I read this NPR piece and was surprised to see that it contained some inaccuracies.On point one - if somebody sues somebody who had an abortion when this electrical signal was detected, but the defendant successfully argues that signal is not an actual heartbeat at the trial, would that automatically push back the 6-week ban to an actual ban of when the fetus is formed and an actual heartbeat is detected?
Kind of weird that the law is based on a “fetal heartbeat” but 6 weeks is before the embryo even becomes a fetus. Seems like the whole thing would fall apart to doctor testimony in court.
Contrary to an assertion in the article, cardiac activity detected early in the first trimester of pregnancy is not "electrical signals." It represents actual motion of the embryonic structures that will go on to form the fetal heart and is best detected by transvaginal ultrasound. Generally, cardiac activity is seen by the time the embryo measures 6 mm, which corresponds to 6-7 weeks gestational age. However, visibility can be reduced by various factors, including the quality of the ultrasound machine, the operator's skill, and the woman's anatomy.
Interestingly, the term gestational age itself is sometimes misunderstood. It refers to the first date of the last menstrual period, which is generally about two weeks prior to conception, which is when the pregnancy actually begins. However, dating a pregnancy this way can be inaccurate. Among other things, a pregnant woman may misinterpret the bleeding that sometimes occurs when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine lining as a period. That's why ultrasound dating in the first trimester is considered the most accurate method.