{"id":205687,"date":"2019-07-09T14:22:32","date_gmt":"2019-07-09T19:22:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=205687"},"modified":"2019-07-09T14:22:49","modified_gmt":"2019-07-09T19:22:49","slug":"pro-abortion-studies-funding-media-ignore","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-studies-funding-media-ignore\/","title":{"rendered":"When pro-abortion studies hide their funding sources, why does the media ignore it?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

An abortion\u00a0study<\/a>\u00a0recently\u00a0published<\/a> by the Annals of Internal Medicine and funded in part by long-time, wealthy population control advocates failed to reveal additional funding from an anonymous donor.\u00a0According to disclosures submitted by authors of the\u00a0study<\/a>, titled, “Self-reported Physical Health of Women Who Did and Did Not Terminate Pregnancy After Seeking Abortion Services: A Cohort Study,” funding came from “the Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and an anonymous foundation<\/strong>.”<\/p>\n

The use of anonymous funders should cause the media to pause, and at the very least, require more scrutiny. Sadly, that isn’t happening.<\/p>\n

A blog published by Union of Concerned Scientists (USC), authored by Gretchen Goldman, Research Director, Center for Science and Democracy<\/a>\u00a0makes the case for disclosing all those who fund scientific research, writing<\/a> in part:<\/p>\n

First and foremost, funding sources for scientific events, conferences, and research should be disclosed publicly in a clear and obvious location.\u00a0 This is a given. Scientific journals routinely ask authors to disclose real or perceived conflicts of interest and to list funders in acknowledgements. These are excellent places to disclose all funding sources and the\u00a0scientific community expects this<\/a>. <\/em><\/p>\n

And notably, there are consequences for scientists who don\u2019t and are discovered, as we\u2019ve seen on everything from\u00a0hydraulic fracturing research<\/a>to\u00a0climate change contrarians<\/a>\u00a0to\u00a0doctors\u2019 pharmaceutical connections<\/a>…. At a minimum,\u00a0science should be subject to a greater level of scrutiny<\/strong>\u00a0if it receives funding from an industry with direct interests in the implications of that science.<\/strong>\u00a0Would you trust a study funded by the tobacco industry that touted health benefits of smoking? Of course not.<\/em><\/p>\n

Goldman goes on to add that corporate funding doesn’t necessarily taint the research, but notes it should be looked at with “greater scrutiny.” She added, “We must demand transparency around funding sources and funding relationships so we have the full picture with which to judge. And we must hold actors accountable when we find inappropriate funding relationships.”<\/p>\n

The Annals of Internal Medicine and Jama Psychiatry<\/a> are not the only journals pushing out pro-abortion studies<\/a> without disclosing all funding sources. The pro-abortion Journal Contraception<\/a>, has also failed<\/a>\u00a0to list\u00a0previous<\/a>\u00a0financial conflicts tied to the abortion pill\u2019s manufacturer,\u00a0DANCO<\/a>.\u00a0 On paper, Contraception tells<\/a> authors, “You are requested to identify who provided financial support for the conduct of the research and\/or preparation of the article and to briefly describe the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. If the funding source(s) had no such involvement then this should be stated.”<\/p>\n

But, when it comes to abortion, the rule goes out the window.<\/p>\n

READ:\u00a0EXPOSED: Massive conflicts of interest found in new abortion pill study<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

As Live Action News documented<\/a>, a recent study<\/a>\u00a0on TelAbortion published by the Journal Contraception had “several anonymous donors.” Live Action News discovered this was a common theme, potentially tainting study results published in the Journal. See images below:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\" \"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The American Journal of Public Health also publishes studies<\/a> without disclosing where all the funding comes from. Even Planned Parenthood’s former “special affiliate<\/a>” — the Guttmacher Institute — has\u00a0published<\/a> reports which\u00a0reveal<\/a> that funding came from an anonymous<\/a> donor.<\/p>\n

Guttmacher’s publication, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, tells<\/a> authors, “Acknowledgments should include funding information, as well as any employment, appointments or financial arrangements that might be perceived as a conflict of interest.” Yet, one of their most recently cited studies,”Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 Weeks?” authored by\u00a0Katrina Kimport and Diana Greene Foster (who obtained the funding for the Annals of Internal Medicine study), \u00a0lists the same group of financiers as the Annals of Internal Medicine study, including an anonymous foundation.<\/p>\n

READ:\u00a0Another study promotes self-managed \u2018TelAbortion\u2019 as safe. Here\u2019s why you should question that.<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Image:

Guttmacher Perspectives study Gerbode Packard Hewlett and anonymous<\/p><\/div>\n

The same three abortion and population control advocates who funded the latest study<\/a>\u00a0published by Annals of Internal Medicine also\u00a0funded<\/a> a 2017\u00a0study<\/a>… which coincidentally included<\/a> the same time frame (2008-2010)<\/a>\u00a0and study locations (“30 abortion facilities”). \u00a0That’s because both studies are using\u00a0flawed data<\/a> gathered from the so-called Turnaway Study<\/a><\/strong>.\u00a0According to the LA Times<\/a>, “Researchers from UCSF<\/a>\u2019s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health enrolled 1,132 women who sought abortions at one of 30 facilities in the United States between 2008 and 2010,” for the Turnaway study<\/a>. Again, this study was shown to have been significantly flawed, but the abortion industry keeps referring to it.<\/p>\n

\"Image:<\/p>\n

In the case of the flawed\u00a0Turnaway Study<\/a>, “Research and institutional funding was provided by the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Wallace Alexander\u00a0Gerbode\u00a0Foundation, and other private donors. The\u00a0Turnaway\u00a0Study started as a small pilot project funded by a seed grant from a private foundation.” Neither the “private donors” nor the “private foundation” have been disclosed.<\/p>\n

\"Image:

Turnaway Abortion Study funded by Packard Hewlett Gerbode and anonymous<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

In addition, for many years, UCSF’s Bixby program<\/a>,\u00a0which conducted<\/a> the Turnaway study, was also\u00a0funded<\/a> by these same three foundations.<\/p>\n