{"id":284403,"date":"2023-02-01T14:42:10","date_gmt":"2023-02-01T20:42:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=284403"},"modified":"2023-01-31T16:33:48","modified_gmt":"2023-01-31T22:33:48","slug":"scientific-american-calls-heartbeat-bills-immoral","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/scientific-american-calls-heartbeat-bills-immoral\/","title":{"rendered":"Scientific American publishes article calling heartbeat bills ‘immoral’"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

A new article published in Scientific American, a prestigious science magazine, argued that heartbeat laws \u2014 laws seeking to protect preborn children with detectable heartbeats from abortion, usually beginning around six weeks gestation\u00a0\u2014 are neither morally nor legally sound. The magazine, which has historically included articles from notable scientists like Albert Einstein and Nikola Tesla, now appears to have chosen to deny science in order to advance a pro-abortion ideology.<\/p>\n

Christina Han is a maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) specialist who is an outspoken abortion advocate<\/a>, and Cara Heuser is an MFM specialist who also works as an abortionist in Salt Lake City. Together, they wrote an article in response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization<\/em>\u00a0Supreme Court decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade<\/em>. Their article \u00a0dehumanized preborn children, and denied the scientific reality of a preborn human being’s heartbeat.<\/p>\n

The science behind preborn heartbeats<\/h3>\n

“These so-called ‘fetal heartbeat laws’ and their underlying talking point that abortion ‘stops a beating heart’ are not only scientifically inaccurate, but they are also morally unsound,” they wrote. “As high-risk pregnancy experts, we appreciate that seeing or hearing<\/strong> cardiac activity<\/strong> is a meaningful moment for many people who are pregnant, and we share the joy of our patients who have a desired pregnancy. Two critical questions arise, however: Should a flicker of cardiac activity<\/strong> on an ultrasound limit options available to pregnant people, particularly those who desire or need to end their pregnancy? Furthermore, is a beating heart<\/strong> either a necessary<\/em> (essential) or sufficient<\/em> (adequate) standard upon which policy makers and cultural influencers such as antiabortion groups can decide the moral and legal status of either a human or a fetus?” (emphasis added)<\/p>\n

The idea that a preborn human’s heartbeat is nothing more than meaningless “cardiac activity,” as Han and Heuser referred to it, is not an idea based in science. As doctors, both women undoubtedly know this. This is backed up in scientific literature<\/a>, which states (emphasis added):<\/p>\n

The human heart is one of the first organs to form and function during embryogenesis. By the end of gestational week 3, passive oxygen diffusion becomes insufficient to support metabolism of the developing embryo, and thus the fetal heart becomes vital for oxygen and nutrient distribution. <\/em><\/p>\n

The initiation of the first<\/strong> heart beat via the primitive heart tube begins at gestational day 22<\/strong>, followed by active fetal blood circulation by the end of week 4.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Walgreens<\/a><\/p>\n

The “University of New South Wales Embryology index on the cardiovascular system and heart development in human beings” additionally states<\/a>, \u201cIn human embryos the heart begins to beat<\/strong> at about 22-23 days, with blood flow beginning in the 4th week. The heart is therefore one of the earliest differentiating and functioning organs” (emphasis added). The American Pregnancy Association likewise affirms<\/a> the fact that a preborn child has a beating heart.<\/p>\n

But what is the difference between a heartbeat<\/em>\u00a0and a meaningless twitch of cardiac muscle? The Endowment for Human Development (EHD), a non-partisan organization dedicated to improving health science education, and which holds a position of neutrality on controversial bioethical issues like abortion, has explained<\/a> that the embryonic heartbeat has a purpose. Blood is actually being pumped through the preborn child’s body \u2014 just like in a fully-grown adult’s body \u2014 and without it, the preborn child could not receive the oxygen and nutrients necessary to live, grow, and thrive.<\/p>\n