“[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
- How a Falsehood Becomes a Law: Abortion Reversal as Case Study
- Exclusive: Why Did Mike Pence Fight So Hard to Keep This White Paper Secret?
- 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.
"It's our stance that this report appears to be a weekly attempt to shame jurisdictions that are refusing to break the law on ICE’s behalf. Asking us to hold people longer than we should is unconstitutional," said Chris Barringer, the chief of staff for Washington's King County Sheriff's Office.