{"id":329938,"date":"2025-04-17T19:17:41","date_gmt":"2025-04-18T00:17:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=329938"},"modified":"2025-04-17T21:16:17","modified_gmt":"2025-04-18T02:16:17","slug":"nih-defunds-project-researcher-turnaway-abortion-study","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/nih-defunds-project-researcher-turnaway-abortion-study\/","title":{"rendered":"NIH defunds project of researcher behind flawed Turnaway abortion study"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

The National Institutes of Health has canceled funding for a study led by Diana Greene Foster, the pro-abortion researcher behind the much-touted (yet seriously flawed<\/a>) Turnaway Study, who was chosen for a 2023 MacArthur Fellowship “Genius Grant.”<\/p>\n

Foster said her team was expecting to receive $2.5 million in NIH funds over five years. Now, she is attempting to replace that funding. \u201cI am madly fundraising to replace these canceled funds,\u201d she said. \u201cI would rather be spending the time implementing the study than beginning the fundraising again.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to The 19th<\/a>, Foster is looking to expand her pro-abortion research with a follow-up to the Turnaway Study. Reporter Shefali Luthra said this study would use “quantitative analysis and in-depth interviews to follow people who sought abortions in or outside of the medical system after federal abortion rights were terminated, as well as those who carried their pregnancies to term.” Presumably, this would include women undergoing DIY at-home abortions, which the abortion industry heavily promoted both before and<\/em> after the fall of Roe v. Wade<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Canceled funding<\/h3>\n

\u201cOur study would rigorously examine how state abortion bans \u2014 with and without health exceptions \u2014 affect treatment of medical emergencies, like preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, preeclampsia and ectopic pregnancy, through surveys and interviews with physicians in emergency departments across the U.S.,\u201d Foster told The 19th. \u201cThis is a topic for which we desperately need data.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet, the question remains: what kind of data is desired<\/em>? Will Foster’s “study” be largely anecdotal, as ProPublica’s highly deceptive reporting in which it blamed pro-life laws<\/a> for women’s injuries and deaths in a series of articles? Will the data be entirely one-sided, as ProPublica’s was when it made assertions about ‘preventable deaths<\/a>‘ and injuries in abortion-restrictive states without<\/em> comparing that data<\/em> to that of abortion-permissive states?<\/p>\n

It is ironic to claim that “data” is needed, as the abortion industry and its allies fight tooth and nail<\/a> to prevent any legitimate data-gathering with regard to the reporting of abortion numbers each year, how many complications result from abortion, and other valuable information. They appear to operate from the assumption that abortion itself does not harm women, but an absence of abortion does \u2014 a biased notion from the start. It sounds from Foster’s description as if her study is likely to continue to operate from this faulty premise.<\/p>\n

A letter Foster received from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) said her work doesn’t align with the federal government’s interests. \u201cResearch programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans,\u201d it read.<\/p>\n