Idaho lawsuit continues with antiabortion physicians' testimony

Controversial Dr. Ingrid Skop highlights the state’s defense of the abortion ban.

A lawsuit over Idaho’s abortion ban continued this week. Today’s witnesses included several antiabortion physicians who testified in support of the ban that is in place in the state. Among them was Dr. Ingrid Skop, who has testified in Congress and has called for doctors to perform C-sections in cases where abortions must happen. 

Previously, other physicians had testified with the view that abortion bans hurt their ability to care for patients. They had said, among other things, that they had to interpret the abortion laws before making medical decisions on their pregnancy. The procedure's legality was as important to them as the patient's welfare, which they said shouldn’t happen because of their ethical obligation to put a patient’s health above all else. 

Skop, vice president and director of medical affairs for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, argued that the fetus’ well-being mattered as much as the woman’s health. She testified to the supposed dangers of abortion insofar as the likelihood of death, mental duress, and domestic violence. It’s important to know that many, if not most, scientific studies have disputed those assertions. 

Leah Godesky, lawyer for the plaintiffs, cross-examined Skop. She asked him whether she views abortions as women’s health care, which Skop said wasn’t. Skop testified that she doesn’t think there is ever a benefit to elective abortions. Skop said abortion should only happen in life-threatening circumstances. 

Godesky asked about the reliability of her research, including how meticulous Skop’s citations were and the bias of the organizations for which she worked and publications to which she contributed. One of her collaborators is Dr. Callum Miller, who has spoken about abortion colonialism, which is the belief that Western countries pressure poorer ones to legalize abortions. 

Another researcher she worked with was James Studnicki, whose published research was retracted by Sage Publications. Skop has also had her work retracted. Godesky also pointed out in her cross-examination that much of the published research had been funded by the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Godesky asked several times about conflicts of interest, which Skop denied.

More from Wyoming

I spoke with a director of an abortion fund in Wyoming who further elaborated on the importance of the recent victory in a district court that prevented two bans from going into effect. 

Christine Lichtenfels, who is the leader of Chelsea’s Fund, which provides financial support to women who live in Wyoming and who come there for abortions, told me that it will also help women in Idaho and the Dakotas. 

“They've got full bans going on both those states, and so we're just trying to make sure people understand that abortion is legal in the state, that they can access it, that money should not be the barrier,” she said. “We're there to support them, and we're also increasingly providing some contraception, some assistance for long-acting, reversible contraception.” 

Politically speaking, the victory could be threatened by many newcomers to the Wyoming legislature who don’t have the same libertarian streak that Republicans there have typically had about government intrusion on individuals' freedoms. 

“Certain sectors of those politicians seem to want to drive this cultural divide and try to split Wyoming on that,” LIchtenfels said. ‘So there's an ongoing challenge to make sure what happens in the legislature reflects what the people actually want.”