Summer break did not stop scholars from airing pro-abortion messages

Just because school is out does not mean that academics take time off for airing their progressive views. 

On June 28, just two days after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the American Mathematical Society (AMS) released a statement endorsing abortion rights.

According to the statement, “Curtailing the right to abortion, and creating barriers to reproductive services generally, directly affect the ability of women to advance their education and participate fully in the research ecosystem and the STEM workforce.”

“The negative educational and economic impact of denying women access to safe abortions is sweeping and profound,” it continues.

The AMS proceeds to argue that abortion is “an important part of good health care,” that women who get abortions can attain higher academic achievement than those who choose to keep their child.

[RELATED: CU professor says ‘staying pregnant is more dangerous...than having an abortion’]

Despite this pro-abortion political platform, the AMS, according to its official mission statement, was founded to promote “mathematical research,” “the transmission of mathematical understanding and skills,” and “support [for] mathematical education.”

When asked how support for abortion aligns with the AMS’s politically-neutral mission statement, a representative of the organization told Campus Reform, “The AMS Office of Government Relations supports and advises the mathematics community about federal government actions and opportunities. That mission includes providing information for AMS members and members of the entire mathematical community who may be motivated to engage with policymakers.”

The representative continued, “The [official statement] provides evidence that curtailing the right to abortion, and creating barriers to reproductive services generally, directly negatively affects the ability of women to get advanced education and participate fully in the research ecosystem.”

Despite officially endorsing abortion rights and touting the benefits of abortion over motherhood for academic success in their June 28 statement, the AMS representative told Campus Reform that “[t]he American Mathematical Society does not promote or encourage abortion for women pursuing higher-level education.”

[RELATED: Theology professor claims that the Bible is neutral towards abortion]

The AMS is not the only ostensibly neutral scientific organization that has come out in favor of abortion rights.

On July 1, for example, the website of the top academic journal Science published an article by editor Katie Langin framing the overturning of Roe as a problem for scientific research and equity. All interviewees were pro-abortion; none were pro-life.

“Many scientists decried the decision as a potentially deadly violation of human rights,” Langin writes.

Despite the absence of any pro-life perspective in Langin’s piece, Meagan Phelan, Science Press Package Executive Director, told Campus Reform that a “variety of perspectives” were included in her article. 

Science’s website has only included coverage of the overturning of Roe sympathetic to the pro-abortion position, and hostile to the pro-life position.

Phelan also said that “[t]he comments in the article reflect the community’s views about the issue and are not statements issued by AAAS [the umbrella organization for Science].”

[RELATED: COOK: Philosophy scholars are wrong about abortion]

Similarly, Nature, an equally prominent international scientific journal, published a June 24 article on their website warning of “years of studies point[ing] to the negative economic and health effects of restricting access to abortions.”

Only pro-abortion arguments and quotes were used in the article; no pro-life perspective was included.

The Nature article also included a footnote to clarify its use of the word “Woman” in the context of abortion:

“Nature recognizes that transgender men and non-binary people might become pregnant and seek abortion care. We use ‘women’ in this story to reflect how participants are reported in the studies we cite.”

Campus Reform reached out Nature but did not receive a response at the time of publication. This article will be updated accordingly.