Diana Greene Foster, the pro-abortion researcher behind the much-touted (yet heavily debunked) Turnaway Study, has been chosen for a 2023 MacArthur Fellowship, along with a no-strings-attached $800,000 “Genius Grant,” which is awarded to people who have “shown extraordinary creativity and dedication in their fields.”
Foster is a University of California San Francisco (UCSF) professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences, as well as a professor and researcher at the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) program. Currently, she is studying the “health and economic consequences” of the end of Roe v. Wade — but judging by her past work, as well as the organizations she works for — her research is bound to be biased in favor of abortion. And with an $800,000 grant, she will surely be even more capable of creating and spreading pro-abortion propaganda.
In the press release announcing her fellowship, the MacArthur Foundation specifically noted the Turnaway Study as among Foster’s best-known work. “She is filling a void in our understanding of how reproductive health policies impact an individual’s physical, mental, and socioeconomic well-being,” the press release said, adding, “Her innovative design overcomes the limitations of similar studies that compared women who received an abortion to women who gave birth, regardless of whether the pregnancy was wanted or if the woman had sought an abortion.”
But what, exactly, was so “innovative” about a highly flawed study?
ANSIRH released the study in 2008, with 877 women hand-selected by 30 abortion facilities across the country to participate. The women were then given phone interviews every six months, over a five-year period. One-quarter of the women turned away had an abortion in another state — something not acknowledged by the study; additionally, no distinctions were made between women who had undergone multiple abortions, and women who had undergone just one abortion. There was also no comparison whatsoever made to women with an unexpected pregnancy who did not seek out abortion at all, but made the decision to parent from the beginning.
Thousands of women were recruited to participate, but only 27% agreed. By the fifth year, only 17% of the original study group remained. The women least likely to continue participating were those who had negative abortion experiences — meaning women who said they had positive experiences were most likely to continue with the study, heavily skewing the results and making them unreliable.
What’s more, the people behind the study had a clear bias.
Foster sits on the board of the Later Abortion Initiative, which promotes access to abortions very late in pregnancy (late second and third trimester, keeping in mind that premature babies have survived as young as 21 weeks). She has also testified before Congress to call for all restrictions against abortion to be wiped out. Foster is also the director of the UCSF Bixby Center for Reproductive Health, which trains future abortionists.
Another Turnaway Study author, Daniel Grossman, is the current director of ANSIRH. He is an abortionist and former board member of NARAL Pro-Choice America (now known as “Reproductive Freedom for All”) and the National Abortion Federation, and currently serves on California’s Future of Abortion Council. The study was funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the William-Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the Gerbode Foundation — all three of which invested in Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of the abortion pill.
The Turnaway Study was not an objective look into how abortion affects women; it was an effort by a group of abortion activists looking to make a pro-abortion statement.
Foster herself has seemingly acknowledged the glaring issues with the Turnaway Study, and has done this by arguing that only some emotions regarding abortion matter: Those who support abortion and found it to be a positive experience should count; those who had negative experiences should be ignored.
In an article for the New York Times, Ross Douthat pointed out that — according to the Turnaway Study itself — women did not experience long-term psychological distress after being denied an abortion. In the study, the authors wrote (emphasis added):
Once the pregnancy was announced, the baby born, and the unknown fears and expectations realized or overcome, the trajectory of mental health symptoms seems to return to what it would have been if the woman had received an abortion. I admit I was surprised about this finding. I expected that raising a child one wasn’t planning to have might be associated with depression or anxiety. But this is not what we found over the long run. Carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term was not associated with mental health harm.
Indeed, by the end of the five-year period, women who did not receive abortions saw no economic differences compared to women who did have abortions, and no longer wished they had undergone the abortion. Yet Foster, in an angry follow-up to Douthat’s column, did not appreciate this aspect of her pro-abortion study being pointed out.
“As Mr. Douthat notes, we found that most women denied abortions eventually reconcile themselves to parenting,” she wrote in a letter to the editor. “But Mr. Douthat glosses over the most important findings from the study.”
In her own study, the data made it clear. Six months after giving birth, just one in eight women (12.5%) said they still wished they had been able to have an abortion; after five years, only one in 25 (4%) did. Most of the women who had a child said they were happy with their baby — which could have just as easily been marketed that 96% of women didn’t regret giving birth. Instead, Foster insinuates that the “most important findings” of her study those that paint abortion as a force for social good, and as a necessity. What makes certain findings more important than others? (Is it how well they prop up the agenda of the abortion industry?)
Foster also has previously argued that preborn children who survive an abortion attempt should be left to die. During Senate Judiciary Hearings in 2016, Foster argued over a bill that would protect abortion survivors and require that they receive medical care:
“Just to be clear,” said Vitter. “Nobody disagrees that a child born alive should get all available medical care for survival?”
“I do disagree,” Foster replied. “I can imagine situations where the doctors and nurses have decided that there’s not a point in medical intervention. And by whisking the baby away [to attempt treatment], you’ve taken away a woman’s chance to hold her child and say goodbye.”
“Okay, so if there is care available towards survival, you think that in some cases that care should be denied?” Vitter asked.
“I think that the law says that all– that the child has to be taken away and receive medical care if there are signs of life – which doesn’t allow for the physician or nurse, or more importantly the wishes of the family, to say that they don’t think that care is going to help in this case and that they want to be able to hold their child,” Foster said.
“And if the care could lead to survival, do you think that should be able to be denied?” Vitter asked again.
“I think that doctors and nurses and women themselves know best whether care would lead to survival,” Foster concluded. “This bill doesn’t allow that judgment to be made.”
Though abortion survivors are regularly derided as a myth, they are real. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has revealed that, over the course of 12 years, over 100 newborns were reported to have survived for at least a short time after abortions. A recent Minnesota abortion report also revealed that five children were born alive during abortions in that state in 2021 alone. All five of those children were left to die. (Not long after, Minnesota decided it will no longer report incidences of abortion survival.) Yet another report found that over 100 babies were born alive following abortions in five states over approximately 10 years.
The abortion industry even has a name for abortion survival: the “dreaded complication.” And as Foster said, her preference is for no medical care to be required for abortion survivors.
An $800,000 grant can do an enormous amount of good in the world. Unfortunately, the pro-abortion MacArthur Fellowship has chosen to make a pro-abortion extremist the recipient of this incredible grant, which will only serve to further spread abortion industry lies and propaganda.
