage challenging the study’s methodology.
Adkins also complained about the authors’ affiliations with the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI), a research organization under the umbrella of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America that conducts medical and statistical research on issues like abortion and fertilization. Sage accommodated Adkins’ grievance and hired two “experts” to re-review the peer-reviewed articles. Sage subsequently retracted not only the originally challenged article, but two additional articles connected to the authors.
During the interval while Sage was re-examining the published articles, the study authors attempted to contact the publication several times and provided detailed rebuttals to the grievances.
Multiple times, Sage did not respond, and to date, has yet to address the authors’ scientific rebuttals.
“In fact, Sage never once discussed with the Authors the concerns it had with their Articles, its expression of concern, or its eventual retractions,” the demand for arbitration states.
CLI has organized an archive of the documents and communications with Sage at the website assaultonscience.org.
The documents detail why the reasons Sage gave for retracting the article were unfounded and at times false.
For example:
Sage claimed the authors’ affiliation to CLI “should have been declared in the article.”
Yet the affiliations are included in multiple footnotes and biographies included with the articles. The demand for arbitration also observes that “Sage routinely publishes articles that do not contain disclosures of the ‘political advocacy’ of the authors’ affiliations” along with several specific examples.
Sage also claimed that one of the peer-reviewers—whom Sage picked and whose identity is concealed because the review was double-anonymized—was affiliated with CLI and therefore the review process was tainted.
The authors’ demand for arbitration explains why this motive for Sage retractions is unfounded for several reasons.
For example, Sage is governed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Sage would be at fault if there was an error in the peer-review process. And the COPE guidelines do not include such a publisher error as grounds for retracting an article.
Additionally, the peer-reviewers for each of the three articles, including non-CLI affiliates, reached the same conclusion that the articles were quality scholarship and worthy of publication. This goes against Sage’s insinuation that the reviewer in question issued a biased verdict.
Sage also challenged the authors’ methodology, such as the 2021 article’s study of ER visits within 30 days of an abortion.
Yet the authors explained this data allowed the authors “to determine for the first time the total ER burden on women following an abortion.” The authors also clearly disclosed the methodology used in the articles. The COPE guidelines do not call for retraction under the methodological questions Sage raised. A more detailed discussion of the authors’ response to Sage’s methodological challenges can be read at Pregnancy Help News and assaultonscience.org.
Dr. James Studnicki, vice president and director of data analytics at CLI and lead author of the articles, said:
“Putting politics over publication ethics, Sage retracted three important studies by Charlotte Lozier Institute scholars that are scientifically sound. There was no legitimate reason for retracting the papers, and Sage did this without offering a valid objection to their findings.”
Tweet This: Putting politics over publication ethics, Sage retracted three important studies by Charlotte Lozier Institute scholars.
Karen Czarnecki, executive director of CLI, said:
“Freedom of speech in medicine is critical for scientific progress. But because of Sage’s retractions, the authors and their research have suffered repeated attacks in the media that have damaged the authors’ reputations.”
In addition to citing media attacks, the authors’ demand for arbitration details reputational damages from courts now citing Sage’s retraction, as well as other publications refusing to publish the authors’ work.
Dr. Studnicki was also removed from the board of Sage’s medical journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology.
“The combined reputational and economic harm to the Authors from these unlawful actions is enormous and incalculable,” the demand for arbitration states.
The demand for arbitration also alleges that Sage is guilty of multiple improprieties, including breach of contract, negligence, and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination based on religious or political affiliation or a “perception” thereof.
The authors asked for several articles of relief, including acknowledgement of the breach of contract and negligence; declaration that Sage’s retractions and removal of Dr. Studnicki from the HSRME board violated the Unruh Act; a rescinding of the retractions, and any monetary or other relief determined appropriate by the Arbitrator.
A full timeline of events in the matter is available on the Assault on Science website.
