Testimony continued for a 5th day in an Ada County courtroom, where legal and medical experts debated the implications of Idaho's abortion bans. The plaintiffs, seeking changes to state law, rested their case, while the state called witnesses including Dr. Ingrid Skop, a pro-life advocate, who argued that abortion is rarely necessary to save a woman's life. Cross-examination focused on Dr. Skops affiliations with anti-abortion organizations and her stance on when life begins. The case highlights ongoing disagreements over the clarity and impact of Idaho's abortion laws.(The following is a transcription of the full broadcast story.)On Wednesday morning, the plaintiffs seeking changes to Idaho's abortion laws rested their case.The state then called witnesses to the stand, including Dr. Ingrid Skop, Vice President and Director of Medical Affairs for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a pro-life think tank. Dr. Skop testified about common pregnancy complications and their treatments, addressing claims about the necessity of abortion to save a womans life."Its very rare to need to perform an abortion to protect a womans life. I would note that since the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade and many states implemented abortion limitations, every state has an exception for an abortion to save a womans life," said Dr. Skop.Day five also included testimony from other Idaho doctors who disagreed with the plaintiffs' witnesses, who had testified that current Idaho abortion laws are confusing.Despite these additional accounts being entered into the record, it remains unclear whether the judge will consider them in his decision.Dr. Skop also addressed critics who argue that Idahos Defense of Life Act creates confusion for physicians. She referenced a 2023 Idaho Supreme Court decision: "The Supreme Court clarified that. They said imminency is not required; you dont have to wait until a woman is dying. They said certainty is not required. Doctors are smart enough to figure out legal terms like this," she stated.During cross-examination, attorneys pressed Dr. Skop on her affiliations with anti-abortion organizations and her personal beliefs about life beginning at fertilization."Your view is that a pregnancy should never be terminated unless a patient has a life-threatening diagnosis, right?" asked the Plaintiffs lawyer."The unborn human is living, and I believe, as probably many people do, that we should not end human life for elective, non-urgent reasons," she replied.The plaintiffs also sought to discredit Dr. Skops testimony by pointing to past issues with plagiarized research and litigation involving her and her associates regarding redacted pro-life articles.