Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Utah legislature has once again demonstrated its utter ignorance of science by passing a bill allowing women to view the heartbeat of their fetus before an abortion -- at three weeks. Here comes the stupid:
Before HB200 cleared the chamber in a 53-15 vote, Minority Leader David Litvack, D-Salt Lake City, unsuccessfully attempted to amend the bill to delete language he believed to be flat-out false, referring to viewing the heartbeat of a fetus at three weeks."It is not medically accurate," Litvack said. "It's not possible. It does not exist."
Litvack read from a physician's e-mail that said you could expect to see embryonic cardiac activity at about six weeks from the woman's last period.
Rep. Carl Wimmer, the bill's sponsor, disputed Litvack's claim.
"There are arguments on both sides of the issue," Wimmer, R-Herriman, said.
Uh, no. There's not. A fetus does not have a heart at three weeks, much less a heartbeat. A human embryo at three weeks is about a millimeter long. Good luck detecting a heartbeat.
Politics
Comments
God, Ed! Are you so insecure in your own position that you have to silence dissenting views? Teach the controversy! There are arguments on both sides of the issue... No, you can't see ours!
Alternative argument-
How could you be so cruel to such a tiny baby? How could you say it doesn't have a heart? You don't have a heart!
Posted by: Mill | February 9, 2010 9:19 AM
Mill, how about you show your scientific evidence of a heart at 3 weeks and stop yelling. All yelling does is make you look like an idiot. If you show valid scientific evidence, we can talk, otherwise, all I read is "blah, blah, blah".
Posted by: TJ | February 9, 2010 9:24 AM
well, maybe showing that there is no hearbeat at 3 weeks will help women who need abortions feel better about it?
Posted by: becca | February 9, 2010 9:24 AM
Mill, that's because the alternative argument carries no weight. The fetus doesn't have a heart at that time. Says so in the article above.
At that point, you're removing cells. Like a mole biopsy, or brushing your teeth. Do you cry every time you brush your teeth? Killing all those defenseless bacteria... you don't have a heart!
Posted by: Michael | February 9, 2010 9:25 AM
So if some nasty doctor refuses to let a woman view her three-week old baby's heartbeat, could they be prosecuted?
Posted by: SimonG | February 9, 2010 9:27 AM
We agree that they can't actually listen to the heartbeat, which is nobody's fault - not even the liberals' - but we support their right to listen the heartbeat.
Posted by: Judith Iscariot | February 9, 2010 9:29 AM
To All Those Responding to Mill -- I suggest re-calibration of your sarcasm detectors.
Posted by: Dave | February 9, 2010 9:30 AM
Ok, either I'm missing the sarcasm in posts 2 and 4, or its time to start a charity to get sarcasm detectors into the hands that need it. Either way, someone's missing the sarcasm, and I really don't think it's me.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | February 9, 2010 9:30 AM
Let me guess, the doctor is not able to perform the abortion until the woman sees the heartbeat - therefore she has to wait several weeks until there actually is a heartbeat. And this in turn could lead to more women deciding to keep the baby after all.
Are you sure the bill "allows" women to view the heartbeat and not "requires"? Otherwise, what was the point of the bill anyway? Are they thinking that women have been asking to see the heartbeat and doctors are saying "I would rather not show you the heartbeat, even though I could, because I want you to have an abortion"?
Posted by: Odie | February 9, 2010 9:32 AM
Ah, the joys of living in Utah. My house is just north of Herriman. It does not surprise me one bit that Wimmer said this. If you start learning about the crazy shit Mormons believe, you'll realize they'd be willing to believe anything. Being credulous is a virtue in their culture. And they'd never, ever, let science get in the way of their ignorance (which is also a virtue).
At least they repealed the private club laws so I can go into any bar--without paying for a membership, mind you--to drown my sorrow and incredulity.
Posted by: j.b | February 9, 2010 10:18 AM
The next medical challenge: detecting neurological activity in Wimmer's cerebral cortex.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | February 9, 2010 10:26 AM
Yeah, the three weeks is more than a stretch, but the bill lays it out in intervals of first 3 weeks, then 6 to 8 weeks, then each month up to 14 weeks.
To Odie: The text of the bill requires the abortion provider to provide ultrasound scans of the baby and "heart" should it even exist by then, only IF the mother requests it. They are already required to provide an informational packet and DVD no matter what (paid for by the Utah tax payers, by the way).
Posted by: Dave | February 9, 2010 10:32 AM
I'm still waiting on someone to pass a law saying abortion doctors should be charged with animal cruelty for killing the stork.
@#8 Sarcasm detectors? Nah, what people need is some good ol' fashioned sarcasm tags .
Posted by: deep | February 9, 2010 10:32 AM
I think this gives a glimpse into the mindset of anti-abortionists. They seem to think that the embryo and fetus are just tiny babies that look exactly like the cherubic pictures in their anti-abortion ads. The baby just gets bigger and bigger until it magically pops out.
This is a group simply unable to conceive of clumps of dividing cells, blastocysts, and the like. It is all just magic to them.
Posted by: thinkoplex | February 9, 2010 10:42 AM
Hi I'm Troy McLure, you might remember me from such classics as "Mormons in your uterus".
Posted by: Matty | February 9, 2010 10:43 AM
I think this language should be allowed! When the woman goes to hear the heartbeat and it's just complete silence her mind will be made up all the easier.
Doc: Here madam, listen to this before considering killing off this precious little baby.
Woman: I hear nothing. So, that means it's dead right?
Doc: Well, no not really, it just doesn't have a heart.
Woman: Same thing. Grab the coat hanger!
Posted by: llDayo | February 9, 2010 10:46 AM
I may be remembering incorrectly, but I did not think it was possible to perform an abortion at 3 weeks, at least not a surgical abortion. I thought you had to be six weeks along. Any doctors/nurses/midwives out there?
Posted by: Liz | February 9, 2010 11:03 AM
Aside from the fact that an embryo doesn't have a heart at three weeks gestation, most women don't suspect that they may be pregnant until 4 weeks after their last period once they've missed their next period. That's when suspicion of pregnancy usually sets in which is why over the counter pregnancy tests are designed to be used after a missed period. Then there is making the first appointment to see a doctor which takes at least another week if she's lucky followed by a clinical pregnancy test to confirm the drug store test was accurate. By that time it's about 6 weeks into the pregnancy which makes the "listen to the embryo heartbeat at 3 weeks" law not only stupid but moot.
Posted by: Diane | February 9, 2010 11:32 AM
So the lesson here is that Mormons are retards?
Posted by: Ian | February 9, 2010 12:08 PM
Ignoring the scientific ignorance for a second, the misogyny of such proposals is stunning. The writers of this law (and all laws like it, which basically seek to guilt women into giving birth) apparently believe that women are a. too stupid to realize that pregnancy entails the development of a fetus, and b. walking uteri, and that once their marginal minds wrap around the fact that they're carrying a fetus, they'll be so overcome with maternal love that they'll forget all about the abortion they came for in the first place.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 9, 2010 12:19 PM
Nope. When the sarcasm is so thick on the ground that the lot of us are wading through it like sixty centimeters of mud and some people don't realize it's there, then I don't think mere sarcasm tags will be sufficient. Definitely need to recalibrate their sarcasm detectors.
Posted by: ShadowWalkyr | February 9, 2010 12:23 PM
Getting perhaps a bit paranoid here, but an inexpert use of an ultrasound at 3-weeks could probably detect a heartbeat, the mother's.
I'm no doctor, but I'm assuming that is someone was looking for a certain-shaped mass with a pulse in the area of a woman's stomach could find all sorts of things with a detectable pulse.
Of course it would take a doctor (who's not trying to prove a point) to properly tell if it's a embryo, tumor or an appendix.
Posted by: SpotWeld | February 9, 2010 12:59 PM
Actually, the bill isn't nearly as bad as the article implies; at least compared to other states' restrictions. Granted, the requirements for the video's production are horrible, but at least it'll be hosted on the state's website rather than being distributed. Also, the article's flat-out wrong. Here's the relevant text:
193 (6) If an ultrasound is performed on a woman before an abortion is performed, the
194 person who performs the ultrasound, or another qualified person, shall:
...
(c) inform the woman that, if she desires, the person performing the ultrasound, or another qualified person shall provide a detailed description of the ultrasound images, including:
(i) the dimensions of the unborn child;
(ii) the presence of cardiac activity in the unborn child, if present and viewable; and
(iii) the presence of external body parts or internal organs, if present and viewable; and
And the part about the video:
186 (i) request that the woman view the video at that time or at another specifically
187 designated time and location
[. If]; or188 (ii)if the woman chooses not to
[do so,]view the video at a time described in189 Subsection (4)(a), H.
[ give a copy of the video ].H[shall be provided to her]H.[ to the woman ]189a inform the woman that she can access the video on the Department of Health's website .H .
Damn, that was a pain to reformat.
Source: http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillamd/hb0200.htm
Posted by: nsib | February 9, 2010 1:07 PM
@19: Why drag the retards into this?. Please, don't insult the retards, they deserve better.
Posted by: GC | February 9, 2010 1:11 PM
Ah, mea culpa. It's the video that's required to show the ultrasound of the heartbeat:
327 (8) In addition to the requirements described in Subsection (2), the video described in
328 Subsection (1)(b) shall:
330 (b) show an ultrasound of the heartbeat of an unborn child at:
331 (i) three weeks gestational age;
332 (ii) six to eight weeks gestational age; and
333 (iii) each month after eight weeks gestational age, up to 14 weeks gestational age.
Posted by: nsib | February 9, 2010 1:14 PM
The term "unborn child" belies any pretense of dispassion or neutrality.
Posted by: Mandrake | February 9, 2010 1:32 PM
Can you imagine the panic-stricken mothers-to-be in the ultrasound room when the doctor informs them that their baby doesn't have a heartbeat?
Posted by: rob | February 9, 2010 1:33 PM
Matty @15: "Hi I'm Troy McLure, you might remember me from such classics as "Mormons in your uterus".
Ahahahahah!
Posted by: Mandrake | February 9, 2010 1:34 PM
The heart is beating from conception -- in the baby's soul. Why don't they just introduce a bill which requires videos of the fetus' soul be provided before an abortion?
Posted by: Sastra | February 9, 2010 1:56 PM
Sadie Morrison "Ignoring the scientific ignorance for a second, the misogyny of such proposals is stunning."
Worse, it assumes that the husband lets the wife take part in important decisions like that.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get out from under this hail of hisses and tossed shoes.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 9, 2010 1:58 PM
Modusoperandi @30
In Utah right now, it isn't shoes you need to be ducking but some serious snow boots. And stupid.
Posted by: MikeMa | February 9, 2010 2:35 PM
Matty@15:
Now that's comedy!
I laughed so loud colleagues rushed to my office to see if I was OK.
Posted by: Moon Jaguar | February 9, 2010 2:43 PM
Just for clarity sake:
In addition to giving a woman seeking an abortion the option of viewing an ultrasound, the state is requiring that the woman be given (free of charge) an instructional video prepared by the DoH and also available on the DoH's website. One of the requirements of this instructional video is that it include an ultrasound of the heartbeat at three weeks gestational age (or one week since fertilization). The video is not of the woman's own fetus.
Betcha they picked three weeks GA because most women don't come in until they miss a period - 4+ weeks. What's the over/under on the number of instructional videos rejected because they don't include a non-existent heartbeat?
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | February 9, 2010 2:46 PM
I just can't work this out. It's either scientific idiocy, or political genius, but... which? I really can't tell!
Are the bill's authors really, as an earlier post suggests, incapable of concieving of an embryo or fetus as anything other than a tiny smiling cherub-like baby? Or are they perfectly aware that they have specified women not be permitted to recieve an abortion until they have seen a video which cannot possibly be made, and thus hope to ban abortion via this sneaky indirect route?
Posted by: Suricou Raven | February 9, 2010 5:24 PM
The woman should be forced to listen to the preborn citizen's heartbeat while it is still a homunculus, before allowing fertilization.
Posted by: mark | February 9, 2010 5:27 PM
It looks like the heartbeat at 18 days is a common belief among pro-lifers:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_12.asp
http://www.straight-talk.net/abortion/life.shtml
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arg-abor.html
Posted by: Narc | February 9, 2010 6:34 PM
There's no justification for this fooling around with heartbeats when the Gospel has the answer.
The Gospel teaches us that our children are alive in the pre-existence before they are born. They can be contacted by prayer, if one listens to the still small voice. The doctor and the pregnant woman should be required by law to pray to Heavenly Father, to request contact with the spirit child, as it waits in the Pre-existence. If the child can be contacted, and clearly states that it wants to be born, no abortion should be permitted. If there is no answer, the child clearly feels the woman should make up her own mind.
Posted by: llewelly | February 9, 2010 8:52 PM
I have to agree that the questions that arise are basically:
1) Is this an intentional effort to use a technicality to block abortions by "accidentally" over enforcing this "requirement" that mothers hear a heartbeat before being allowed to have an abortion.
2) An effort to guilt women into having the "child" because they hear a heartbeat and these people are deluded by their own literature?
3) An attempt to force women to go through additional hoops, all of which are likely to scare them off or suggest to them that their choice isn't really theirs, etc.?
4) A combination of all of the above?
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 9, 2010 9:20 PM
And they can see it has disappeared three weeks later, due to embryonic wastage.
Posted by: hje | February 9, 2010 10:55 PM
I'm afraid that when it comes to the Mormon KKKrazee that Mitt Romney is just the tip of the lime jell-o mold.
Posted by: democommie | February 9, 2010 11:59 PM
I imagine that some of the confusion lies in the fact that pregnancies are usually timed from the last menstrual period, not from the time of conception.
So at conception, the fetus is already two weeks old.
Keep that in mind when family planning, people; spouse and I learned it the hard way.
Posted by: Physicalist | February 10, 2010 7:52 AM
This is stupid. If the mother is getting an abortion because, say, her life is forfeit as well as her child's should she choose to give birth, I doubt this stupid inconvenience of a road block would make her change her mind. I've heard of some women saying they would abort the fetus because their genetics carry life-hindering diseases or disorders and they wouldn't want their children to suffer their entire lives because of it. I wish these politicians would realize that there are a host of other reasons mothers would want to have abortions other than "I don't want it."
Posted by: Mo | February 11, 2010 7:41 PM
...and technically at 3 weeks it would be an embryo, not a fetus. You don't call it a fetus until about 9 weeks after conception.
Posted by: Dr. Grumbles | February 12, 2010 9:44 PM