Science Has Failed to Study Abortion
Lozier Institute Scholars Researching Issue Avoided by Scientific Community
Scholars from the Charlotte Lozier Institute are presenting the scientific case for greater research and discussion around abortion—something lacking from the rest of the scientific, medical and public health communities. Recent publication of both peer-reviewed studies and opinion pieces cover late-term abortion, hospital admitting privileges for abortionists, prenatal treatments for babies in utero, among others.
CLI president Charles A. “Chuck” Donovan said,
“For far too long, the scientific community has neglected its responsibility to objectively look at the facts surrounding abortion and address. At CLI, our Associate Scholars are asking the tough questions about abortion policies, funding research and alternatives that their colleagues simply won’t do. It’s time for the scientific community to step-up: science cannot afford to sit on the sidelines—not when there are thousands of lives at stake.”
An op-ed entitled “Late-Term Abortion and Medical Necessity: A Failure of Science” by Dr. James Studnicki published in the peer-reviewed journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology argues against the necessity of late-term abortion and why abortion data and research are inadequate. In explaining why women electively choose late-term abortions, Studnicki even cites pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, writing:
“Most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over two decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships. A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortions after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.”
On the lack of adequate research funding, Studnicki found that the National Institute of Health Research Condition and Disease Categorization System reports on 282 different categories for research into climate change, adolescent sexual activity, eczema and food allergies but has no category for abortion.
CLI scholars recently published a groundbreaking paper entitled “Doctors Who Perform Abortions: Their Characteristics and Patterns of Holding and Using Hospital Privileges.” This paper looked at 85 doctors in the State of Florida who perform abortions and was the first published peer-reviewed study of abortion doctors and their patterns of using hospital privileges. The entirety of their paper may be found in the peer-reviewed journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology and available online here.
Another major study co-authored by two CLI scholars entitled “The Perinatal Revolution” examined non-surgical and surgical interventions available to treat babies in the womb prior to birth. This study appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Issues in Law and Medicine and some of the paper’s finding are outlined here.
A selected list of CLI scholars, who are available for media regarding these studies, appears below.
Dr. James Studnicki, CLI Vice President and Director of Data Analytics: As cited above, Dr. Studnicki is the author of late-term abortion op-ed and coauthor of hospital admitting privileges study.
Dr. Donna Harrison, Associate Scholar, Executive Director of the American Association of Prolife Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Dr. Harrison is board-certified ob-gyn and a coauthor on the hospital admitting privileges study.
Dr. Tara Sander Lee, CLI Senior Fellow and Director of Life Sciences: Dr. Lee is a research scientist and one of the coauthors of the perinatal paper listed above.