{"id":267190,"date":"2022-05-01T13:35:13","date_gmt":"2022-05-01T18:35:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=267190"},"modified":"2022-04-30T14:12:35","modified_gmt":"2022-04-30T19:12:35","slug":"four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/","title":{"rendered":"Four reasons to distrust UCSF’s study alleging safety of ‘no-test’ abortion pill protocol"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

A new <\/span>study<\/span><\/a> from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) claims to verify that \u201cno-test,\u201d self-managed chemical abortions are safe and effective \u2014\u00a0but a closer look suggests a different reality.<\/span><\/p>\n

Setting aside the obvious limitation of the study’s relatively small sample size (complete data for just 2,397 women, despite an estimated <\/span>465,000<\/span><\/a> chemical abortions per year in the U.S.), this study has multiple real and potential problems that render its conclusions dubious at best.<\/span><\/p>\n

Biased Authorship<\/b><\/p>\n

Who\u2019s behind this study? One of the researchers, Elizabeth G. Raymond, also co-authored a <\/span>paper<\/span><\/a> entitled \u201cIncreasing Access to Abortion With Telemedicine,\u201d which emphasizes the importance of making it easier for women to get abortions. In addition, she <\/span>co-authored<\/span><\/a> a \u201csample protocol\u201d for no-test abortion in order to promote \u201caccess.\u201d She has been <\/span>awarded<\/span><\/a> by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute and is affiliated with <\/span>Gynuity<\/span><\/a>, which receives major funding from organizations devoted to population control and eugenics.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Two of the top three researchers are affiliated with UCSF. One, Ushma D. Upadhyay, has been <\/span>associated<\/span><\/a> with the fatally <\/span>flawed<\/span><\/a>, pro-abortion <\/span>Turnaway Study<\/span><\/i><\/a>. UCSF is one of the nation\u2019s most extensive abortion training facilities; they fund and operate over <\/span>100<\/span><\/a> training programs nationwide. They are also heavily <\/span>involved<\/span><\/a> in fetal tissue <\/span>harvesting<\/span><\/a> and experimentation.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The other four authors are abortionists; one is affiliated with Planned Parenthood.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Every single author on this study has a vested interest in promoting abortion, either by virtue of their direct participation therein, or consequent to their financial ties to pro-abortion organizations. Every single author on this study is biased in favor of abortion.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Methodological Weaknesses<\/b><\/p>\n

It should therefore come as no surprise that the researchers produced results which are pro-abortion. But how did they go about doing so?<\/span><\/p>\n

As mentioned before, the researchers only had complete data for 2,397 women; however, their reported sample size is 3,779. How do the authors account for the 36.6% of participants for whom data was missing? Did the researchers just fill in the gaps with their own data?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Essentially, yes<\/em>. Authors <\/span>state<\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

[W]e then conducted an analysis using multiple imputation by chained equations to account for missing outcomes due to loss to follow-up. We assumed data to be missing at random and imputed missing data \u2026<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Multiple imputation is a statistical approach that calculates and incorporates data assumed to be missing at random. It is used regularly in research, however, statisticians acknowledge its <\/span>risks<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>saying<\/span><\/a> it \u201cneeds to be applied carefully to avoid misleading conclusions.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The authors <\/span>acknowledge<\/span><\/a> that, if their assumptions are inaccurate, their numbers are flawed; incidentally, their conclusion, by extension, would also be flawed. \u201cIf patients who were lost to follow-up were more likely to require additional intervention, our analysis may overestimate effectiveness.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The authors further acknowledge they \u201cmay have failed to identify some additional interventions and adverse events\u201d\u00a0 because \u201c[participating facilities] did not have uniform, validated criteria for confirming complete abortion using symptoms alone without ultrasonography, serum \u03b2-hCG, or urine pregnancy tests.\u201d They continue:<\/span><\/p>\n

Although we collected data on test results that supported the diagnosis of complete medication abortion, we did not systematically collect information on the criteria clinicians used to diagnose abortions as complete by history.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

In other words, there were no defined, uniform criteria used to determine that a \u201ccomplete abortion\u201d had taken place.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The first 3 authors (U.D.U., E.G.R., and L.R.K.) reviewed selected cases to clean data and flagged any inconsistencies within a specific medical record. These records were then rereviewed by clinic staff, who made any needed corrections. Additionally, 4 clinician coauthors with experience in abortion provision (B.K., L.C., C.M.B., and M.G.) reviewed selected cases to resolve analysis outcomes.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

So the demonstrably pro-abortion team was also \u201ccleaning\u201d and \u201ccorrecting\u201d data, as well as \u201cresolving analysis outcomes.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

READ:\u00a0Abortion pill complications requiring hospital visits in UK mirror US data\u2026 and it\u2019s not good<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Adverse Events<\/b><\/p>\n

Further complicating the reported results is the fact that the authors didn\u2019t<\/em> include ER visits in their definition of what constituted an \u201cadverse event.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

If they had, their adverse event statistic would have been closer to 2.5%, rather than the .54% they reported (72 reported ER visits among the sample\/2825 patients with follow-up data = ~2.5%). If you apply this statistic to the total estimated number of chemical abortions annually, we can presume an estimated 11,625 women <\/span>per year<\/span><\/i> would be heading to the ER for abortion-related complications under the no-test protocol.<\/span><\/p>\n

So what <\/span>did<\/span><\/i> constitute a \u201cmajor adverse event?\u201d The authors included \u201chospital admission, blood transfusion, [or] major surgery\u201d in their definition. How did they determine whether or not one of those events was consequent to abortion? \u201cThe clinician authors determined the relation of adverse events to the abortion by consensus<\/em>.\u201d (emphasis added)<\/span><\/p>\n

Remember, every one of those authors has a vested interest in abortion. Some of them also work alongside UCSF professor Daniel Grossman, who <\/span>told<\/span><\/a> a reporter at <\/span>The Atlantic<\/span><\/i> that if women who are self-managing their abortions experience complications, \u201cthey are generally advised to go to a hospital and say they had a miscarriage.\u201d He also <\/span>claimed<\/span><\/a> ER doctors should falsify medical records to hide adverse events. Other pro-abortion organizations, like Plan C, also <\/span>coach<\/span><\/a> women to lie and claim they are experiencing a natural miscarriage, should they require medical attention.<\/span><\/p>\n

Of note, previous studies<\/a> in both the UK and the United States have shown that approximately 5-6% of women who took the abortion pill were treated at hospitals for complications, and needed treatment due to incomplete abortions.<\/p>\n

But given that women are routinely coached not<\/em> to tell follow-up doctors dealing with complications that they have taken the abortion pill, how accurate can any of the adverse event numbers really <\/span>be<\/span><\/i>?<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cAccess\u201d Before Safety<\/b><\/p>\n

Even if we assume the numbers obtained by this study are sound, a <\/span>large<\/span><\/i> number of women would be adversely affected by the implementation of an across-the-board no-test protocol. The study authors report a ~5% rate for incomplete abortions; if we apply that to the total estimated number of chemical abortions per year (465,000), we arrive at an estimated 23,250 women presenting with failed chemical abortions <\/span>every year<\/span><\/i> in this country alone.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Similarly, the authors report a .54% rate for \u201cmajor adverse events.\u201d Applying that number to the total estimated number of annual chemical abortions produces an estimated 2,511 women experiencing a major adverse event annually.<\/span><\/p>\n

Their ectopic pregnancy numbers are equally troubling (emphasis added):\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In this study, the ectopic pregnancy rate of 2 per 1000 suggests that the screening procedures used by the participating clinics will not triage all patients with ectopic risks to ultrasonography before the abortion. However, the potential benefits of expanded access, increased convenience, and earlier treatment conferred by removing testing requirements may outweigh potential risks of delayed identification of ectopic pregnancies.\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

They are literally suggesting that the nearly 1,000 annual ectopic pregnancies that would go undiagnosed if the no-test protocol became standard \u2013 every one of which would be potentially fatal \u2013 might be an acceptable sacrifice if it means they can expand abortion.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The abortion <\/span>industry<\/span><\/a> consistently places \u201caccess\u201d above women\u2019s safety.<\/span><\/p>\n

We mandate independent trials for <\/span>drug efficacy<\/span><\/a> and <\/span>food safety<\/span><\/a>, yet we presume that abortion profiteers will produce more reliable science about the very product they sell than truly independent researchers. In no other industry would we accept the fox-guarding-the-henhouse status quo we afford the abortion industry. This study is yet one more example of the sloppy, biased \u201cscience\u201d we should expect such a situation to produce.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cLike\u201d Live Action News on Facebook<\/a>\u00a0for more pro-life news and commentary!<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A new study from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) claims to verify that \u201cno-test,\u201d self-managed chemical abortions are safe and effective \u2014\u00a0but a closer look suggests a different reality. Setting aside the obvious limitation of the study’s relatively small sample size (complete data for just 2,397 women, despite an estimated 465,000 chemical abortions […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":788,"featured_media":267191,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false},"categories":[15],"tags":[3956,1908,14799,9402,3845,12246,6748,713,13469,14,825,7403,10117,10578,12281],"yoast_head":"\nFour reasons to distrust UCSF's study alleging safety of 'no-test' abortion pill protocol<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A study from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) claims \u201cno-test,\u201d chemical abortions are safe,\u00a0but a closer look shows a different reality.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Four reasons to distrust UCSF's study alleging safety of 'no-test' abortion pill protocol\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A study from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) claims \u201cno-test,\u201d chemical abortions are safe,\u00a0but a closer look shows a different reality.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Live Action News\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/liveaction\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-05-01T18:35:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-04-30T19:12:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/GettyImages-1226394324-abortion-pill.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"650\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bettina di Fiore\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@liveaction\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@liveaction\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bettina di Fiore\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Bettina di Fiore\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/189f8a60121ec1992ae74917a7134f0f\"},\"headline\":\"Four reasons to distrust UCSF’s study alleging safety of ‘no-test’ abortion pill protocol\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-05-01T18:35:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-04-30T19:12:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/\"},\"wordCount\":1259,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"abortion access\",\"abortion pill\",\"adverse events\",\"Daniel Grossman\",\"Ectopic Pregnancy\",\"Elizabeth G. Raymond\",\"ER\",\"Guttmacher\",\"Gynuity\",\"Planned Parenthood\",\"San Francisco\",\"study\",\"Turnaway Study\",\"UCSF\",\"Ushma Upadhyay\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Analysis\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/\",\"name\":\"Four reasons to distrust UCSF's study alleging safety of 'no-test' abortion pill protocol\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-05-01T18:35:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-04-30T19:12:35+00:00\",\"description\":\"A study from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) claims \u201cno-test,\u201d chemical abortions are safe,\u00a0but a closer look shows a different reality.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Four reasons to distrust UCSF’s study alleging safety of ‘no-test’ abortion pill protocol\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/\",\"name\":\"Live Action News\",\"description\":\"Covering Human Rights, Abortion, & Pro-Life Issues\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Live Action\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Live-Action-Logo-Black.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Live-Action-Logo-Black.png\",\"width\":701,\"height\":710,\"caption\":\"Live Action\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/liveaction\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/liveaction\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/liveactionorg\/\",\"https:\/\/www.pinterest.com\/LiveActionFilms\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/LiveActionFilms\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/189f8a60121ec1992ae74917a7134f0f\",\"name\":\"Bettina di Fiore\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3e31061bd16493d73f3e184e7dfec4d3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3e31061bd16493d73f3e184e7dfec4d3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Bettina di Fiore\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/author\/bettina-di-fiore\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Four reasons to distrust UCSF's study alleging safety of 'no-test' abortion pill protocol","description":"A study from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) claims \u201cno-test,\u201d chemical abortions are safe,\u00a0but a closer look shows a different reality.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Four reasons to distrust UCSF's study alleging safety of 'no-test' abortion pill protocol","og_description":"A study from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) claims \u201cno-test,\u201d chemical abortions are safe,\u00a0but a closer look shows a different reality.","og_url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/","og_site_name":"Live Action News","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/liveaction","article_published_time":"2022-05-01T18:35:13+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-04-30T19:12:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":650,"url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/GettyImages-1226394324-abortion-pill.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bettina di Fiore","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@liveaction","twitter_site":"@liveaction","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bettina di Fiore","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/"},"author":{"name":"Bettina di Fiore","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/189f8a60121ec1992ae74917a7134f0f"},"headline":"Four reasons to distrust UCSF’s study alleging safety of ‘no-test’ abortion pill protocol","datePublished":"2022-05-01T18:35:13+00:00","dateModified":"2022-04-30T19:12:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/"},"wordCount":1259,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization"},"keywords":["abortion access","abortion pill","adverse events","Daniel Grossman","Ectopic Pregnancy","Elizabeth G. Raymond","ER","Guttmacher","Gynuity","Planned Parenthood","San Francisco","study","Turnaway Study","UCSF","Ushma Upadhyay"],"articleSection":["Analysis"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/","name":"Four reasons to distrust UCSF's study alleging safety of 'no-test' abortion pill protocol","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-05-01T18:35:13+00:00","dateModified":"2022-04-30T19:12:35+00:00","description":"A study from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) claims \u201cno-test,\u201d chemical abortions are safe,\u00a0but a closer look shows a different reality.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-reasons-distrust-ucsf-abortion-pill-study\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Four reasons to distrust UCSF’s study alleging safety of ‘no-test’ abortion pill protocol"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#website","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/","name":"Live Action News","description":"Covering Human Rights, Abortion, & Pro-Life Issues","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization","name":"Live Action","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Live-Action-Logo-Black.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Live-Action-Logo-Black.png","width":701,"height":710,"caption":"Live Action"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/liveaction","https:\/\/twitter.com\/liveaction","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/liveactionorg\/","https:\/\/www.pinterest.com\/LiveActionFilms\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/LiveActionFilms"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/189f8a60121ec1992ae74917a7134f0f","name":"Bettina di Fiore","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3e31061bd16493d73f3e184e7dfec4d3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3e31061bd16493d73f3e184e7dfec4d3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Bettina di Fiore"},"url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/author\/bettina-di-fiore\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267190"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/788"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=267190"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267190\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":267197,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267190\/revisions\/267197"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/267191"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267190"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267190"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267190"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}