Federal judge voids Georgia ‘heartbeat’ abortion restriction

ATLANTA — A federal judge on Monday permanently blocked Georgia’s 2019 “heartbeat” abortion law, finding that it violates the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Steve Jones ruled against the state in a lawsuit filed by abortion providers and an advocacy group. Jones had temporarily blocked the law in October, and it never went into effect. The new ruling permanently enjoins the state from ever enforcing House Bill 481.

Georgia’s measure sought to ban abortions once a “detectable human heartbeat” was present, with some limited exceptions. Cardiac activity can be detected by ultrasound as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, before many women realize they’re pregnant, according to a legal challenge. The bill narrowly passed the Georgia General Assembly amid intense lobbying for and against.

Those who challenged the lawsuit said the ruling proves their contention that the measure was unconstitutional. Lead plaintiff SisterSong, an Atlanta-based group that fights abortion restrictions on behalf of Black American and other women of color, called it a “huge win for bodily autonomy.”

“No one should have to live in a world where their bodies and reproductive decision making is controlled by the

state,” SisterSong Executive Director Monica Simpson said in a statement.

Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, who has supported the restriction, immediately vowed an appeal.

“We will appeal the court’s decision,” Kemp said in a statement. “Georgia values life and we will keep fighting for the rights of the unborn.”

The prospects of an appeal are uncertain, though, considering the U.S. Supreme Court last month struck down other abortion restrictions from Louisiana.

Women in Georgia can currently seek an abortion during the first 20 weeks of a pregnancy.

Both the state and those challenging the law asked Jones to rule without a trial, saying there were no disputed

facts. Jones granted the challengers’ motions for summary judgment and denied the state’s motions, finding the law violated the 14th Amendment.

“The court rejects the state defendants’ argument that the statutory purpose solely concerns ‘promoting fetal well-being,’ ” Jones wrote. “Instead, HB 481’s specific references to Roe v. Wade and ‘established abortion related precedents’ . . . lends support to plaintiffs’ argument that the purpose of H.B. 481 was to ban or de facto ban abortion.”

Jones refused to leave any parts of the law in effect, which would have also granted personhood to a fetus, giving it the same legal rights as people have after they’re born. For example, a mother could have claimed a fetus as a dependent to reduce taxes.