{"id":209339,"date":"2019-08-27T19:40:04","date_gmt":"2019-08-28T00:40:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=209339"},"modified":"2024-10-07T02:30:47","modified_gmt":"2024-10-07T07:30:47","slug":"scientific-american-pushes-unscientific-abortion-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/scientific-american-pushes-unscientific-abortion-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"Scientific American publishes unscientific ‘hit piece’ on pro-life movement"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Scientific American has published an unscientific hit piece<\/a> on the pro-life movement. Titled \u201cAbortion Bans Based on So-Called \u2018Science\u2019 Are Fraudulent,\u201d the authors claim that recent pro-life laws in states around the country \u201cfalsely use the language and authority of science to justify denying people their basic human rights and inflict lasting harm.\u201d The authors claim their critiques are rooted in science and evidence, but they contort the facts and issues at hand beyond recognition to serve their narrative. Here are some of the more wildly misleading claims.<\/p>\n

False Claim #1: Heartbeat laws are unscientific.<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

The authors claim that heartbeat laws are \u201cnot based on science,\u201d and that \u201cno heart yet exists in an embryo at six weeks.\u201d Yet rather than citing any research study or scientific analysis, the authors merely cite a piece<\/a> in a women\u2019s magazine called The Cut that says the fetal heartbeat is actually just \u201cpulsing.\u201d This piece, as Live Action News has shown<\/a>, is deeply problematic; it fails to define what a heartbeat is and fails to disclose that the three OBGYNs cited in the piece all have ties to pro-abortion groups and abortion training centers like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists<\/a> (ACOG<\/a>), Physicians for Reproductive Health<\/a>, and the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health<\/a>. Even more tellingly, The Cut\u2019s piece aligned with a prominent pro-abortion media narrative<\/a> this year which invented a term — \u201cembryonic pulsing<\/a>\u201d — in reaction to the success of pro-life heartbeat bills.<\/p>\n

The authors ignore actual scientific research, including an Oxford study that concluded a human baby\u2019s heart starts to beat in the womb as early as a mere 16-21 days<\/a> after conception. And The Endowment for Human Development\u2019s award-winning documentary, \u201cThe Biology of Prenatal Development<\/a>,\u201d shows a heartbeat at only 4.5 weeks after fertilization. Even according to the abortion giant Planned Parenthood\u2019s website<\/a>, by weeks 5-6 of pregnancy, \u201cA very basic beating heart and circulatory system develop.\u201d<\/p>\n