Georgia Judge Flunks Biology in Overturning the State’s Heartbeat Law

I n Monday’s ruling finding Georgia’s pro-life law unconstitutional, Judge Robert McBurney says that “designating the embryonic ‘heartbeat’ as the start of life” is an “arbitrary” delineation. In a footnote, McBurney argues that it is not accurate to describe embryonic cardiac activity as a heartbeat: “A true human heartbeat requires an actual four-chambered heart, something which does not develop until 17–20 weeks of gestation,” not six weeks, which is when cardiac activity can first be detected.

This claim is false on multiple levels. For one, the heart of the preborn child develops its four chambers around the seventh week of gestation, at which point it is still considered an embryo. Also, the heart is not defined by its four chambers but rather by the function it performs — pumping blood through the child’s body, which it starts doing just 21 days after conception.

But McBurney is not the only one making these misguided arguments against the use of the term “heartbeat.” Unfortunately, major medical organizations are making the same claims.

As an obstetrician, I have had the privilege of caring for many women during their pregnancies. One of the most difficult situations is when there is worry about a miscarriage in the first trimester. In this case, the woman typically has an ultrasound. It’s a joyful relief for both of us when I can say, “Look, here’s your baby’s heartbeat. Your baby is living.” However, according to a lexicon recently published in both the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Radiology, and endorsed by multiple other medical organizations, I may no longer use the terms “living” and “heartbeat” to tell my patient the good news.

According to the lexicon, the terms “live,” “living,” and “viable” should be avoided in the first trimester because these terms “may be appropriated by people outside of the field of medicine to support political rhetoric and proscriptive legislation.” And, “in addition, these terms may raise unrealistic expectations for patients.” The article also condemns the use of the terms “heart motion,” “heart activity,” and “heartbeat.” The authors state that “the term ‘heart’ implies a fully formed organ and cardiac development is gradual and incomplete” during the first trimester.

As an obstetrician who has used these terms for decades to reassure my patients, I find it disconcerting that our medical societies have decided that this accurate terminology is no longer acceptable. They bemoan that people may use these terms “to support political rhetoric and proscriptive legislation,” yet they apparently are removing these terms based on their pro-abortion position. I am a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist and am currently chairwoman of the board of directors of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, so I will not be surprised if I am accused of wanting to keep these terms because of my pro-life position. However, I am not making these recommendations because they support the pro-life position, although they do, but because these terms are true and accurate. They are also the best way to communicate the truth to my patients.

One of the most common reasons for doing a first-trimester ultrasound is to determine whether the baby is alive. When my patient comes for an ultrasound in the first trimester, she anxiously wants to know if her baby is still living. Merriam-Webster defines living as “the condition of being alive” and alive as “having life: not dead or inanimate.” If a human being is living at six weeks gestation, there should be a heartbeat or cardiac activity. To try to define this as anything other than “living” is absurd. My patient simply wants to know whether her baby is alive. I need to be honest and tell her that her baby is alive if that is the case. If she is six weeks along or greater, and there is a heartbeat, her baby is alive. Her baby is not dead. There is simply no other way to describe the situation accurately.

The lexicon also requires the term “cardiac activity” instead of “heartbeat.” “Cardiac activity” is a medical term used frequently in obstetrics, and there is nothing wrong with it. When speaking to patients, however, the more understandable term “heartbeat” is typically used. “Heartbeat” is neither inaccurate nor politically charged. It is simply the truth. Medical textbooks refer to this activity as a heartbeat. Larsen’s Human Embryology states, “The heartbeat is initiated around the twenty-first day, and its continual beating is required for normal heart development.”

When I see the glorious sight on ultrasound that tells both me and my patient that her baby is, at least at this moment, alive, I will continue to tell her that I see the heartbeat. And I will tell her that her baby is indeed alive. This is not pro-life rhetoric. This is simply the truth. We may disagree about abortion. Let us not redefine terms to fit our views. Women deserve the truth.