Stacey Abrams Says Six Week Ultrasound Heartbeats Are “Manufactured” to Control Women

Well, Stacey, tell us how you really feel!

The so-called  “compassionate” side of the aisle seems to become less and less compassionate when it comes to the question of a beating heart from a 6-week-old unborn child in the womb. Not only are those sounds fake, says Abrams, the Democratic candidate for Governor running against incumbent Republican Brian Kemp, but they’re created to control and oppress women.

You have to hear the words from her own mouth to fully get where she’s coming from. In her world, it doesn’t matter if the heart is moving blood, the whole thing is about men controlling women:

No, Stacey, it’s about the question of when unborn life deserves protection in the womb as if it was a separate life living outside the womb.

It’s not as if Abrams is saying this in a vacuum, she’s perhaps the first nationally known midterm candidate to come out and stake her claim trying to “debunk” the notion of a beating heart detected at six weeks.

There are articles that take a strictly defined medical standpoint to try and rebut the heartbeat claim by calling the “heartbeat” sound nothing more than electrical pulses from a clump of cells:

From there, the issue is what that “heartbeat” actually is. “At six weeks, the embryo is forming what will eventually develop into mature systems. There’s an immature neurological system, and there’s a very immature cardiovascular system,” says Jennifer Kerns, an ob-gyn at UC San Francisco and director of research in obstetrics and gynecology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. The rhythm specified in the six-week abortion bans, she says, “is a group of cells with electrical activity. That’s what the heartbeat is at that stage of gestation … We are in no way talking about any kind of cardiovascular system.”

So, the “immature cardiovascular” system that’s starting to move blood cannot, in any way, be considered a “cardiovascular system,” according to Dr. Kerns. Fair enough, that’s not what pro-life proponents are arguing when they created the concept of the “heartbeat” bill. By that account, many of the systems that form a newborn baby are not yet mature including the brain itself until that baby turns 25 years old according to various studies.

If that’s the case, then when do we decide to limit abortion since the same argument can be made during the entire length of pregnancy? Every fetal system is “immature” until quite some time after birth, but that’s far from the point.

The point, that Abrams doesn’t grasp, is that unborn life in the womb needs protection and civil society needs to determine when that protection begins. There are already laws that allow for charges of two homicides if a pregnant woman is murdered. Abrams may not like the 6-week heartbeat bill, she can feel free to argue against it, but her argument is rather weak.

As one commenter put it, who knew that ultrasound machines, tools used around the globe to ensure healthy babies and healthy mothers, were part of a global conspiracy to control women?

The real truth bomb here is that Abrams, and her party colleagues, claim there should be zero limits on abortion up to the moment of birth. Why should there be? Every system in the unborn child is “immature” and doesn’t deserve recognition beyond a clump of cells.

Standing to save unborn lives is hardly the extreme position when measured against the abortion of a child in the last trimester of pregnancy. Abrams should keep talking, voters need to know the truth about where Democrats really stand on abortion limits.