{"id":307266,"date":"2024-02-21T16:38:02","date_gmt":"2024-02-21T22:38:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=307266"},"modified":"2024-02-21T09:35:07","modified_gmt":"2024-02-21T15:35:07","slug":"double-standard-play-studies-abortion-pill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/double-standard-play-studies-abortion-pill\/","title":{"rendered":"Is a dangerous double standard at play with studies on the abortion pill?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Recently, the pro-abortion media failed to come to the defense of pro-life authors after SagePub retracted<\/a> three of their studies for allegedly failing to disclose “conflicts of interest.” And yet, a recently released abortion study published<\/a> in the journal “Nature Medicine” (which purportedly<\/a> showed that telehealth abortions posed few health risks) was authored and funded by organizations which heavily support abortion \u2014 and failed to fully disclose these conflicts of interest.<\/p>\n

Is there a double standard at play?<\/p>\n

A Double Standard in Abortion Studies?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The study<\/a> “Effectiveness and safety of telehealth medication abortion in the USA,” was authored by abortion activists associated with the pro-abortion group Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), the University of California, and other pro-abortion groups. It used data from the California Home Abortion by Telehealth (CHAT)<\/strong> study<\/strong>. More on that later.<\/p>\n

The “Effectiveness” study only disclosed a conflict with one author. Yet, just days ago, SagePub made the decision<\/a> to retract three studies from authors which had \u201caffiliations with pro-life advocacy organizations\u201d including the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI). The journal claimed (among other things) that these authors allegedly failed to disclose “conflicts of interest.”<\/p>\n

Sage’s retraction was criticized<\/a> by CLI as an \u201cassault on science<\/a>\u201d and the organization denied that they failed to properly disclose conflicts. The retraction was viewed by many as questionable, because two of the years-old studies are cited<\/a>\u00a0by plaintiffs in the\u00a0Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine<\/em>\u00a0[AHM]\u00a0v. Food and Drug Administration<\/em> (FDA) lawsuit, which calls into question the 2000 approval of the abortion pill (mifepristone) by the FDA. In addition, both studies were later cited in the decision<\/a> by District Court Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk to suspend FDA approval of the drug.<\/p>\n

That case is set to be heard before the Supreme Court in March.<\/p>\n

Ironically, even though ANSIRH’s telehealth abortion study is being touted as a response to AHM’s lawsuit, its “conflicts of interest” have not been scrutinized, until now…<\/p>\n

\n
\n

The new study comes just weeks before the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case that could jeopardize mifepristone\u2019s FDA approval.<\/p>\n

It's time SCOTUS face what we know from research: Abortion care is safe & effective when provided through telehealth. https:\/\/t.co\/b9AJBlkOFA<\/a><\/p>\n

— ANSIRH (@ANSIRH) February 18, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n