The Heartbeat Bill will legally protect unborn children whose heartbeats can be detected by a doctor except to save the life or physical health of the mother. Simply put: “If a Heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected.”

We recognize that this bill, once put into law, may be challenged in court due to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. Along with the other states that have passed heartbeat bills, our goal is to use this potential challenge as a vehicle for the Supreme Court to eventually overturn the Roe ruling.

A. TEST Requires physicians (according to standard medical practice) to determine whether the unborn child has a detectable heartbeat.
B. INFORM the mother the results of that determination.
C. PROTECT each unborn child with a detectable heartbeat, except to save the life or physical health of the mother.

While not the beginning of life, the heartbeat is the universally recognized indicator of life. In frantic efforts to save a life, we often hear: Can you find a pulse? Is their heart still beating? Science has already shown us a way to determine if someone is alive…a beating heart! The Heartbeat Bill stops discrimination against the young and applies that same measurement to ALL human life, using common instruments already present in the offices of physicians everywhere. Like other incremental bills, the Heartbeat Bill doesn’t protect every child. That doesn’t mean we approve of earlier abortions any more than voting for a post-viability bill suggests that we don’t care about babies that fall just short of viability. But viability is merely a determination of our technology, our ability to sustain life outside the womb. Viability is a line that is far less concrete since it changes with the year and hospital in which a child is born.

While the unborn child’s heart begins to beat at 18-21 days, our current technology can often detect the baby’s beating heart between 6-12 weeks.

No. As a second victim of the abortion industry, the mother may not be prosecuted.

No other law allows for the killing of an innocent child for the crime of his or her father. None of us chose the manner in which we were conceived; it does not change our humanity.

Pastor James Robison, whose LIFE Outreach organization helps feed over 500,000 children each week throughout Africa, was conceived through rape, as was Andrew Hoar. Andrew, who served our nation in Afghanistan on his 5th Middle East Deployment, was also conceived through rape.

While we oppose an amendment to kill children who, through no fault of their own, were conceived through rape or incest, an exception is completely unnecessary, even for those who want an exception. Because the Heartbeat Bill is an incremental bill, which protects from the point of a detectable heartbeat, abortions before that time, including rape and incest, are not prohibited.

Heartbeat Bills have passed in seven states – Arkansas, North Dakota, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia and most recently passed in Ohio and signed into law.

With the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, experts agree we now have the votes to uphold the Heartbeat Bill on the United States Supreme Court. Even more pro-life judges will likely be appointed to US Supreme Court in the next two years.

In a recent opinion he Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated: “This choice is better left to the states, which might find their interest in protecting unborn children better served by a more consistent and certain marker than viability.”

The Supreme Court’s current standard permits legal protection of the unborn child when there is a likelihood of survival to live birth. But as Constitutional Law Professor David Forte states in his law review article, Life, Heartbeat, Birth: A Medical Basis for Reform, viability is based on an arbitrary guess. Dr. Forte explains that such a guess can be up to 90 percent wrong. On the other hand, an unborn child with a detectable heartbeat has a 98-99 percent likelihood of survival to live birth. Heartbeat is simply a better medical yardstick than viability, the Supreme Court’s current standard.

For over four decades of cases the child in the womb was viewed as a “potential life.” But in Gonzales v. Carhart, for the first time, the Supreme Court admitted as a finding of fact, that instead of a “potentially living” fetus, a “living fetus” is recognized from the time of a “detectable heartbeat.”

Not only is that a finding of fact, it is an undisputed finding of fact. Even those in favor of legal abortion-on-demand agreed with this fact, now recognized for the first time since 1973, by the United States Supreme Court.

The Heartbeat Law will present the opportunity for the Supreme Court to simply move the line of allowable protection from the arbitrary marker of viability to the “consistent and certain marker” of Heartbeat-something which is no longer in conflict with U.S. Supreme Courts abortion jurisprudence.

At a national level, Yes, 7 out of 10 support it! A 2017 George Barna poll* asked this question: “If a doctor is able to detect the heartbeat of an unborn baby, that baby should be legally protected.” Sixty-nine percent of Americans agreed, most of them “strongly.” Eighty-six percent of Republicans support the Heartbeat Bill, as do 61 percent of Independents and 55 percent of Democrat voters. *Survey of 1,002 adults, sampling error of +/- 3.1 percentage points, conducted January 19-27, 2017.

Simply put: it will not.

Michigan has the nation’s strongest pre-Roe v Wade ban and the Heartbeat bill contains the strongest language possible to protect that ban. We have submitted the bill to American Center for Law and Justice for review and they concur Heartbeat is the safest logical step for Michigan at this time. The Heartbeat Bill gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to simply slide the moving target of viability to a set measurement of heartbeat, thus protecting over 90% of the unborn.

Read the ACLJ’s full response for more information.

Simply put: no.

This argument could be used as a reason to not pass any pro-life legislation, including the current Dismemberment bill. Michigan has the nation’s strongest pre-Roe ban and the Heartbeat bill contains the strongest language possible to protect that ban:

“Nothing in this act shall be construed as authorizing an abortion that is illegal under any other provision of State law”, section 14, 15, 322, or 323 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.14, 750.15, 750.322, and 750.323.” –Michigan Heartbeat Bill

The post-Roe ban only comes in effect in the event Roe v Wade is completely reversed, which means, until then, no unborn children in Michigan are actually protected by law. How do we legally protect them now? The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and prominent national attorneys agree: The Heartbeat Bill is the best next step. The Heartbeat Bill gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to simply slide the moving target of viability to a set measurement of heartbeat, thus protecting the vast majority of children facing abortion.

Read the ACLJ’s full response for more information.

We like to say “why can’t we love them both”! Every bill is unique in its impact, and we would never discourage anyone from supporting any pro-life bill.

Dismemberment is a wonderful bill for educating the public on the gruesome reality of abortion. It also serves well to draw a distinction in the political world.

While it is true Michigan’s current Governor would most assuredly veto any piece of pro-life legislation, Michigan has a unique opportunity to bypass the Governor. Michigan law allows for what is called an Initiative Legislative Petition. Simply put, if 340,000+ valid signatures are gathered, then all that is required is a simple majority vote in the House and Senate for the bill to become law—completely bypassing the Governor!

While collecting the signatures is a costly and challenging task, we believe with the help of churches and pro-life groups we can do it!

One additional advantage to the Heartbeat bill is that if the Attorney General refuses to enforce the law, local prosecutors are given the power to enforce the Heartbeat!

In 2017, Barna Group did a national poll asking the question “If a doctor is able to detect the heartbeat of an unborn baby, that baby should be legally protected” and found that 7 out of 10 American’s support a Heartbeat law.

86% of Republicans favored the Heartbeat Bill and even 55% of Democrats favored that stance.

So if we want to unify the Pro-Life base for 2020 , there is no better bill than the Heartbeat Bill. Heartbeat Bills have been introduced in 25 states – seven states have passed it into law, with several more in the process. It is time for Michigan to ride the wave that is encouraging pro-lifers across the nation!

We need to do to Roe v. Wade what Brown v. Board of Education did to Plessy v. Ferguson.

Simply put, the Heartbeat Bill is designed to remove 90% of Roe’s foundation in order to allow for the remaining 10% to crumble. Heartbeat is crafted to be the arrow in the heart of Roe vs Wade.

With the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, experts agree we now have the votes to uphold the Heartbeat Bill on the United States Supreme Court. Even more pro-life judges will likely be
appointed to US Supreme Court in the next two years. Even the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reviewed the Arkansas and North Dakota Heartbeat laws, agrees “heartbeat” is a better, more scientific, marker than viability:

“[T]his choice is better left to the states, which might find their interest in protecting unborn children better served by a more consistent and certain marker than viability.” –Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

The Supreme Court’s current standard permits legal protection of the unborn child when there is a likelihood of survival to live birth. But as Constitutional Law Professor David Forte states in his law review article, Life, Heartbeat, Birth: A Medical Basis for Reform, viability is based on an arbitrary guess.  Dr. Forte explains that such a guess can be up to 90 percent wrong.  On the other hand, an unborn child with a detectable heartbeat has a 98-99 percent likelihood of survival to live birth. Heartbeat is simply a better medical yardstick than viability, the Supreme Court’s current standard.

For over four decades of cases the child in the womb was viewed as a “potential life.” But in Gonzales v. Carhart, for the first time, the Supreme Court admitted as a finding of fact, that instead of a “potentially living” fetus, a “living fetus” is recognized from the time of a “detectable heartbeat.”

Not only is that a finding of fact, it is an undisputed finding of fact. Even those in favor of legal abortion-on-demand agreed with this fact, now recognized for the first time since 1973, by the United States Supreme Court. The Heartbeat Law will present the opportunity for the Supreme Court to simply move the line of allowable protection from the arbitrary marker of viability to the “consistent and certain marker” of heartbeat—something which is no longer in conflict with Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence.

We believe Heartbeat is the logical, medically sound rational the Supreme Court is looking for to move the marker where legal protection is allowed from viability (which is miles away from our goal of conception) to heartbeat (which is inches away from our goal).

Both Ohio and Kentucky have passed the Heartbeat Bill, and Tennessee is now considering it. If Michigan would join with them and pass the Heartbeat Bill then every state in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals would be sending a strong message to the Sixth circuit and an even stronger message to the Supreme Court.

With six new Trump appointees and five hold overs from George W. Bush the Sixth Circuit is one of the most conservative Appellate courts in the nation. Perfectly positioning Michigan to play a significant role in overturning Roe vs. Wade!