The Texas Heartbeat Law
Note from Knight Writer Advisor Mr. Chutchian
This article contains the author’s point of view on a controversial issue – abortion. Several states are proposing anti-abortions laws similar to the Texas Heartbeat Law recently reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Knight Writer welcomes opposing viewpoints. There’s an easy-to-understand process. Discuss your idea with Mr. Chutchian, submit a draft, and be open to suggestions, editing and revisions. All Knight Writer articles are reviewed by the PRHS administration before they are published.
By Torri Estes
“We cannot ignore the fact that women are fully worthy human beings and should be treated as such, as opposed to being deemed mere reproductive instruments for the human race or being forced in certain cases, against their will, to serve as tools of procreation … The right to be a mother—or, in other words, the right to opt for maternity as a ‘life choice’—is a decision of the utmost privacy for every woman.”
-The Colombian Constitutional Court
There’s a good chance that most of us find the navigation of social life, academics, co-curriculars, part-time jobs or family time too overwhelming to leave room for outside leisure, reading for pleasure, or research. It’s easy to tune out current events, despite all the news platforms available. So, while other things may seem more important to you than public policy at the state or national level, I urge you to take notice and fight against the restrictive and dangerous abortion law in Texas and other states.
In May 2021, the Texas legislature and Governor of Texas put forward, and eventually passed a bill now known as the Texas Heartbeat Law, The law, which went into effect September 1, 2021, was signed by current Texas Governor Greg Abbott under the premise that it would protect the unborn, and allow for abortion up to six weeks gestation. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, denied a request to block the Texas law.
Governor Abbott tweeted on May 19th, 2021, the day he signed the bill, “The heartbeat bill is now LAW in the Lone Star State. This bill ensures the life of every unborn child with a heartbeat will be saved from the ravages of abortion.”
I would like to ask Governor Abbott whether he truly values human life, or whether he places more value on the use of misinformation to manipulate voters.
Readers, if your anti-abortion beliefs make you reluctant to read further, I ask you to put aside your preconceived notions, political opinions, or moral greivances against abortion, and truly investigate what this law is doing.
To begin, the law (https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961) states, “...a physician may not intentionally perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of the woman ’s unborn child if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child under Section 171.203…”
The law’s language is based on the original so-called “heartbeat bill,” which refers to a pregnancy of six weeks. According to Dr. Nisha Verma from American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, heartbeats don’t exist at six weeks. Dr. Verma stated in an interview with the Texas Tribune, “When I use the stethoscope to listen to a patient’s heart, that sound that I hear is that typical bum-bum-bum-bum that you hear as the heartbeat is created by the opening and closing of the cardiac valves. And at six weeks of gestation, those valves don’t exist.”
Nevertheless, the law is grounded in the original bill’s language, which states, “A fetal heartbeat, therefore, has become a key medical predictor that an unborn child will reach live birth…”
Do the authors of this bill, which is now law, care about heartbeats, or the livelihood of unborn babies? Does this law rely on false information and/or abortion stigmatization? The law includes a $10,000 penalty and a felony charge against anyone who helps a woman receive an abortion, including the doctor and anyone who drives her to the facility providing the abortion. This bill makes no exceptions for rape or incest, only making exceptions when ‘medically necessary.”
Consider:
-- fertilization takes place at two weeks, and most women are not aware they are pregnant by six weeks.
-- Also, according to the New York Times, “the Texas law deputizes private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion [post-six week marker].” This means any citizen, including a person's rapist, could sue the physician for up to $10,000 in damages.
-- When Governor Abbott was questioned about the lack of exceptions for rape or incest he responded:, “Rape is a crime, and Texas will work tirelessly to eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by agressively going out and arresting them and procecuting them.” It remains unclear how many Texas lawmakers believe that is sufficient for the pregnant victim.
In recent years, the gap between those in the pro-choice movement and those part of the pro-life ideology has grown so much, with so much hostility, that compromise is not in sight. Lack of understanding leads to dangerous legislation such as the one imposed in Texas. Lack of information cannot be remedied through compromise. Public education can go only so far on an issue as personal as abortion.
The Texas Heartbeat Law is a reflection of the divisive effects of identity politics, and we must work together to end it. Even if you are anti-abortion, I urge you to learn more about this law and talk about it. The law is misleading and incredibly dangerous for women and girls. Heavy abortion restriction could crumble a woman’s constitutional right to autonomy.
Roe vs. Wade (1973):
“A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene. A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife's health. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ruled the Does' complaint not justiciable.”