Assassination of Science: The Charlotte Lozier’s Abortion Pill Studies Wrongly Retracted 

Jordan Estabrook - 13 Feb 2024

Science is science no matter the publication, right? Not so fast. A growing controversy is building in abortion-friendly outlets claiming that research from those who have expressed concern for mothers and their preborn children needs to be disqualified. What is at stake is a Supreme Court case that asks about how harmful ARE abortions from Chemical Abortion Pills.  

As soon as a Texas judge took a look at studies from the Charlotte Lozier Institute of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, pro-abortion activists have been on the attack against research showing the dangers of Chemical Abortion pills, as detailed at Three studies published at Sage Publications based on Lozier’s work have recently been retracted, as abortion supporters demanded that science rejects their worldview also be rejected.  

The three studies under attack include:  

The plaintiffs and a federal judge cited two of these studies in a Texas court case. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled in favor of pro-life physicians and revoked the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of the Chemical Abortion Pill. According to Kacsmaryk, 20 years ago, the FDA bowed to political pressures and approved a dangerous drug, mifepristone, on the market.  

The FDA isn’t the only one to melt under political pressure. With the Biden administration appealing the case to the Supreme Court on March 26, the squeeze to undermine the Charlotte Lozier Institute’s research is intense for pro-abortion activists. According to Sage Publications’ statement, their reasoning for retracting the studies included conflicts of interest, problems with pre-publication peer review, and unreliable findings.  

The Double Standard When It Comes to “Conflict-of-Interest” 

This is wildly unsupported, one-sided reasoning. James Studnicki, Charlotte Lozier Institute vice president and director of data analytics and head author of “A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Emergency Room Utilization Following Mifepristone Chemical and Surgical Abortions,” responded to these claims in a video statement. He defends his study as well-researched and points out how researchers have long allowed pro-abortion bias. He states: 

“We have been successful for a long period of time in calling attention to some of the dangers associated with an abortion, specifically chemical abortion. For a long time, there were no investigators who were doing independent science and so pro-abortion investigators published in journals that are entirely pro-abortion, which are most of the journals.”  

The conflict-of-interest claim is laughable, and the Guttmacher Institute is a prime example. It was started by Planned Parenthood in 1968 and later branched out on its own in 2007. Yet, the Guttmacher Institute’s work is almost entirely pro-abortion. In 2019, one of their studies was used in a Supreme Court case. There are also plenty of pro-abortion institute studies that exist on Sage Publications and aren’t censored.

And then there is the abortion bias of those managing so much of our medical care. Learn more here: Major Obstetric “Authority” ACOG is Pro-Abortion 

Pro-Lifers and Pro-Abortionists Should Want to Know the Truth 

When pro-abortion media claims a “conflict of interest,” it’s code for “doesn’t fit our narrative,” as Studnicki continues to prove in his statement: 

“They were making the case that abortion is safe. Our work on emergency room visits represents a different point of view to what they thought was secure. We asked a simple question: when women have an induced abortion, what is the likelihood of visiting an emergency room within the next 30 days? And what we find is that for any abortion, there is an increasing likelihood that they will end up in the emergency room within 30 days. Chemical abortions are significantly more likely than surgical abortions to end up in the ER.”  

Even pro-abortion activists should be interested in the harm abortion causes women. It should matter if they’re pro-women, but their allegiance belongs to the abortion movement, no matter the cost. If the pro-abortion agenda were a train running off the track, they’d still stay on it.  

The “problem” here isn’t the methodology and findings in the research – the research itself is the problem for abortion lovers along with the values of the people engaged in the work. 

Abortion is dangerous, and Studnicki’s research proves what the pro-life movement has been saying all along.  

Yes, the anecdotal evidence is there, like a Chicago woman who can no longer bear children, or Toni McFadden, who had blood clots the size of her fists. More stories exist. The side effect facts are there, and now there’s an institute that is thorough and brave enough to confirm the existing evidence. With Charlotte Lozier Institute’s rise in prominence, the pressure to have the pro-life narrative removed from the big stage is crucial for pro-abortion supporters to keep their grip on women and the public.  

“These findings have been used in legal actions in many of the states, and we have become visible,” said Studnicki. “People are quoting us, and for that reason we are dangerous, and they want to cancel our work. What happened to use has little or nothing to do with real science. It has everything to do with the political assassination of real science.  

Studnicki is precisely right. This is a public and political assassination of science. The Charlotte Lozier Institute is fighting back with the Assault on Science campaign by educating people on the double standards of science and how the public can support them.  

Protecting genuine scientific research from places by the Charlotte Lozier Institute and other reputable scientists is crucial for educating the public and saving preborn lives.  

READ NEXT: OOPS: Pro-Abortion Study Immediately Debunked 

Share this post