Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who is "they"? The law says heartbeat, and a doctor is making the call. Are we NOT trusting medical science to know the difference, or accusing the medical field of politicizing medicine? Inquiring minds want to know.Before the heart develops, and takes any form resembling anything like what we think of as a heart, a few cells start to slightly fluctuate. These cells are the beginnings of what become one of 2 natural pacemakers. the fluctuation can only be detected by ultrasound. There is no heart muscle, valves, or anything to produce a heartbeat that can be detected with a stethescope. That slight fluctuation of those few cells is what they are calling a heartbeat.
I've looked through the text of the law as reported on Texas SB8 | 2021-2022 | 87th Legislature and I'm not seeing 6 weeks. Can you post the section of the law that does? Note that this section of the law specifies when the fetal heart is formed.No, the law specifically states 6 weeks.
| Sec. 171.202. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS. The legislature finds, | |
| according to contemporary medical research, that: | |
| (1) fetal heartbeat has become a key medical predictor | |
| that an unborn child will reach live birth; | |
| (2) cardiac activity begins at a biologically | |
| identifiable moment in time, normally when the fetal heart is | |
| formed in the gestational sac; |
| Sec. 171.203. DETERMINATION OF PRESENCE OF FETAL HEARTBEAT | |
| REQUIRED; RECORD. (a) For the purposes of determining the | |
| presence of a fetal heartbeat under this section, "standard medical | |
| practice" includes employing the appropriate means of detecting the | |
| heartbeat based on the estimated gestational age of the unborn | |
| child and the condition of the woman and her pregnancy. |
I've looked through the text of the law as reported on Texas SB8 | 2021-2022 | 87th Legislature and I'm not seeing 6 weeks. Can you post the section of the law that does? Note that this section of the law specifies when the fetal heart is formed.
If the law specifies 6 weeks, I'd like to see it for myself. I might have missed it, but I did a search on the text and couldn't even find the string "week".
:watermark(cdn.texastribune.org/media/watermarks/2021.png,-0,30,0)/static.texastribune.org/media/files/060aa40ba7e1d64c063fc39545b31547/Womens%20Health%20SS%20TT%2001.jpg)
www.texastribune.org
No. The detection of those few cells fluctuating is only a precurser to an actual heart beating, and it is only detectable by ultrasound. The doctor does not have the authority to say it is not an actual heartbeat. It is 'cardiac activity or the steady and repetative rythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac", and the bill defines that as a heartbeat.Who is "they"? The law says heartbeat, and a doctor is making the call. Are we NOT trusting medical science to know the difference, or accusing the medical field of politicizing medicine? Inquiring minds want to know.
I find it interesting that people on one hand are complaining about "6 weeks" while OTOH are presenting evidence that 6 weeks doesn't apply here. Which is it?
Actually, the doctor does have that authority, because of the way the law is worded. It doesn't say he has to perform an ultrasound, he can do whatever test is sufficient to establish a heartbeat. This whole 6 weeks thing is designed to throw people off the actual law and fight over a strawman.No. The detection of those few cells fluctuating is only a precurser to an actual heart beating, and it is only detectable by ultrasound. The doctor does not have the authority to say it is not an actual heartbeat. It is 'cardiac activity or the steady and repetative rythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac", and the bill defines that as a heartbeat.
View attachment 536611Texas SB8 | 2021-2022 | 87th Legislature
Bill Text (2021-05-19) Relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an unborn child's heartbeat; authorizing a private civil right of action. [Effective on 9/1/21]legiscan.com
And he can use the stethoscope as his check. He doesn't have to use an ultrasound. That's the law. I really think it's all blown out of proportion and is designed to inflame a lot of opposition against something that's not really what they say it is.You may be correct on this one. But of course, there IS no heartbeat at 6 weeks because there is no heart.
Dr. Nisha Verma, a physician who provides abortion services and a fellow at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said the activity measured on an ultrasound in early gestation is electrical impulses, not a true heartbeat.“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,” Verma said.“Flickering that we see on the ultrasound, that’s super early in the development of a pregnancy, is actually electric activity. And the sound that we hear at that point is actually manufactured by the ultrasound machine,” Verma added.
Why âheartbeat billâ is a misleading name for Texasâ near-total abortion ban
Medical and reproductive health experts say the reference to a heartbeat is medically inaccurate as an embryo does not have a developed heart at six weeks’ gestation.
No. an ultrasound is the only way to detect the fluctuation of a few cells, so an ultrasound is the only method generally used to examine the development of a fetal heart at that stage. The doctor is not allowed the choice to use a stethescope, or any other method.Actually, the doctor does have that authority, because of the way the law is worded. It doesn't say he has to perform an ultrasound, he can do whatever test is sufficient to establish a heartbeat. This whole 6 weeks thing is designed to throw people off the actual law and fight over a strawman.
A stethescope will not detect a heartbeat when there is no heart muscle to beat. He can certainly try, and he can certainly report no heartbeat was detected that way. The bill requires that he use a method that detects "activity or steady rythmic contraction". Those few cells do have steady rythmyc movement.And he can use the stethoscope as his check. He doesn't have to use an ultrasound. That's the law. I really think it's all blown out of proportion and is designed to inflame a lot of opposition against something that's not really what they say it is.
The bill doesn't specify "fetal pole cardiac activity", it specifies fetal heartbeat, "normally when the fetal heart is formed in the gestational sac;" IOW, when there's an actual heart.What is happening at 6 weeks is called "fetal pole cardiac activity" and like someone else said, it is just a bunch of cells pulsing. You crazies are gonna go absolutely BONKERS when this bill is eventually overturned. LOL!
You can't just pull out one part to create a strawman. The law also specifies, "normally when the fetal heart is formed in the gestational sac;" IOW, when there's a heart. The portion that you posted simply says that the doctor has to decide if the baby has a "detectable fetal heartbeat". Do you really think any doctor is going to say fetal pole cardiac activity is the same as a heartbeat produced by an actual heart? It sounds an awful lot like we're expecting doctors to be politicians and not doctors. Echoes of the Covid argument?A stethescope will not detect a heartbeat when there is no heart muscle to beat. He can certainly try, and he can certainly report no heartbeat was detected that way. The bill requires that he use a method that detects "activity or steady rythmic contraction". Those few cells do have steady rythmyc movement.
Good. Then we agree this 6 week figure is a bunch of nonsense.The bill doesn't specify "fetal pole cardiac activity", it specifies fetal heartbeat, "normally when the fetal heart is formed in the gestational sac;" IOW, when there's an actual heart.
Again no. The bill defines fetal heartbeat. See #124. Nothing in the bill about when the fetal heart is formed. Activity or rythmic contraction of any kind meets the definition of heartbeat as defined in the bill.The bill doesn't specify "fetal pole cardiac activity", it specifies fetal heartbeat, "normally when the fetal heart is formed in the gestational sac;" IOW, when there's an actual heart.
Of course it is. It was invented by those who will fight any and every abortion restriction. A doctor knows the difference between electrical impulses in a clump of cells that will become a heart and an actual heartbeat from an actual heart. This is an exaggerated strawman designed to frighten women and drum up opposition to a law.Good. Then we agree this 6 week figure is a bunch of nonsense.
It outlaws abortions after fetal heart activity can be detected. That is generally 6 weeks or less.The bottom line here remains that the law does not outlaw abortions after 6 weeks, and arguing about that is no more informative than beating up the stereotypical strawman. I would tell anyone who wants to argue about it to ask themselves if they read "6 weeks" in the law or if they heard someone with a vested interest in preventing any restrictions on abortion say the law outlaws them.
Must I point out the obvious?Again no. The bill defines fetal heartbeat. See #124. Nothing in the bill about when the fetal heart is formed. Activity or rythmic contraction of any kind meets the definition of heartbeat as defined in the bill.
Heart activity from an actual heart. I don't care how early or late the heart forms, that's the standard, not some fluttering in a few cells that are not pumping blood through a circulatory system.It outlaws abortions after fetal heart activity can be detected. That is generally 6 weeks or less.
Wrong. Open a book. But none of this matters we can go back and forth on the 6 weeks issue all day, which is pretty pointless. Eventually, this law will be overturned. And there is nothing you can do about it.It outlaws abortions after fetal heart activity can be detected. That is generally 6 weeks or less.
I, and others read the bill several times, and didn't find what you claim. Where does it say a complete, or near complete heart must be present? That doesn't occur until several weeks later. I understand you support the bill in principle. I just don't belive you know how extreme it is. The overreach is unprecedented.You can't just pull out one part to create a strawman. The law also specifies, "normally when the fetal heart is formed in the gestational sac;" IOW, when there's a heart. The portion that you posted simply says that the doctor has to decide if the baby has a "detectable fetal heartbeat". Do you really think any doctor is going to say fetal pole cardiac activity is the same as a heartbeat produced by an actual heart? It sounds an awful lot like we're expecting doctors to be politicians and not doctors. Echoes of the Covid argument?
