“[I]f most of what you publish supports an anti-choice thinking (or anti-vaccine) and hence is not supported by science should you be entitled to be included in the National Library of Medicine?"
- The Worst ‘Alternative Facts’ About Abortion
- Exclusive: Why Did Mike Pence Fight So Hard to Keep This White Paper Secret?
- How a Falsehood Becomes a Law: Abortion Reversal as Case Study
- Not Even Leading Anti-Choice Group Could Help Arizona Defend Its ‘Abortion-Reversal’ Law
- ‘Issues in Law & Medicine’: A One-Stop Journal for Anti-Vaccine, Anti-Abortion Pseudoscience
- Those Health Centers the GOP Wants to Replace Planned Parenthood? Some Deny Contraception, Citing Religion
Explore Our Topics
What the Arizona attorney general’s anti-choice-expert-witness fishing episode highlights is that, for many of these so-called expert witnesses, their ideology outweighs their expertise when it comes to the fundamental scientific questions that many abortion-related policies raise.
Two California doctors who oppose abortion, Dr. George Delgado and Dr. Mary Davenport, published anecdotes about a handful of women who attempted to “reverse” their abortions. Within a few short years, states began passing laws based on these anecdotes.
Alexander Acosta's comments stand in sharp contrast to the president's statements on wage discrimination and equal pay.