Ingrid Skop, M.D., FACOGVice President and Director of Medical Affairs
Ingrid Skop, M.D., FACOG, is Vice President and Director of Medical Affairs for Charlotte Lozier Institute, leveraging more than 25 years’ experience as a practicing obstetrician-gynecologist to support research and policies that respect the dignity of every human life.
Dr. Skop received her Bachelor of Science in physiology from Oklahoma State University and her medical doctorate from Washington University School of Medicine. She completed her residency in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. Dr. Skop is a Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, where she uses science and statistics to counter pro-abortion agendas, and is a lifetime member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Prior to joining Charlotte Lozier Institute, Dr. Skop served for over 25 years in private practice in San Antonio, where she delivered more than 5,000 babies and personally cared for many women who had been harmed, physically and emotionally, from complications due to abortion. She has served as board member and medical director for pregnancy resource centers in San Antonio, Austin, and Houston.
Dr. Skop’s research on maternal mortality, abortion, and women’s health has been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals. Additionally, she has provided expert testimony at both the state and federal levels on legislation related to abortion, including standing firm against prominent pro-abortion politicians who choose not to follow the science regarding fetal heartbeat and development.
Dr. Skop is married to a physician and is the proud mother of two sons and a daughter.
Fact Sheet: Medical Indications for Separating a Mother and Her Unborn Child
There are humane medical interventions that aim for both mother and her unborn child to live when possible and do not inflict direct violence on the unborn child.
No-Test Chemical Abortion Provision: Can it be Justified?
Many undocumented assumptions have been made to portray unsupervised, “self-managed” medical abortion as safe. These erroneous conclusions will, in fact, cause the procedure to become more dangerous for a woman seeking abortion, and will be addressed below.
The Evolution of “Self-Managed” Abortion: Does the Safety of Women Seeking Abortion Even Matter Anymore?
A particularly malignant form of “misinformation” is being spread to women today. Flawed information regarding “self-managed” abortion has the potential to seriously injure the women I care for as an obstetrician/gynecologist.
Overlooked Dangers of Mifepristone, the FDA’s Reduced REMS, and Self-Managed Abortion Policies: Unwanted Abortions, Unnecessary Abortions, Unsafe Abortions
The failure of abortion providers to support and undertake prospective longitudinal studies of a nationally representative sample of women contributes to our belief that the ideological biases of abortion providers have led to a combination of disinterest, willful ignorance, or even a conspiracy to hide the widespread dangers of unwanted and contraindicated abortions.
A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Emergency Room Utilization Following Mifepristone Chemical and Surgical Abortions, 1999–2015
Existing research on postabortion emergency room visits is sparse and limited by methods which underestimate the incidence of adverse events following abortion. Postabortion emergency room (ER) use since Food and Drug Administration approval of chemical abortion in 2000 can identify trends in the relative morbidity burden of chemical versus surgical procedures.
Estimating the Period Prevalence of Mothers Who Have Abortions: A Population Based Study of Inclusive Pregnancy Outcomes
The prevalence of induced abortion among women with children has been estimated indirectly by projections derived from survey research. However, an empirically derived, population-based conclusion on this question is absent from the published literature.
The “No-Test Medication Abortion” Protocol: Experimenting with Women’s Health
A trend of mounting concern is occurring in abortion provision. When elective induced abortion was legalized in the United States in 1973, one oft-cited motivation was to improve abortion’s safety, as it was frequently claimed that many women were injured and sometimes died from illegal abortions. Recently, abortion advocates have changed their strategy. Whereas once they claimed they wanted abortion to be “safe, legal and rare,” now they favor immediate access and convenience to abortion for all women experiencing unintended pregnancies, regardless of whether it might be more dangerous for a woman, or whether the law prohibits it. Thus, they have begun encouraging women to seek more dangerous, “self-managed” abortions.
Improving the Metrics and Data Reporting for Maternal Mortality: A Challenge to Public Health Surveillance and Effective Prevention
The current measuring metric and reporting methods for assessing maternal mortality are seriously flawed. Evidence-based prevention strategies require consistently reported surveillance data and validated measurement metrics.
Doctors Who Perform Abortions: Their Characteristics and Patterns of Holding and Using Hospital Privileges
Controversy exists regarding whether doctors who perform abortions should be required to hold hospital admitting privileges, but no research exists as to the extent to which they actually hold and use such privileges.