Understanding the Georgia Heartbeat Law and Enforcement

This past Tuesday, the tragic case of Amber Nicole Thurman – who died from untreated complications of the abortion pill – was brought to the forefront of our nation’s minds as the maternal mortality board investigating the case blamed the Georgia Heartbeat Law for her death.

Abortion advocates are perpetuating misinformation that such laws would not allow any abortion procedure to be done to save a woman’s life, even in cases where the child is no longer alive. As a result, medical personnel across the United States have said they fear prosecution if they “perform an abortion” to save a woman’s life.

The Center for Client Safety is here to break down what the Georgia Heartbeat Law says, how it’s enforced, and whether doctors have anything to fear.

The Georgia Heartbeat Law was incorporated into Georgia Code § 16-12-141, which outlines the State’s restrictions on abortion and a majority of the enforcement mechanisms for the law.

The code first delineates what abortion is as opposed to what it is not, according to the law. In the State of Georgia, abortion is defined as “the act of using, prescribing, or administering any instrument, substance, device, or other means with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy with knowledge that termination will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of an unborn child.” This definition is clear that performing any act that causes the death of an unborn child, noting “with knowledge” as an indicator of intent as a requirement for the action to be illegal.

Additionally, the subsections of this same code also note that the following are not abortions in the State of Georgia:

(a)  “Removing a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion [miscarriage and stillbirth]; or

(b)  Removing an ectopic pregnancy.”

While these exceptions to the legal definition might conflict with the accepted medical definition of “abortion,” they are significant for at least two reasons:

One, these exceptions protect women and are intended to provide comfort to them that treating their condition is not a moral action but rather one that is necessary and protected by law to save their lives.

Two, these exceptions purposefully deviate from the standard and overly broad medical definition of abortion to provide clarity to doctors treating these conditions.

Doctors state the law is confusing in terms of these conditions. But what could be more precise than plainly noting that treatment for miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy are not illegal abortions?

Then, after providing definitions for the medical terms – including “detectable human heartbeat” – used in the law, the code states that “No abortion is authorized or shall be performed if an unborn child has been determined in accordance with Code Section 31-9B-2 to have a detectable human heartbeat…”

This is where abortion advocates – and activist doctors – pretend there is a gap in the law.

The above code does state that abortions after a detectable human heartbeat are prohibited. But, they also provide even more clarity in exceptions, acknowledging that they, as legislators, are not medical experts and are not qualified to denote every exception to their law. Doctors have protected autonomy to practice within means that are life-affirming.

Exceptions outlined include:

(a)  when a physician reasonably judges the woman is experiencing a medical emergency;

(b)  (2) the pregnancy resulted from rape and/or incest, and a physician reasonably estimated the unborn child to be less than 20 weeks gestational age, or;

(c)   (3) a physician reasonably judges the pregnancy to be futile.

Note that definitions for “medical emergency” and “medically futile” are defined in subpart (a) of the code, and both grant the final call to physicians who possess reasonable judgment.

Again, this emphasizes the protection of the physician to act in what they know is the best interest of their patient(s).

Notably, the law also required that a physician judge the unborn child to be able to survive if given proper care, that care is provided. Doctors are not allowed to let an unborn child become medically futile from their inaction in the same way doctors are required to treat born babies that have survived unsuccessful abortions.

Furthermore, the law requires any abortion past the first trimester – so really, any exception to the law above – is required to be performed in a facility licensed by the Georgia Department of Community Health (hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, or abortion facilities). All abortions are also required to be performed by a licensed physician. 

As we near the end of the code relevant to the Heartbeat Law, it also states that “Health records shall be available to the district attorney of the judicial circuit in which the act of abortion occurs, or the woman upon whom an abortion is performed resides.”

We have seen states where misinformation is spread stating that women who have illegal abortions are going to be hunted down because the State has their medical records. This is simply false. Rather, in the subsequent subpart of this code, women are given civil protections. The code notes that “Any woman upon whom an abortion is performed in violation of this Code section may recover in a civil action from the person who engaged in such violation all damages available to her under Georgia law for any torts.”

In other words, the records that are kept are to protect women and help them plead their cases in malpractice or to penalize the physician. Outside of the civil penalties women can impose upon their abortionist, the preceding section Georgia Code § 16-12-140 does state that the “person convicted of the offense of criminal abortion” (AKA the abortionist in violation of the Heartbeat Law, NOT the woman) “shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years.”

So yes, abortionists are absolutely in danger of prosecution and regulatory penalty if they violate the Georgia Heartbeat Law – as they should be. Would any other law go unenforced simply because the offending party is ignorant of it? But thankfully, the legislators who wrote the Heartbeat Law were quite clear.

And, because the legislators did their job in writing a law that is both clear, enforceable, and has clear civil and criminal disciplinary actions, the Center for Client Safety can step in.

Unfortunately, Amber Nicole Thurman is not the only woman who was a victim of the abortion industry. The Center for Client Safety received reports of cases across the country every day of ways abortion facilities violate health and safety standards. But we will be investigating Amber's case. All doctors must be held accountable for their actions, or inaction in this case. The doctors who refused to provide Amber the lifesaving care she needed - and was legally protected to obtain - cast aside her life for political gain.

We will continue to grieve Amber and the countless women like her – stories both heard and unheard – who have suffered at the hands of abortionists. The Center for Client Safety vows to hold the feet of regulatory agencies to the fire to enforce laws that they choose to neglectfully ignore.

Justice for Amber Nicole Thurman.