NRL News

Pro-abortionist incensed that pro-life researchers dare to disagree with their biased research

by | Mar 26, 2024

By Dave Andrusko

Yesterday we posted multiple stories about FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the first Supreme Court case to address abortion—in this case chemical abortions—since the 2022 Dobbs decision which overturned Roe v. Wade. Today the Court heard both sides, and we are reporting on it else on NRL News Today.

Writing for The Guardian [How rightwing groups used junk science to get an abortion case before the US supreme court] Jessica Glenza is anything but subtle; “How rightwing groups used junk science to get an abortion case before the US supreme court.”

Ok, let’s do a little deconstructing. We—or at least me—learned one thing: the origins of the campaign to discredit the work of pro-life researchers.

As I understand it, initially no one said a peep about three studies published by Sage Publications. What we learned from Glenza is that a pharmacy professor Chris Adkins “emailed his concerns about an academic article to the editors of Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology.”

Sage eventually buckled and retracted not just one but three studies produced by the Charlotte Lozier Institute [CLI].

Glenza gleefully channeled pro-abortion critiques—poor quality [not true], no identification that CLI is pro-life [also not true], etc., etc. But talk about irony. Glenza tells us

The anti-abortion movement pours money into research groups such as the Charlotte Lozier Institute, whose raison d’être is to produce articles its activists can cite in litigation, legislation and promotional materials.

But isn’t that exactly what pro-abortion groups have done for decades? Their conclusion are parroted, amplified, and given the Legacy Media’s uncritical stamp of approval.

The difference? Contrary to what Glenza would have you believe, it is not the quality of the work but simply because CLI reached different conclusions that they are under siege.

That these studies show up in opinions reached by judges drives the Abortion Industry crazy. And, of course, legislation is strengthened and undergirded by studies by CLI and other pro-life groups, which makes them even madder.

CLI masterfully responded, which you can find here. Please do read it.

I’ll provide the conclusion written by Dr. Ingrid Skop:

I, along with the rest of the Lozier scholars, am more than happy to engage with those who disagree with or question our research, because we are confident in the findings. Unfortunately, instead of these discussions taking place in the scientific research community, where it belongs, we are forced to rebut dishonest claims in the editorial sections of media outlets.


I can only hope people see through the dishonesty, read the research themselves and come to their own conclusions.

Categories: pro-abortion