The article’s author, Moira Weigel, writes in the subtitle that “the technology has been used to create sped-up videos that falsely depict a response to stimulus.”
After several paragraphs of explaining the history behind ultrasound technology, Weigel goes on to claim that ultrasound images have been wrongly used for political ends by pro-life advocates:
New "informed consent" laws and the Congressional "heartbeat bill" follow the same logic that The Silent Scream did. Their sponsors act as if ultrasound images "prove" that a fetus is equivalent to a "baby," and that pregnant women only have to be shown ultrasound images in order to draw the same conclusion. But the "heartbeat" made visible via ultrasound does not actually demonstrate any decisive change of state in the cell mass that might become a fetus.
Almost immediately, critics on Twitter slammed the article.
New York Post columnist John Podhoretz called it “disgusting” and “repellent.”
Weigel originally wrote that it was “dubious” to state that a six-week-old fetus had a heartbeat, and an earlier version of the subtitle called the fetal heartbeat “imaginary.” Bill McMorris of the Washington Free Beacon tweeted a screenshot of the “dubious” sentence alongside a screenshot from mayoclinic.org, which claims that a four-week-old fetus’s heart is “pumping blood.”
As the Washington Free Beacon reported Tuesday afternoon, The Atlantic deleted the sentence claiming that a six-week fetal heartbeat was “dubious,” deleted the word “imaginary” from its subtitle, and changed the title of the article to “How Ultrasound Became Political.”
1. Launch error-riddled political hit piece on ultrasounds2. Get mocked for it3. Change piece to "No YOU made it political" pic.twitter.com/kARctqHjJB