Defending the Heartbeat Act

by Arthur Grinstead, M.D.

Editor’s note: Forward Nebraska is happy to provide a platform for opinions that are often ignored by corporate media. Dr. Grinstead’s expressed views are his own.

A group of pro-abortion Nebraska doctors held a press conference on the anniversary of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. They expressed their opposition to a Nebraska bill that would limit abortion to cases of rape, incest and life of the mother once a baby’s heartbeat is detected (6 weeks gestation generally). As a Family Medicine and Obstetric Physician, I would like to provide an alternate opinion, and some clarification of the medical science behind Legislative Bill 626.

The chief allegation made by Dr. Mary King at the outset of the press conference was that the life and health of mothers would be put in jeopardy by this law. She stated LB 626 is “dangerous for pregnant people and medically irresponsible,” citing instances of ectopic pregnancy or when a patient’s water breaks too early, causing her to be at risk of sepsis, hemorrhage, hysterectomy, or, in very rare cases, death. Another doctor in the room referenced heartbreaking cases of anencephaly, and the risk those situations may pose to a mother in highly rare situations. As someone who has spent several years working with pregnant women from all walks of life, I would share these concerns – if they were not already accommodated for in the legislation.

The Nebraska Heartbeat Act explicitly permits abortions even after a baby’s heartbeat is detected when there is a “medical emergency.” Medical emergency is defined as “any condition which, in reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of the pregnant woman as to necessitate the termination of her pregnancy to avert her death or for which a delay in terminating her pregnancy will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.” Not only does the bill provide for abortions when necessary to save a mother’s life; it also gives medical professionals discretion to intervene to prevent permanent physical harm. There is also a provision that specifically allows the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy with a heartbeat. These cases are so exceedingly rare that I have yet to encounter one, and my Physician Mentor, who had been in practice for 40 years, had never seen one either. Yet, this bill does account for it.

Those at the press conference suggested that doctors could be in danger of losing their license if they perform such interventions. In reality, medical professionals may rely on evidence-based guidance from national and state medical organizations, as doctors in other states with similar abortion limits are doing. For example, in instances of “pre-viable, premature rupture of membranes” (PPROM), when a women’s water breaks prior to the time the unborn child can survive birth, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists advises: “Women presenting with PPROM before neonatal viability should be (offered)…immediate delivery (termination of pregnancy by induction of labor or dilation and evacuation).” That is the standard procedure when a woman’s water breaks early before viability, that is what continues to be done in other states that restrict abortion, and that is what will continue to be done in Nebraska after the passage of LB626.

We should keep in mind that physicians who take their Hippocratic Oath very seriously are working daily to develop more life saving measures for moms and their unborn children with technology such as amnioinfusion, and other perinatal (while the woman is pregnant) surgeries and procedures that can help save lives. Dr. Ben Carson is a noteworthy champion for these and has performed many of them.

I was fortunate enough to receive training from the Pope Paul VI Institute in caring for mothers and unborn babies utilizing Natural Procreative Technology (NaPRO).  Each and every day, I use evidence-based, effective medical techniques and practices to help families with pre- and post-natal care, including the challenging problem of infertility, and recurrent pregnancy loss. I utilize many different practices to help couples achieve pregnancy, and then decrease the risk of miscarriage and other adverse pregnancy outcomes.

I believe the intentions of many of my colleagues with “life of the mother” concerns about this bill are genuine, even though they are incorrect. Disappointingly, the tone of the press conference changed when Dr. Jodi Hedrick took the podium. Dr. Hedrick parroted anti-human rights, utilitarian talking points from Planned Parenthood and extreme abortion-on-demand proponents, claiming that saving more unborn lives from abortion will hurt Nebraska’s economy. The true medical language of these talking points is fanciful at best; and deadly at worst.

I’ll leave any fiscal arguments to the economists. But for doctors to speak of the value of human lives in terms of dollars and profit margins is an unconscionable violation of our Hippocratic Oath. Medical professionals are not charged with making a political calculation about the supposed impact to GDP, but to do all within our power to protect the mothers and unborn children who are in our care.  

These unborn children have a heartbeat. The unborn child’s cardiovascular system starts to develop just three weeks after conception, and the heartbeat begins in the fifth week of the pregnancy. The presence of a heartbeat indicates that a baby has a remarkably high chance (up to 98%) of surviving to birth, assuming an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy.

The good news is Nebraskans are compassionate and they recognize the science. A majority of Nebraskans are in favor of the Heartbeat Act, which could save up to 2,000 lives per year. They, along with many in the medical field, are right to question whether the abortion proponents’ press performance. Do their views represent the best interest of mothers (or, as they put it, “pregnant people”) and their unborn children? Or rather, was it a tactical and political maneuver that serves extreme pro-abortion goals of abortion on demand? 

 I am a father who endured the birth of a very premature child, and watched at bedside as amazing physicians worked tirelessly to save my wife, and keep my son alive in his first days out of the womb. As a physician myself now, I will continue to stand with, and for, the mothers and the precious little lives they carry within them. I will continue to dedicate my life to the sound doctrine that my practice of medicine was founded upon: Primum non nocere, First, do no harm.

The author is a Family and Obstetric Physician with a practice in Lincoln, Nebraska.