According to the new study the pro-lifers are exploiting the civil rights protections in a bid to ban early abortions. This is the first known research that has analyzed all the tactics of anti-abortionists promoting the controversial heartbeat bill. It also shows that the supporters of such measures, which halt the terminations from the six weeks of pregnancy, are trying to support their case by comparing fetuses to the LGBTQIA people and the plight of Black America.
Recent pro-life strategies for restricting abortions include quoting laws designed for protecting same-sex couples and slaves while misrepresenting the medical facts for arguing that a heartbeat indicates life. This outcome is based on the testimony from lawmakers, a detailed examination of debates and the citizen in Georgia, one of the nine states of the United States to ban abortion once a cardiac activity of a fetus can be detected.
The researchers claim that their research can help the opponents to devise effective strategies for combating the controversial growing policies worldwide.
The co-author of the study Dr. Dabney P. Evans from Emory University said that the early abortion ban constitution is evolving so quick and more likely to replicate in global contexts. He said that the analysis provides the initial understanding of evolving early abortion strategies and its tactics to challenge established standards and precedent.
The fetal heartbeat bill has become the anti-abortion constitution measure of choice in the United States war on reproductive health and sexual rights. Comparing the heartbeat of the fetus to the historical and recent efforts against homophobia and White supremacy demeans the lived experience of people facing such systemic sufferings.
Battles over reproductive and sexual health and rights have been carrying on for decades worldwide. The reproductive health researchers share the harms of unsafe abortions. They note and share the safety of medical procedures performed by health professionals; anti-abortion advocates consider it a murder.
This recent heartbeat law of Georgia was aimed to become effective in January 2020 after the approval and signed into law in 2019. A transitory injunction has since stunted its progress until courts make a statement. The authors are focused to characterize and identify the tactics and arguments of the supporters of this bill. These include arguing a heartbeat is a life indicator and therefore personhood. The authors said that the supporters used inaccurate medical terms and misconstrued scientific data and evidence.
The researchers say that lobbying for the unborn because of the discrimination faced by the LGBTQIA people and Black Americans is devaluing the experiences and minimizes the harm faced by these groups. The researchers said that arguments were made to prefer states using powers to go far the federal protections.
The outcomes of the committee hearings identify how law and medical science was used to advance the aims of anti-abortionists. The study highlights that the facts were misrepresented and lack credibility, often by using emotive medical-sounding vocabulary like an early infant.