Select Page

Said to contain “major quotation and interpretive errors that … invalidate the conclusions in the article.”

Over the past five years, Dr. Sharon Quick, a member of the American Society of Anesthesiologists and retired Clinical Assistant Professor from the Washington School of Medicine, has analyzed all of the major scientific literature that was used in the 2002 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Technical Report on Same-Sex “Marriage” Adoptions.

The final report was printed in the highly influential Pediatrics journal and concludes by supporting the adoption of children by homosexual and lesbian couples.

In an Iowa court-case in late May, Dr. Quick gave her official testimony that the Technical Report “contains major quotation and interpretive errors that, irrespective of the quality of the studies cited, invalidate the conclusions in the article.”

Many medical societies trust the accuracy of the AAP’s investigations and base their policies upon its reports.

The report influenced the American Medical association, for example, to support the adoption of children by same-sex parents.

The Report was also used as evidence in the Massachusetts legal battle over same-sex union and in United States Supreme Court cases as well.

Dr. Sharon Quick discovered that the report inaccurately references an unprecedented 57 percent (57%) of its scientific literature.

The list of grossly mis-gathered and misrepresented information reveals the bias and inaccuracy in the Technical Report.

These errors spread through a Policy Statement (2002) and Special Article entitled, “The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-Being of Children,” (2006) both printed in Pediatrics.

The Special Article drew its information and conclusion almost entirely from the Technical report and so heaped inaccuracy upon inaccuracy.

The Article stated, for example, “Lesbian mothers strongly endorse child-centered attitudes and commitment to their maternal roles.”

The original studies, however, did not specifically focus on lesbian maternal roles.

The Report also ignores some of M. Kirkpatrick’s original data (1987) which records a Lesbian mother calling her partner’s son a “macho creep”.

Of 63 studies, 45 groups used volunteers for their samples.

Much of the research was prone to participant, interviewer and researcher bias.

For example, in some cases, participants were interviewed by lesbians or by researchers who supported same-sex unions.

In the case of Golombok et al (2003), the researchers were short of lesbian mothers for their investigation, so the researchers approached lesbian friends and acquaintances all from the same location and asked them to fill up the same space.

Some primary researchers stated that their finding may not be conclusive, but secondary sources such as the TR have selectively reported these findings as indisputable fact.

Some background studies were funded by the Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, the Equity Foundation’s Lesbian Project and other pro-homosexual organizations.

Other cases did not take into account extraneous variables or the condition of the homosexual home from which the sample children were taken. In several cases, children from single-parent homes were representatives for norms within heterosexual families.

These results are inconclusive, however, because they may be “actually dependent on the father’s absence or presence rather than on the mother’s sexual orientation.”

Many studies investigated very small samples of young children (between 5 and 85 per group) while some of the studies used overlapping or duplicate samples.

The majority of the studies did not investigate the harmful, long-term effects of coming from a same-sex marriage household.

Other flaws included broad generalizations, vague definitions, conflicting data, poor classifications of homosexual feelings and relationships and weak use of statistics by relying more on description.

Dr. Quick concludes, “The AAP’s standard for evidence-based medicine in a technical report is violated by the extent of the misrepresentation of the data, unsupported or misleading statements, and failure to report conflicting evidence contained within the report’s own references…the conclusions of the report cannot be trusted and should not be used to define policy.”

See the entire analysis by Dr. Quick (39 page pdf document)


Swedish Judge Forbids Lesbian from Adopting Partner’s Child

Arkansas High Court Favours Gay Foster Parents

A Further Betrayal of Children

Same-Sex Parenting is Harmful to Children Says REAL Women of Canada

The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage



[1 June 07, Iowa, Elizabeth O’Brien,]