Georgia asks judge to dismiss suit challenging state’s ‘heartbeat’ law

Attorneys representing the state told a federal judge that Georgia’s new anti-abortion law is “constitutional and justified” and asked him to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the measure.

The attorneys, in a document filed Monday in federal court, said with House Bill 481 — which outlaws most abortions once a doctor can detect fetal cardiac activity — Georgia has an interest in “protecting the life of the unborn; promoting respect for life at all stages of pregnancy; protecting maternal health and safety; and safeguarding the ethics and integrity of the medical profession.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia is suing the state over its new anti-abortion law on behalf of SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective and other abortion rights advocates and providers.

The new law could outlaw abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, which is before many women know they are pregnant.

The ACLU also has asked U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones to stop the law from going into effect while the case makes its way through the court system. A hearing on that request is scheduled for Sept. 23.

The state said granting a “preliminary injunction” was “unnecessary and premature.” Attorneys said they believed the entire case could be decided by scheduling a hearing on the merits of the lawsuit in early November.

“Although compressed, this schedule would be sufficient to develop the necessary record to finally dispose of this matter in court,” attorneys for the state wrote.

ACLU of Georgia legal director Sean J. Young said in a statement that he would respond to the state’s argument in a court filing.

The ACLU argued in its June complaint that the law violates a woman’s constitutional right of access to abortion until about 24 weeks of pregnancy, as established in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade.

The ACLU has argued that “politicians should not be second-guessing women’s health care decisions.”

In its response, the state pushed back.

“Defendants deny all allegations in the complaint that killing a living unborn child constitutes ‘medical care’ or ‘health care,’” attorneys wrote.