Trump administration has cut $538,719 in federal funding for abortion-related research at the University of California-San Francisco, igniting controversy between pro-life advocates and abortion researchers.
At a Glance
- The Trump administration terminated funding for a follow-up to the controversial Turnaway Study that claimed most women don’t regret abortions
- Researcher Diana Greene Foster intended to study how state abortion bans impact emergency healthcare delivery
- The canceled grant had already disbursed $126,042.69 of the planned $538,719
- Critics like Professor Priscilla Coleman cited methodological flaws in the original study, including small sample size and potential bias
- Researchers are now seeking private donations to replace the federal funding
Federal Funding Terminated for Abortion-Related Research
The Trump administration has canceled a significant federal grant to the University of California-San Francisco (UCSF) for abortion-related research, sparking outrage among reproductive rights activists. The terminated funding amounted to $538,719, with $126,042.69 already spent before the cancellation. This move aligns with broader administration efforts to redirect taxpayer dollars away from controversial research initiatives and activities that have been criticized by conservative policy advocates.
This cut specifically targeted a follow-up project to the widely-cited but controversial “Turnaway Study” conducted by UCSF’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) program. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) justified the decision by stating that research based on gender identity often lacks scientific merit and fails to provide adequate return on investment for taxpayers—a rationale that has been met with both support and criticism from different segments of the medical community.
— Roleigh Martin (@RoleighMartin) March 16, 2025
The Controversial Turnaway Study and Its Planned Expansion
The original Turnaway Study claimed to demonstrate that most women do not regret their abortions and suggested that women denied abortions face significant health and financial challenges. Dr. Diana Greene Foster, the lead researcher behind both the original study and its now-defunded follow-up, had planned to investigate the impact of state abortion restrictions on emergency healthcare delivery through physician surveys and interviews across the country.
“Our study would rigorously examine how state abortion bans — with and without health exceptions — affect treatment of medical emergencies, like preterm, pre-labor rupture of membranes, preeclampsia and ectopic pregnancy, through surveys and interviews with physicians in emergency departments across the U.S.”, researcher Diana Greene Foster reported.
Foster had anticipated receiving approximately $2.5 million over five years for this research. Following the funding cancellation, she and her team have pivoted to seeking private donations to continue their work, framing the administration’s decision as politically motivated rather than scientifically justified. Foster has expressed concern that the funding cut will impede research into healthcare access for vulnerable populations.
Methodological Criticisms and Broader Budget Implications
The original Turnaway Study has faced substantial methodological criticism from researchers like Professor Priscilla Coleman, who highlighted concerns about its small sample size and potential selection bias. According to Coleman, the final sample of 516 participants represented only 0.32% of the total abortions performed at the participating facilities during the study period, raising questions about the generalizability of its findings.
“The final sample of 516 participants amounts to a miniscule 0.32% of the total abortions performed at the 29 facilities over three years if the high end 162,000 figure for the population is used.”, noted Professor Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University’s College of Education & Human Development.
This funding termination appears to be part of a broader budgetary strategy. The Trump administration’s 2026 budget proposal includes a 26% reduction in the Department of Health and Human Services’ discretionary spending. While these cuts do not affect major health coverage programs like Medicare and Medicaid, they do target research initiatives that the administration has characterized as duplicative, ideologically driven, or better managed at the state level.
Administration’s Broader Strategy on Health Research Funding
The decision to cancel this specific grant reflects a larger pattern of the Trump administration redirecting federal resources away from certain types of health research. Critics argue that these cuts disproportionately target research related to reproductive health, gender, and other areas that align with progressive priorities. Supporters counter that the administration is simply ensuring taxpayer funds are directed toward research with clearer scientific merit and broader public benefits.
“It is very likely that certain types of people are less likely to be able to get a wanted abortion. And I think that includes people who experience pregnancy complications and are too sick to travel across state lines.”, Foster concluded.
Interestingly, some of the programs now facing cuts had previously received support during Trump’s first administration and under past Republican administrations, suggesting a shift in priorities. The administration’s budget document defends these reductions as necessary steps to reduce federal spending while focusing resources on what it views as core government functions rather than specialized research initiatives that could potentially be funded through private or state-level sources.
