Ingrid Skop, M.D., FACOG

After a JAMA Pediatrics research letter identified notable national increases in infant mortality following the Dobbs decision, pro-abortion media were quick to blame pro-life laws. The reaction mirrored the response to a JAMA Pediatrics article from June reporting that infant deaths rose 12.7 percent above expectation in Texas following the implementation of its Heartbeat Act.

Last week, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) called for states to repeal pro-life laws because they “are preventing ob-gyns and other clinicians from providing health care to their patients.” ACOG specifically condemned “attempts to misuse examples of tragic deaths that result from abortion bans” by “groups aiming to advance their harmful anti-abortion political agenda.” As a board-certified OB-GYN who practices in Texas, a state with a pro-life law, I’m appalled at these claims.

Charlotte Lozier Institute Vice President and Director of Medical Affairs Dr. Ingrid Skop is calling out the "fearmongering" and "lies" of the media that are hurting women who don’t understand new abortion laws. A recent piece from ProPublica blamed the deaths of two Georgia women, Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller, following chemically induced abortions in 2022, on the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the state’s new abortion limits. 

A left-leaning media outlet recently publicized the heartbreaking stories of two Georgia women who died following failed abortions. Amber Thurman, 28 years old and nine weeks pregnant with twins, was given abortion drugs at a facility in North Carolina after she ran late for a surgical abortion appointment. Similarly, 41-year-old Candi Miller had multiple medical conditions including lupus that can make pregnancy risky; instead of going to a doctor, she ordered abortion drugs online. In both cases, the drugs failed to clear the uterus of tissue, which can lead to severe infection.

While many abortion centers only perform abortions in early pregnancy, there are several abortion centers that advertise abortions in the third trimester for any reason. Although media coverage tends to focus on third trimester abortions performed because the unborn baby has a serious health condition or a threat exists to the mother’s life, research shows that many third trimester abortions are performed for the same reasons unrelated to serious maternal or fetal health concerns as earlier abortions

Dr. Ingrid Skop, vice president and director of medical affairs at Charlotte Lozier Institute, told Fox News Digital that "intentional media misinformation" about Texas pro-life laws initially left many physicians confused and fearful, but that the situation has improved after the Texas Medical Board and the Texas Supreme Court issued guidance to physicians, reassuring them that they may use their "reasonable medical judgment" to determine when to intervene, and the risk of maternal death does not need to be "imminent." 

Articles highlighting poor quality medical care in pro-life states have raised concerns that state laws are preventing pregnant women from obtaining necessary emergency care. However, all pro-life state laws allow doctors to treat women with pregnancy emergencies, no law requires “imminence” before a doctor can intervene, and every pro-life state permits doctors to treat women suffering from miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies. Doctors who fail to provide patients with necessary emergency treatment therefore may be committing malpractice.

Post-Dobbs, pro-life states’ efforts to protect life have been met with pushback, including widespread claims that the laws are contributing to hospital closures and driving doctors away. A close look at the data shows that these claims are unjustified. Pro-life states continue to train medical students, recruit future doctors, and position themselves for further growth.

Consistent with national trends for ED visits, both the number and acuity of ED visits following pregnancy outcomes are increasing. ED visit acuity following chemical abortion is persistently and significantly higher than for surgical abortion or live birth.

While both induced abortion and natural pregnancy loss have been associated with subsequent mental health problems, population-based studies directly comparing these two pregnancy outcomes are rare. This study compared mental health morbidity after an induced abortion to natural loss. Only the abortion cohort experienced significant increases in mental health services use following the first pregnancy outcome.