Why Were These Studies on Abortion Pills Retracted?
The pro-abortion lobby is anti-women (and pro-death and anti-life). Now, why do I say that? After all, they style themselves as compassionate supporters of choice for women, protecting the “rights” of women to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Of course, that’s all just rhetoric—carefully chosen euphemisms to cover up that abortion is really the intentional killing (murder) of a human life (made in God’s image). Once you understand what abortion really is, it’s easy to see how it’s anti-life and anti-baby . . . but why do I say it’s also anti-women?
Well, there are many reasons, but a recent news article highlighted one: they don’t actually care about the safety of the drugs that induce chemical abortions or the impacts these drugs have on women. They only care about ensuring it’s as easy and cheap as possible for women to kill their unborn children.
A group of 10 scientists are suing an academic journal over three scientific studies, including two highlighting the dangers of abortions pills, that were retracted by the publisher, seemingly for no reason other than that the pro-abortion lobby didn’t like the results. Importantly, these studies were retracted just a few weeks before the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding abortion pills.
So why were the studies pulled? According to reports:
The retraction notice from Sage stated that an independent review of the studies was conducted due to a single reader’s complaint that the studies included misleading data and that the authors were affiliated with a pro-life organization, the Charlotte Lozier Institute.
[Dr. James] Studnicki, one of the authors on the papers, was also kicked off the editorial board of Sage’s Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology journal, months before the retractions actually took place.
The suit alleges that the studies were pulled, not because of bad science or “any legitimate objection to any of the findings,” but because the journal “put politics over publication ethics and blatantly disregarded the principles of open inquiry and commitment to science.”
This is anti-women and anti-science. To suppress studies like the one that found “the rate of emergency room visits following chemical abortions had spiked 500% from 2002–2015” shows that these activists don’t really care about women. They don’t want to know—and they certainly don’t want the public to know—the truth about the risks of abortion to women (check out a recent blog post for more on that). Abortion is not just deadly for babies; it’s dangerous and harmful—and, yes, sometimes deadly—to women too.
This kind of academic persecution isn’t surprising—creationists frequently deal with this prejudice. And it’s because science isn’t neutral. Everyone has a worldview, including the editors and reviewers at various journals. And, for many, that worldview causes them to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Yes, abortion is a spiritual issue that ultimately won’t be solved by facts and science (a tactic many pro-life organizations try). Just like so many other societal evils of the past, it will be solved by the truth of God’s Word, the biblical worldview, and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
by Ken Ham on October 14, 2024
Featured in Ken Ham Blog
Abortion is murder plain and simple. Human life begins at conception and not birth. That is the Truth.
Well, there are many reasons, but a recent news article highlighted one: they don’t actually care about the safety of the drugs that induce chemical abortions or the impacts these drugs have on women. They only care about ensuring it’s as easy and cheap as possible for women to kill their unborn children.
A group of 10 scientists are suing an academic journal over three scientific studies, including two highlighting the dangers of abortions pills, that were retracted by the publisher, seemingly for no reason other than that the pro-abortion lobby didn’t like the results. Importantly, these studies were retracted just a few weeks before the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding abortion pills.
So why were the studies pulled? According to reports:
The retraction notice from Sage stated that an independent review of the studies was conducted due to a single reader’s complaint that the studies included misleading data and that the authors were affiliated with a pro-life organization, the Charlotte Lozier Institute.
[Dr. James] Studnicki, one of the authors on the papers, was also kicked off the editorial board of Sage’s Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology journal, months before the retractions actually took place.
The suit alleges that the studies were pulled, not because of bad science or “any legitimate objection to any of the findings,” but because the journal “put politics over publication ethics and blatantly disregarded the principles of open inquiry and commitment to science.”
This is anti-women and anti-science. To suppress studies like the one that found “the rate of emergency room visits following chemical abortions had spiked 500% from 2002–2015” shows that these activists don’t really care about women. They don’t want to know—and they certainly don’t want the public to know—the truth about the risks of abortion to women (check out a recent blog post for more on that). Abortion is not just deadly for babies; it’s dangerous and harmful—and, yes, sometimes deadly—to women too.
This kind of academic persecution isn’t surprising—creationists frequently deal with this prejudice. And it’s because science isn’t neutral. Everyone has a worldview, including the editors and reviewers at various journals. And, for many, that worldview causes them to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Yes, abortion is a spiritual issue that ultimately won’t be solved by facts and science (a tactic many pro-life organizations try). Just like so many other societal evils of the past, it will be solved by the truth of God’s Word, the biblical worldview, and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
by Ken Ham on October 14, 2024
Featured in Ken Ham Blog
Abortion is murder plain and simple. Human life begins at conception and not birth. That is the Truth.
61-69, M
