Pro-abortion study fails to disclose advisor's connections to ‘reproductive rights’ group

(The College Fix) An academic paper that suggests abortion restrictions are leading to an increased use of social services does not disclose that an advisor to the author is a paid consultant for a “reproductive rights” group.

More mouths to feed?

University of Kansas graduate student Lilly Springer argues in a recent Economic Inquiry paper that “total abortion bans” are leading more women to sign up for nutritional programs, oftentimes referred to as food stamps. 

She wrote an increase in participants could lead to a waiting list for other impoverished citizens. This is a consequence of protecting preborn babies from being killed, Springer said.

But while the graduate student said there are no conflicts of interest, she also thanked her advisor, Daniel Dench. He is a paid consultant to the Center for Reproductive Rights, which advocates for the legality of killing preborn babies through all nine months of pregnancy.

The Fix reached out to Springer twice in the past week via email, regarding her research and her failure to disclose her connection to Dench, but she did not respond. Dench, a professor at Georgia Tech, also did not respond to three emailed requests for comment in the same time frame.

The editor of Economic Inquiry said authors are only required to self-certify there are no conflicts of interest.

“When authors submit a paper, it is their work and they are the ones responsible for it.” Tim Salmon Salmon told The Fix via email. “At submission, authors are expected to disclose any conflicts.”

Speaking specifically about Springer’s paper, Salmon said “the author indicated that there was no outside funding for the research and no conflicts of interest. The declarations made by the authors are taken seriously and authors should be expected to disclose.”

“If an author is found to have not fully disclosed, a paper could be retracted,” Salmon told The Fix.

He said authors must also submit data so others can attempt to replicate the results.

Academic "double standard"?

A well-published social scientist said that there is a “double standard” in academic journals when it comes to disclosure. 

Professor Michael New mentioned that he had previously been criticized for not disclosing his affiliation with the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute in a peer-reviewed journal, even though he was not receiving compensation from the think tank at the time.

“[R]esearchers who are affiliated with Guttmacher, ANSIRH (Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health), and other organizations that support legal abortion often do not mention potential conflicts of interest in their studies,” the Catholic University of America professor told The Fix.

Still, New says this study is beneficial because it shows “pro-life laws save lives.”

“If births increase after a strong pro-life law takes effect, that is powerful evidence that the pro-life law is preventing abortions and saving lives,” he wrote.

The academic paper looks at data from 2017-23, covering the period before and after the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

“Total abortion bans,” she writes, “had a small but meaningful impact on monthly birth rates,” which lead to a “downstream effect” on participation in food assistance programs.

She calculated an increased cost of $6.9 million due to the babies being saved from abortion.

However, she said that more data is needed, since her study only included one full year of abortion prohibitions being in effect.