Business
Column: Two key antiabortion studies have been retracted as junk science. Will the Supreme Court care?
If the effort to ban medication abortion now before the Supreme Court demonstrates anything, it’s that the damage caused in our society by junk science can be disastrous indeed.
That’s the implication of the retraction of two scientific studies, announced Monday by the journal publisher Sage. The studies provided the purported rationale for a Texas federal judge’s ruling overturning the approval of the abortion drugs by the Food and Drug Administration.
It’s impossible to overstate the potential ramifications of the ruling issued April 7 by federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Amarillo, Texas, which invalidated FDA approvals of the drug mifepristone dating back to 2000.
Experts identified…unjustified or incorrect factual assumptions, material errors in the authors’ analysis of the data, and misleading presentations of the data that…demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor and invalidate the authors’ conclusions in whole or in part.
— Retraction notice of research on mifepristone
Kacsmaryk’s ruling was the basis for an outstandingly loopy decision by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 19, which narrowed his ruling somewhat but not entirely. The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments on the case for March 26.
The worst-case scenario is that the Supreme Court will follow Kacsmaryk in revoking the FDA’s approval. That would block access to what has become the most common abortion method in the U.S. Providers would have to shift to other medications that are not as effective as mifepristone.
The court could also narrow the reach of the FDA’s actions in 2000, when it declared mifepristone safe and effective, and in 2016 and 2021, when it allowed patients to order the drug online and receive it by mail or from pharmacies rather than at doctors’ offices.
The court could restore previous rules limiting the use of mifepristone to the first seven weeks of gestation instead of the current 10 weeks. It could require that it be administered only through a physician’s prescription and only directly by doctors.
The damage could go further. An expansive Supreme Court ruling could cripple the FDA’s authority to determine the safety and efficacy of drugs and subject its judgments to increasingly partisan challenges. It could bring an antique, long-disregarded 150-year-old antipornography law to legal prominence.
Let’s start at the beginning, with Kacsmaryk’s 2023 ruling. As I’ve reported in the past, Kacsmaryk’s jurisprudence has been a blot on the judicial system since he joined the court in 2019 as a Trump appointee. Kacsmaryk is the only federal judge in the Amarillo district of the federal court in the Northern District of Texas.
That has made his courthouse a favored venue for right-wing litigants. A former functionary of a conservative Christian legal group, he has been a dependable foe of efforts to protect LGBTQ+ legal rights and access to contraceptives.
His record made him the ideal judge for a coalition of antiabortion groups including the American Assn. of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynrecologists and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations waging an attack on medication abortion.
Kacsmaryk’s April 7 ruling bristled with antiabortion terminology such as the terms “unborn human” and “unborn child”; abortion providers were labeled “abortionists.” By contrast, a ruling protecting access to mifepristone issued the same day by federal Judge Thomas Owens Rice of Washington state, an Obama appointee, used neutral language, such as a reference to “institutions and providers who provide abortion care.”
Kacsmaryk accepted common talking points of the antiabortion movement as legal conclusions. He cited the Comstock Act, an antipornography law enacted in 1873, no fewer than 29 times. He accepted as read the antiabortion movement’s contention that it barred the shipment of mifepristone through the U.S. mail, even though federal courts had rejected that interpretation for more than 100 years.
He questioned the FDA’s judgment that the drug was safe and effective, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The core of Kacsmaryk’s findings questioning the FDA’s approval of the drug came from two studies led by James Studnicki, director of data analytics at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which says in the mission statement on its website that it “advises and leads the pro-life movement with groundbreaking scientific, statistical, and medical research.”
Among the institute’s principal aims is “to warn women about the dangers of chemical abortion and expose the harms of the FDA’s current abortion pill policy that simply ignores the known risks.”
Kacsmaryk cited the Studnicki papers to endorse the plaintiff organizations’ conclusions that adverse reactions to mifepristone could “overwhelm the medical system and place ‘enormous pressure and stress’” on doctors due to “significant complications requiring medical attention,” and that women taking the drug were reporting to emergency rooms at much greater rates than those who had undergone surgical abortions.
Sage’s retraction notice explodes those claims. The papers were published in 2021 and 2022 in Sage’s Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology journal. (A third Studnicki paper published in 2019 but not cited by Kacsmaryk was also retracted.)
Sage’s inquiry was triggered by Chris Adkins, a pharmaceutical sciences professor at South University School of Pharmacy in Savannah, Ga.
Among the flaws Adkins pointed to was that one study appeared to inflate claims about adverse reactions to the drug by failing to distinguish ER visits for routine complaints from those due to the drug. Nor did the Studnicki research factor in the increases in medication abortions starting in 2000 or the increase in Medicaid enrollments in the same period, which was a factor in the growth of medication abortions.
Sage said that in its pre-retraction review, “experts identified fundamental problems with the design … and methodology” of the questioned papers, as well as “unjustified or incorrect factual assumptions, material errors in the authors’ analysis of the data, and misleading presentations of the data that … demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor and invalidate the authors’ conclusions in whole or in part.”
Sage also noted that the papers declared that the authors had no conflicts of interest in researching and writing the papers. In fact, all but one of the authors of the studies Kacsmaryk cited were affiliated with the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the American Assn. of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or the Elliot Institute, which are antiabortion advocacy organizations. Although the authors had disclosed their affiliations, Sage reported, they had not acknowledged that these posed a conflict.
Studnicki objects to the retractions, responding that the action is “unjustified” and that his data are “accurately reported.”
Kacsmaryk’s ruling has caused immense confusion in the administration of mifepristone. The 5th Circuit appeals court overturned his rejection of the FDA’s original 2000 conclusion that mifepristone is safe and effective, but upheld his overturning of the FDA’s loosening of restrictions on the use of the drug issued in 2016 and 2021. It stayed injunctions on those uses until the Supreme Court rules, however.
The appeals court opinion featured one of the more curious flights of fancy by a federal judge — a separate opinion by Appellate Justice James C. Ho, another Trump appointee. He advocated overturning the 2000 FDA approval as well as the 2016 and 2021 revisions, on the grounds that abortions cause “aesthetic injury” to doctors forced to participate in the procedure, even if only by treating patients for adverse reactions.
“Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them,” Ho wrote. “Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients — and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted.”
The real injury that could arise from the Supreme Court’s consideration of mifepristone would be to the use of science to validate judicial opinions by substituting junk science for rigorous research.
More than 20 years of medical practice has established that the drug is safe and effective for its purpose — indeed, safer than many other drugs in common use in the U.S. Revoking its approval would be based on no scientific evidence at all, only on politics. And that won’t be good for anyone.
new video loaded: Why Your Paycheck Feels Smaller
By Ben Casselman, Nour Idriss, Sutton Raphael and Stephanie Swart
April 18, 2026
Nearly two years after actor Alec Baldwin was cleared of criminal charges in the “Rust” movie shooting death, a long simmering civil negligence case is inching toward a trial this fall.
On Friday, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied a summary judgment motion requested by the film producers Rust Movie Productions LLC, as well as actor-producer Baldwin and his firm El Dorado Pictures to dismiss the case.
During a hearing, Superior Court Judge Maurice Leiter set an Oct. 12 trial date.
The negligence suit was brought more than four years ago by Serge Svetnoy, who served as the chief lighting technician on the problem-plagued western film. Svetnoy was close friends with cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and held her in his arms as she lay dying on the floor of the New Mexico movie set. Baldwin’s firearm had discharged, launching a .45 caliber bullet, which struck and killed her.
The Bonanza Creek Ranch in Santa Fe, N.M. in 2021.
(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)
Svetnoy was the first crew member of the ill-fated western to bring a lawsuit against the producers, alleging they were negligent in Hutchins’ October 2021 death. He maintains he has suffered trauma in the years since. In addition to negligence, his lawsuit also accuses the producers of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Prosecutors dropped criminal charges against Baldwin, who has long maintained he was not responsible for Hutchins’ death.
“We are pleased with the Court’s decision denying the motions for summary judgment filed by Rust Movie Productions and Mr. Baldwin,” lawyers Gary Dordick and John Upton, who represent Svetnoy, said in a statement following the hearing. “He looks forward to finally having his day in court on this long-pending matter.”
The judge denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the negligence, emotional distress and punitive damages claims. One count directed at Baldwin, alleging assault, was dropped.
Svetnoy has said the bullet whizzed past his head and “narrowly missed him,” according to the gaffer’s suit.
Attorneys representing Baldwin and the producers were not immediately available for comment.
Svetnoy and Hutchins had been friends for more than five years and worked together on nine film productions. Both were immigrants from Ukraine, and they spent holidays together with their families.
On Oct. 21, 2021, he was helping prepare for an afternoon of filming in a wooden church on Bonanza Creek Ranch. Hutchins was conversing with Baldwin to set up a camera angle that Hutchins wanted to depict: a close-up image of the barrel of Baldwin’s revolver.
The day had been chaotic because Hutchins’ union camera crew had walked off the set to protest the lack of nearby housing and previous alleged safety violations with the firearms on the set.
Instead of postponing filming to resolve the labor dispute, producers pushed forward, crew members alleged.
New Mexico prosecutors prevailed in a criminal case against the armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, in March 2024. She served more than a year in a state women’s prison for her involuntary manslaughter conviction before being released last year.
Baldwin faced a similar charge, but the case against him unraveled spectacularly.
On the second day of his July 2024 trial, his criminal defense attorneys — Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro — presented evidence that prosecutors and sheriff’s deputies withheld evidence that may have helped his defense . The judge was furious, setting Baldwin free.
Variety first reported on Friday’s court action.
The highest gas prices in the country are making it tougher for some gig drivers to make a living.
Gas prices have shot up amid the war in the Middle East. On average, California gas prices are the most expensive in the United States, according to data from the American Automobile Assn. The average price of regular gas in California is almost $6. The national average is a little above $4.
While Uber and Lyft drivers have concocted clever ways to cut gas consumption, they say that without some relief they will be forced to leave the ride-hailing business.
John Mejia was already struggling to make money as a part-time Lyft driver when soaring gas prices made his side hustle even harder.
“Unfortunately, it’s the economics of paying less to drivers and gas prices,” he said. “It actually is pulling people out of the business.”
Guests at The Westin St. Francis hotel get into an Uber.
(Jess Lynn Goss / For The Times)
Gig work offers drivers the freedom to work for themselves and more flexibility, but being independent contractors also means they must shoulder unexpected costs.
Ride-sharing companies say they’re trying to help, but drivers say the gas relief comes with caveats. For now, drivers say they’re being pickier about what rides they accept, cutting hours and are looking at other ways to make money.
Mejia, who started driving for Lyft more than a decade ago, said in his early days, he would sometimes make $400 in three hours. Now it takes 12 hours to rake in $200.
The San Francisco Bay Area consultant is an active member of the California Gig Workers Union, so he knows he isn’t alone. California has more than 800,000 gig rideshare drivers, according to the group, which is affiliated with the Service Employees International Union.
On social media sites such as Reddit and Facebook, gig workers have posted about how the higher gas prices are eating into their earnings. Among the tricks they are suggesting: reducing the number of times the ignition is turned on or off, avoiding traffic, working in specific neighborhoods and at times with high demand and switching to electric vehicles.
Gig drivers usually have only seconds to decide whether to accept a ride on the app, but they have become more strategic about which rides and deliveries they accept.
That means they are more likely to sit back in their cars and wait for higher fares for quick pick-up and drop-off.
“I highly recommend the ‘decline and recline’ strategy, rejecting unprofitable rides until a better one appears,” wrote Sergio Avedian, a driver, in the popular blog the Rideshare Guy.
Pedestrians cross the street in front of a Lyft and Uber driver on Wednesday. High gas prices have made it hard for gig drivers to make a living, cutting into their profits.
(Jess Lynn Goss / For The Times)
Uber, Lyft and other companies have unveiled several ways to help drivers save on gas.
Uber said drivers can get up to 15% cash back through May 26 with the Uber Pro card, a business debit Mastercard for drivers and couriers. Based on a worker’s tier, they can get up to $1 off per gallon of gas through Upside — an app that offers cash rewards — and up to 21 cents off per gallon of gas with Shell Fuel Rewards. The company also offers incentives for drivers who want to switch to electric vehicles.
“We know the price of gas is top of mind for many rideshare and delivery drivers across the country right now,” Uber said in a blog post about its gas savings efforts.
Lyft also said it’s expanding gas relief through May 26 because the company knows that the extra cost “hits hardest for drivers who depend on driving for their income.”
The company is offering more cash back, depending on the driver’s tier, for drivers who use a Lyft Direct business debit card to pay for gas at eligible gas stations. They can get an additional 14 cents per gallon off through Upside.
Drivers say the fine print on the offers dictates which card they use and where they fill up gas, making it difficult for them to save money.
“If I do the math, it’s ridiculous,” Mejia said. “They’re offering us nothing.”
Uber declined to comment, but pointed to its blog post about the gas relief efforts. Lyft also referenced the blog post and said “the gas savings were structured through rewards to maximize stackable opportunities.”
Guests at The Westin St. Francis hotel get into an Uber.
(Jess Lynn Goss / For The Times)
Gig workers have struggled with rising gas prices in the past.
In 2022, Lyft and Uber temporarily added a surcharge to their fares amid record-high gas prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This year, Uber is adding a fuel charge to its fares in Australia for roughly two months to offset the high cost of gas for drivers. Lyft said it hasn’t added a fuel charge in the U.S. or elsewhere.
Margarita Penalosa, who drives full time for Uber and Lyft in Los Angeles, started as a rideshare driver in 2017. Back then, gas was cheaper. She would easily hit her goal of making $300 in eight hours. Now she’s making just $250 after working as much as 14 hours.
Gas prices, she said, used to be less than $3 per gallon. Now some gas stations are charging more than $8 per gallon.
“Take out the gas. Take out the mileage from my car and maintenance. How much [do] I really make? Probably I get $11 for an hour,” she said.
Jonathan Tipton Meyers wants to spend fewer hours as a rideshare driver.
He already juggles multiple gigs even while driving for Uber and Lyft in Los Angeles. He’s a mobile notary and loan signing agent, a writer and performer.
Driving is “a very challenging, full-time job,” he said. “It’s very taxing and, of course, wages were just continually decreasing.”
John Mejia, a longtime Lyft and Uber driver, poses for a portrait before attending a meeting about unionizing gig drivers.
(Jess Lynn Goss / For The Times)
Even if oil continues to flow through the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran reopened Friday, it could take a while for gas prices to come down to earth, said Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.
“There’s an old adage that prices rise like a rocket and fall like a feather,” he said. “I think that’ll apply.”
In the meantime, it will be survival of the fittest drivers. If enough of them decide to leave the apps, the ride-hailing companies could be forced to raise fares further to attract some back.
“Those who approach rideshare driving strategically, tracking expenses, choosing trips carefully, and optimizing efficiency are far more likely to weather periods of high gas prices,” wrote Avedian in the Rideshare Guy blog. “For everyone else, a spike at the pump can quickly turn rideshare driving from a side hustle into a money-losing venture.”
-
Utah11 seconds agoMultiple earthquakes detected near Kanosh
-
Vermont6 minutes agoWrong-way driver stopped on I-89, charged with DUI
-
Virginia12 minutes agoParachutist Slams into Jumbotron at Virginia Tech Spring Game
-
Wisconsin24 minutes agoUS animal rights activists clash with police over Wisconsin dog breeder
-
West Virginia30 minutes agoThe 2026 WVU Tommy Nickolich Award Goes to a Parkersburg Native
-
Wyoming36 minutes agoWyoming Gov. Mark Gordon won’t seek a third term. He won’t rule out running for other offices, either
-
Crypto42 minutes ago1 Cryptocurrency to Buy While It’s Under $80,000
-
Finance48 minutes agoBudget crisis is top concern for MPS leader Cassellius | Opinion