Assault on Science

Bradley Mattes   |   May 08, 2024

The abortion issue has divided our nation, chiefly because it is seen as a foundational issue for both sides of the political spectrum. Most often an American’s position on this controversial topic relegates him or her to one of two camps – liberal or conservative.

The demise of Roe has awakened the Beast in ways that have stunned even seasoned pro-life leaders.

Unrestrained abortion is so important to the far Left that President Biden has weaponized the Department of Justice and FBI to root out and prosecute peaceful pro-life individuals in front of abortion facilities. While at the same time turning a blind eye to actual terrorists who have vandalized or firebombed churches, pregnancy centers and offices of pro-life advocates.

The politics of abortion have encroached far beyond the halls of Congress, state legislative bodies and the judicial system. It has also infiltrated academia and research – areas thought by many to rise above the fray of politics.

Political social action is alive and well in storied establishments of higher learning and publications, including the most respected scientific and medical research journals. 

The evidence shows they have sunken into the muck and mire of pro-abortion activism.

On March 26, 2024, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the FDA v. Alliance Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories, L.L.C. v. Alliance Hippocratic Medicine. Danco’s sole purpose is to produce and distribute the abortion pills.

These cases involve the FDA’s political and sloppy approval of the chemical abortion pill and its subsequent efforts to stymie legal challenges and suppress evidence that the pills are not only deadly to babies but place their mothers’ physical wellbeing and lives at risk.

Once the Supreme Court agreed to take these cases the political machinery of academia and scientific research was on display for all to see. A month before oral arguments were heard (February 2024) Sage, a global academic publisher retracted, for political purposes, three research papers related to the two cases.

One documented a 500% increase in emergency room visits following chemical pill abortions. It also showed emergency room visits increased more with chemical abortions than surgical procedures. This paper particularly attracted the ire of the Left when District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk cited it in his ruling against the FDA.

The second paper researched abortionists, “Their Characteristics and Patterns of Holding and Using Hospital Privileges.” Among other things, the study found that “nearly half (48.2%) of the abortionists had at least 1 malpractice claim, public complaint, disciplinary action, or criminal charge.”

The third paper demonstrated that an increasing number of women who go to emergency rooms are miscoded or misrepresent an abortion as a miscarriage. Distributors of the pills are on record advising women who seek urgent medical intervention to lie and say they are experiencing a miscarriage. The research shows that chemical abortions are more likely to require hospital admittance and present a significant risk factor to women.

Sage retracted the papers in response to one vocally pro-abortion individual who made false claims about the research. More information on why these accusations are patently false can be accessed at

The retractions served their purpose. During the oral arguments, as if on cue, Justice Jackson asked Ms. Ellsworth, representing Danco Laboratories, about the poor research associated with this case. Ellsworth responded, “They have since been retracted for lack of scientific rigor and for misleading presentations of data.”

Political activism by America’s academia doesn’t limit itself to the abortion issue. Advancing same sex attraction and transitioning are highly favored causes for the far Left.

A study analyzed the effectiveness of counseling for religious men who want to rid themselves of same-sex attraction. The paper was retracted because it reported positively on the outcome of this counseling. 

Other research concluded that the rapid onset of gender dysphoria in part reflects a socially contagious syndrome. The study also found that children who transitioned suffered from deteriorated mental health. The prevailing powers found that these findings conflicted with their opinion that adolescents and young children can determine their sex and actively transition. As a result, the research was retracted.

In addition to silencing voices contrary to the opinions of the far Left, they have produced their own biased conclusions void of sound evidence and science. What is disturbing is the participation of previously prestigious and credible sources.

The Journal of the American Medical Association has long enjoyed a sterling reputation but its silver crown has been tarnished. JAMA published a report in February 2024 that actually claimed 65,000 rape pregnancies resulted in 14 states with legislation protecting their unborn babies and mothers from abortion.

The lead researcher was Samuel Dickman, an abortionist at Planned Parenthood of Montana. Dr. Michael New, a respected scientist in his field responded, “To call those figures an exaggeration would be an understatement. The article is frankly one of the worst and most misleading pieces of advocacy research that I have ever encountered in my years as a social scientist.” You can get more details in his article published in the National Review.

This final example was particularly strategic. The day before the Supreme Court’s oral arguments JAMA published a study showing a strong demand for chemical abortion pills, many sent to those who self-medicate outside of medical care. It relied upon self-reporting by various sources that sold and mailed the pills, often into states where the unborn are protected. All have a vested interest in showing the Supreme Court that regardless of how they rule, there will be a demand for the pills that they will continue to fill – legal or not.

The New York Times claimed an increase in sales of the abortion pills in Texas offset the decrease in abortions. However, three analyses of Texas births months after Dobbs showed an increase in births. This is sound statistical evidence that casts a shadow on their advocacy research.

We do not have the luxury of assuming the gatekeepers of scientific research have not been adulterated to advance a radical agenda of far-Left activism. The responsibility of being a discerning reader rests upon us to seek out additional information which in a growing number of instances will expose the mire and muck of pro-abortion activism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest News

From our articles & videos

View all

May 23, 2024

Supporting Life Before and After Birth

It’s a source of continued frustration for pro-lifers. The Left repeatedly disparages us for not caring about women. They claim...

Read More

May 22, 2024

More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 22, 2024| Link Contact: Victor Nieves, 513-719-5813 More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed  Senators Katie...

Read More

May 16, 2024

Abortion is a Tool of Control

It was the murder trial of the century. Scott Peterson was tried and convicted of killing his wife Laci when...

Read More