Whether it’s the abortion ban or the law that a pregnant woman’s wishes are null and void while pregnant, to me it ends up in the same place. Women don’t get say or control over their bodies while pregnant. Why should pregnancy take away the rights of a person when the fetus/baby isn’t yet viable?
The problem is many pro-birthers believe the fetus is viable the moment cardiac activity can be detected. They don’t base viability on when it could survive outside the womb.
Honestly I don’t know what they actually believe because they’ve been so brainwashed by politicians and people at the pulpit telling them what to believe. IMO any human being with a heart and common sense would be able to say that a woman and or next of kin should be given full control over what happens to her body (& the unborn fetus).
If pro-birthers think they’re going to hell because they failed to prevent Adriana’s fetus from being born, then that’s something THEY need to deal with. The fact that we let these people impose their will over other’s is just insanity to me.
Agreed. If I needed a kidney transplant to save my life snd my mother was the only match, I couldn't legally force her to give it to me if she wasn't willing. If you die and have not given permission for your organs to be donated, doctors can't take them even to save multiple lives. And yet, women can be legally forced to donate their uterus even at risk to themselves? Do we have less bodily autonomy than a dead person? It seems to Mr, laws like this aren't actually giving fetuses the same human rights as any living person - they are getting more. Moral views aside, it seems to me that most pro-life stances are very inconsistent from a legal standpoint.
We do not have as much control over our bodies as a dead person. That is indisputable in states with abortion bans. We can't force people to donate organs before or after death. We can't force anyone to donate blood. We can't force anyone to donate bone marrow. The only people who can be forced to relinquish control of their bodies are pregnant women. Someday, these politicians will come out and say it. They will say, "the value of a women lies in her ability to give birth". They say it quietly now in back rooms, in private, in places where men like these gather to decide our fate. Someday, they will have the control they want, and they'll say it with their whole chest. When that day comes, I wonder if anyone will remember that they were warned over and over and over, but removing brown people and ending all abortion and liberal tears were more important to them.
The amount of effort and resources to keep a brain dead body working properly is astronomical. We have no idea if that kind of environment allows for the normal development of a fetus at 9wks gestation. Reports have said the fetus on US appears to have hydrocephalus. I worry very much about if this baby will survive outside the womb and if so what lifelong complications it will endure. Working closely with palliative care docs and medically complex kids I know the term life is a subjective word. It means something different to every family. Life at all costs is not always life. A family should get a choice in this situation. They will be the ones who have to pay for the cost of keeping a brain dead person “alive.” They will be the ones caring for a child who is high risk for neurological injury. The government should not be a third party in the exam room dictating decisions that should be made between patient (or proxy) and provider, period.
I know it's not the most important factor in this situation, but it seems to me that if the state is forcing a person to remain on life support, it should ABSOLUTELY be the state's responsibility to pay the medical bills. I hope Adriana's family sues the hell out of Georgia.
I think that's part of what makes this case so troubling: the state does not appear to have a unified position on this case, so they haven't actually come out to say, "Yes, we require that this woman's body be kept on life support for the sake of her pregnancy." The hospital is taking the least legally-risky path based a legal threat that's still a bit hypothetical.
I wonder whether the Smith’s would be able to then hold the hospital liable for the cost of Adriana’s care? I just don’t see how the family should have to pay the cost for a decision they didn’t make.
I'm with you, Ashley. This was one of the first thoughts that came into my mind when I read about it. The medical bills must be astronomical. If the state/hospital is forcing them to keep her on life support, the state/hospital should pay for it.
People don’t realize that brain dead is DEAD. Legally dead. And it’s often a Herculean effort to keep people alive on machines for an extended amount of time. In normal situations, families are required to disconnect brain dead patients from the ventilator usually within hours of pronouncement. And insurance usually stops paying for coverage at that point as well…because there’s no decision to be made. This case disgusts me all around because I KNOW what all is involved from all sides. Signed- current organ donation and former labor and delivery RN
What if we had a law keeping people alive so they could be organ donors? How is this any different when it comes to personal agency over one’s body? I want the GA legislators to explain this in public.
Even if they did want the care, they weren't allowed to choose that themselves. It's a decision that was made for them that they will pay for emotionally, mentally, and financially for a long time to come. It will be millions of dollars that will almost certainly not be covered at all by insurance. And on top of that, the cost of caring for their grandson, who will most likely have severe disabilities.
If the patient is an adult and she isn’t married, who is the hospital expecting to pay this bill. No family member should be held responsible. As was said previously, if the patient is Brain dead her insurance will not pay.
Black women and the bodies of black people have been non-consensually experimented on for hundreds of years. I imagine if this was a white woman there would have been a different course of action (for example, having the brain surgery to save the mother even though it risked the pregnancy).
The only comment worth making here, is that if men were the ones who got pregnant, we would never have these laws because they would consider themselves able to make their own decisions about their bodies.
If men were the ones who got pregnant, there would be more abortion clinics than McDonald's franchises. Abortion pills could be bought at a gas station. Absolutely disgusting how women are treated as children, like we are unable to make decisions concerning our own bodies and lives.
An important medical distinction— the mother is not being kept “alive” in this situation. She is brain dead. The hospital is artificially pumping blood and oxygen and IV nutrients into a corpse to incubate a fetus. Brain dead people are legally and medically dead with no chance at recovery. The words we use matter.
There have been a few cases where much later in pregnancy a pregnant person has been placed on a vent and a fetus is allowed to continue to gestate. However, there is almost no reason to believe a 9 week fetus being incubated artificially full of all the medications required for keeping a brain dead person from having their heart also stop will have a normally developing pregnancy. As far as I am aware, we have zero medical evidence if a brain dead body is even capable of producing the hormones required to allow the fetus to appropriately develop from such an early gestational age.
Ultrasound has already shown hydrocephalus. Depending on the severity of this it can already be incompatible with life. The fetus also went without oxygen for however long the mother was after she was not breathing overnight before her partner woke and called 911. That can be devastating on neurological function for a brain. Especially one that has barely had a chance to start growing.
So not only is the family enduring the media circus and death of their beloved daughter, mom or partner, but it’s extremely likely that they are going to be on the hook for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars of medical bills futilely keeping a brain dead person on machines for a fetus that has a significant likelihood of either dying in utero, or having a short and painful life once born prematurely after all this. Or having a slightly longer but still painful life limited to a NICU due to the severity of their complications. All while Medicaid funding that would insure a medically fragile child is being cut. And all against the wishes of the entire family.
In my opinion, this is a very important distinction. This woman is dead. Her artificially animated corpse is being held as an incubator for the dubious purpose of bringing a fetus to a point of viability outside of the womb. And we're not talking about a few days to give a premature baby time to develop its lungs a bit more. We're talking about MONTHS. At this point, the fetus might be viable outside the womb (with high risk of death) within the next 2 weeks. Yet, they're pushing for August?! What's to stop anyone from coopting female corpses for incubators even if they aren't the mothers at this point? Why not just take brain dead women and incubate all the IVF embryos? This situation is just gross (and I'm not terribly impressed with her family going along with it, either). Add to this, the likely monetary burden on the family and likely disability of the baby, assuming it lives.
Calling out obvious harm and blatant hypocrisy is not a “jab”. Pro life people don’t get to advocate for these laws then deflect blame when something awful (that was foreseeable!) happens as a direct result of them. And then asking everyone else to just play kumbaya instead of admitting that these laws have harmful unintended consequences, is a slap in the face to everyone who has told these lawmakers and advocates such tragedies WOULD occur.
Would you have responded better if she had ended with, "These facts do not seem to be pro-life as advocates would claim," or something to that effect? I get that sarcasm is not always received well, but I'd hope you'd also acknowledge the frustration that people experience when faced with the kind of hypocrisy that pro-life groups often embrace in their efforts to oppose abortion care.
Marti, everything you have said makes you pro-choice. You are pro-women making the best choice for themselves without the interference of the government. I am pro-life for me and me alone. You are pro-life for you and you alone. You and I and everyone who feels as we do should be angry that extremists have co-opted a term that should be positive and turned it into a war against women making their own healthcare decisions. You should be angry about that. Getting angry at the people calling out the hypocrisy of being so-called "pro-life" when they are really pro-birth and pro-control of women, isn't going to change the fact that it's the fake pro-lifers we need to be fighting against.
People say a lot of negative things about Christians, and I consider myself a Christian. Do I think they're talking about me? No. I don't think that because I don't behave in the ways Christian Nationalists (almost always the ones being described) do. If a criticism is not about you, don't internalize it. If you know they aren't describing you, then there is no reason to be offended. This could have been a moment of unity if you wanted it to be. You could have seen the comment for what it was and said, "Yes! I hate that fake 'pro-life' people don't really care about life at all! That isn't what it means to be pro-life!". Instead, you decided to be offended about words that had nothing to do with you or your beliefs.
And sometimes, when a state is using a dead person as an incubator, we have to call a spade a spade. There is nothing pro-life about what's happening to this woman. Nothing.
When legislation is enacted that *favors* one life over another, and removes that decision from the principle parties directly involved with a particular situation...maybe we should stop using the moniker, "pro-life" to describe those who support this legislation. Hence, Sarah's sarcasm.
Yes, but adding "/s" after "Sounds super pro-life to me" turns that statement on its head: it obviously DOESN'T sound super pro-life. That's what she was saying.
I'm pro-life as well and, like you, am also against forced birthing. I just don't see where what Sarah said is a mockery or insult toward pro-life beliefs. She's right: politicians absolutely are using "pro-life" as a cudgel to push through draconian legislation. We should be able to call that out for the hypocrisy that it is.
Marti, I'm curious what your definition of a pro-life politician is. Is it someone who supports or enacts the very laws that are now causing Adriana Smith to remain on life support against her family's wishes? I'm genuinely curious, because I'm struggling to see a pro-life politician in the year 2025 who *wouldn't* want to enact these very abortion bans that it feels like we're all agreeing are a bad idea. Is there a politician out there who says they are pro-life, but doesn't agree with abortion bans?
Then pro-life people need to stop electing medically illiterate politicians who write draconian laws that punish women.
Women have died-lots of them-due to “pro-life” laws. There are states trying to make obtaining an abortion a capital offense. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-forced birth. A doctor got arrested and went to trial for helping a ten year old rape victim get an abortion. That’s not pro-life.
It is supposed to be offensive because it’s morally reprehensible what “pro life” legislation is doing to women. People aren’t going to magically stop needing abortions because states make it illegal. People are going to get sketchy abortions, or get septic before they qualify for one under laws written by people who don’t understand when a fetus is viable or that ectopic pregnancies can’t be magically implanted back in a uterus.
You can personally not want an abortion, you can advocate for support systems where women don’t feel that they have to have one because they have social safety nets to support them, but when the same people electing officials who write laws that kill women, wrote laws that take healthcare from kids, and cut programs that feed and educate kids, you lose any “pro life” moral high ground.
It's not a problem - I think Danica is making the point that you are actually pro-choice. :) Not choosing an abortion for yourself, but allowing the space for others to make that choice in their own personal lives, is the definition of pro-choice. And that is a good thing!
No, I definitely would not consider that a problem. Since you said you want others to be able to make their own choices that sounds like pro-choice to me, even if you wouldn’t choose an abortion for yourself. Pro choice doesn’t necessarily mean you would want an abortion.
No one attacked you, Marti. And unfortunately the “most staunch pro-life folks” we know are the ones making things like this a reality. Our laws are made by (mostly) men in our government who couldn’t possibly understand less about the reproductive system and couldn’t define “brain dead” if their lives depended on it. This is a feature of their laws, not a bug.
I mean this with every ounce of respect. I would encourage you to consider whether your framing of your identity (“pro-life”) is still truly compatible with your values (“there is great need for choices for women.”)
But this is what most pro-choice people would do--encourage someone to deeply consider keeping a pregnancy and pursuing all of the options available. That is the definition of choice. Pro-choice people don't think everyone should get abortions or think it's the best choice. Pro-choice people think women get to choose, and do so privately and with as much support as they want. The definition of pro-life is life for the fetus at any cost. Your definition here is admirable and right, but others have co-opted that phrase to mean something other than it's literal definition, and their stance at this moment in history overshadows your literal and genuine intentions when using the phrase. If that's what pro-life means to you, please work with other pro-life identifying people to make the political stance of that group reflect your amazing values. They align perfectly with mine, and at this moment in history I see the pro-choice movement's policies best reflecting those values.
The Senators who sponsored Georgia's LIFE Act have all publicly labeled themselves as pro-life. It's fair to assume they believe that label is consistent with the law that has led to this situation.
I think this speaks to why some people are rebranding “pro life” as “forced birthing” and the like. Every pro choice person I know IS pro life in the sense that they want the best outcome for every human involved. They don’t want preteens being forced to carry a baby to term. They don’t want women getting infections and dying. They want people who WANT babies to be able to have them safely. They want people to know what all the options are.
Is that very different than your perspective of what being pro choice is? I’m genuinely curious, bc you and I agree with each other on what we want to happen here! 😁
Im not “pro abortion”, (I don’t think anyone would call themselves that), but I think “pro life” is a misleading candy coating when the actual policies increase maternal mortality, prevent life-saving medical care, and don't support children after birth. The actual statistics show it’s more about controlling reproductive choices, not protecting life.
Your last sentence is exactly what Sarah was agreeing with: this situation would be antithetical to the very basis of the beliefs held by many pro-life folks.
The problem is, the same people screaming about being “pro-life” (who are really just against abortion), are most often (these days, anyway) the same people who are okay with deporting immigrants, taking free lunch away from children, cutting aid programs that support families, etc.
I also consider myself to be “pro-life,” but I mean pro-immigrants’ lives, pro-prisoners’ lives, pro-children’s lives. I mean “let’s do something about the guns that are killing people,” and “let’s support medical research and scientists who are saving lives.”
But far too often, the “pro-life” movement in the US is simply about forcing birth and against anything to help that child after birth.
Considering that it's basically the state of Georgia requiring this woman to be kept on life support, I dearly hope that they intend to pay for the medical bill. The family should be suing their ass.
They do not. (This would also be a perfect opportunity for pro-life groups to put their money where their mouth is, but I don't see them scrambling to offer any kind of aid.)
They're likely to get a denial for "not medically necessary" but they still stand a very good chance to get that overturned on appeal (the state insurance board would be a good resource for them, but the sheer publicity of the case could probably be enough to rely on as extenuating circumstances). I really hope these folks have the advocates that they need 💔
What's so despicable to me is that it sounds like surgery could have saved her life, but the hospital was so afraid of the law, that they chose the fetus over a fully-formed, adult MOTHER! Now her other kid has no Mama. I just hate her whole situation and I'm gutted with grief for this family!
When Republicans say the abortion issue "belongs" with the states, they seem to be proposing some moral rightness to state-level decision making. But if we follow this principle of local control to its logical endpoint, why stop at states? After all, a state like Texas or California contains millions of people with widely varying values and beliefs. Shouldn't cities and towns be even better positioned to create abortion laws that reflect their local values and customs? And if community-level decisions make sense, why not go further and let individual hospitals set their own policies based on their ethical frameworks? Or each neighborhood? Each household? Following this reasoning to its natural conclusion, wouldn't the most "local" decision possible be leaving it to each individual person to decide what happens with their own body? This "states' rights" argument, when carried to its logical end, accidentally makes the strongest case for personal choice. The ultimate local jurisdiction is the individual herself.
And then on top of that, it’s really none of the government’s business anyway.
The most local form of if government is the individual. The Constitution recognizes that. They stop at states because they don't actually want to allow individuals to make decisions they don't like, and while the majority of individuals don't like this sort of cooption of bodily autonomy, the majority of states are run by politicians who are perfectly fine by it.
This is literally a scene from “Handmaids Tale” (tv show not book.) We all understand on some level that keeping a dead person sort of alive-ish for the benefit of others is creepy. That body is dead. A fetus is growing inside a corpse. How ANYONE can make this ok is beyond me. We don’t force people to donate organs once they’re dead but we CAN force them to remain on life support? This is incomprehensible. There is no logic here. The mental gymnastics people are doing to make this ok… *shakes head*
Without explicit legal permission a person's organs can not be harvested. BUT if that body is carrying a blob of cells that will develop into a fetus all rights of that person are removed and the law steps in and does whatever the h*ll it sees fit. Adriana is not only a corpse she is a corpse with less rights than other corpse since she was "pregnant" when she died. This is disgusting and shows us EXACTLY what the pro-life ghouls intend with the laws post Roe. Women have less rights than dead bodies.
And what becomes of this family who is responsible for all the hospital bills for keeping this zombie alive? For the ongoing care of the "child" who will most certainly have developmental and physical challenges. Will they get support from the state? Medicaid that is being gutted by the federal government? Or are they going to be forced to use Go Fund Me which is a sick thing that people have to do to stop from going bankrupt for medical charges?
When Adriana went to the ER the first time she was patted on the head, given no tests and sent home, told to take some Tylenol for her little "headache" which brings us to anther foundational issue with women's healthcare. Doctors do not take women's concerns, and especially Black women, seriously.
Just now, in 2025, the medical community is recognizing that women need pain management when having an IUD placed. Just now. This month.
Women should have the right to decide their own medical decisions with a doctor. Doctors need to listen to women when they have health concerns. Humans should have more rights than zombie dead bodies. PERIOD.
I almost died due to refusal of care in a risky twin pregnancy in the state of Georgia. One twin had severe structural anomalies & letting him pass away on his own would have and almost did kill his healthy twin, and myself included. I had to travel to NYC for the life saving procedure and it took 4 extra weeks to work out travel and appointment- nearly 18 weeks at termination. Because of my delay I had medical emergency after medical emergency- at one point a doctor told me I was going septic and they’d have to abort my healthy twin because the sepsis was going to kill me. Thankfully my numbers started dropping in the nick of time. I was hospitalized 10 times in 10 weeks after- every day was a risk to both of our health. Simple decisions like using a bar of soap rather than pump soap could cause an infection that would kill her. She was born premature at 27 weeks and had a brain bleed, ROP & BPD that could have affected her for life- because I could not receive timely medical care in my state. Thankfully she is very healthy today and doing fantastic. Situations like mine and Adriana’s and so many other women are complex and layered and should not be decided by politicians.
Gosh this is scary and heartbreaking. You were going through one of the hardest things in life, and your state made it so much worse and even more dangerous than it already was. I'm so sorry, and I'm thrilled to hear that your daughter is thriving.
This is the logical conclusion of abortion bans. Let's call this for what it is. Women have fewer rights than a corpse. In no other situation can a human being be forced to give up any part of their body to save anyone else's life, period. You can't even harvest organs from a corpse unless prior consent or consent from the family has been given. Women are being treated as nothing more than incubators.
Interestingly, I imagine that while supporters of this sort of situation will argue that the fetus has all the rights of person hood at the moment of conception, they probably aren't on-board with those rights including citizenship. I think it's reasonable to argue that if conception equals legal person hood with enhanced rights over its mother, then it must follow that a baby conceived in the US is a citizen. Whether anyone WANTS to be a citizen in light of this and other human rights abuses perpetrated in the US, especially against women and POC, is a different story.
While I absolutely see your logic here, I don't think it's a safe argument to use because it legitimizes fetal personhood, which is bad for everyone. (The logical conclusion of fetal personhood is something we're already starting to see -- women imprisoned for miscarriages, IVF clinics closed, etc.)
I agree that fetal personhood shouldn't be legitimized. But if it is legal to force women to carry a fetus to term, even if it means she has no legal authority over her own body, then it makes no sense that a fertilized ovum is not a citizen. If the courts can limit citizenship to only those that are born here, and they have, then it makes no legal sense that the law can prioritize the rights of an unborn person over an autonomous human. My argument is that you can't have it both ways. If one doesn't apply, neither can the other.
Again, I totally agree with you and see your point, but the inherent risk in these types of arguments is: what if the birthright citizenship argument does indeed fail, and birthright citizenship is upheld by SCOTUS as a constitutional right regardless of the parents' citizenship status? Suddenly, our argument is a bit of a moot point. Birthright citizenship exists, therefore fetuses have personhood and citizenship in the womb. (This is a stretch - but do you see the logical argument here, and how pro-lifers could quickly jump to this conclusion and use this as a tool FOR fetal personhood?) We need to not waste time on arguments that won't actually help the cause, EVEN THOUGH I totally agree with you that it makes zero sense that some people are fighting for both of these things simultaneously (fetal personhood + no birthright citizenship if your parent isn't a citizen), two ideas that are incongruous with each other.
In my opinion, the best argument against fetal personhood is the idea that in no other use case are we ever forcing one human being to donate part or all of their body in order to keep another human being alive; therefore, we cannot prioritize a fetus' rights over the human carrying the fetus. That argument doesn't change regardless of what SCOTUS might rule in the future, imo.
I don't think that the argument will be made. But I expect that setting up a case where a woman who is a citizen of another country might be prevented from leaving the US because her fetus is a citizen of the US by way of fetal personhood would be a fast road to a hostage crisis. And I expect that idea would terrify most judges, so likely they would need to find a way around this conundrum in a way that would have to undermine the legal basis for fetal personhood. I also believe that if we ever get to the point where fetal citizenship has to be tested because fetal personhood is enshrined in law, the rule of law might just be a moot point because we'd be in The Handmaid's Tale. Of course, this is all hypothetical because I'm not in the position to test any of this.
Based on many of the comments that populate this thread (that this has become a "pro-life" "pro-choice" debate), I'm going to offer this one, general suggestion: Given that each of these terms has evolved to describe the two extremes (pro-life is now viewed as "pro-birth", and pro-choice..."pro-abortion") and serve no purpose but to polarize. I believe it is time to abandon them. Neither of these terms can sufficiently describe the sentiments of most individuals in this country. At best, when we use one of them to describe our own stance, we do so with caveats. But, adding caveats and exceptions does not satisfy our need to quickly describe ourselves, or understand others. Everything must be a soundbite. OK. Then I propose we all start referring to ourselves as supporters of "Abortion Mitigation." I believe we can all agree that a world where no woman felt the need to seek an abortion due to medical, emotional, or financial factors would be the 'best' world. IF legislators were motivated to seek policies that supported mothers (and families) with these criteria at the heart--I believe 'abortion' laws would follow the path of common sense, and (mostly) de-polarize the issue.
While I appreciate the utopian desire to find a way to unite the majority on this topic, I fear that even a term like "abortion mitigation" and the "common sense" laws still seek to control the decisions a woman should have the right to make for herself. While I personally would love to see no one choose abortion as a birth control method, I also don't think it's a choice I or anyone should make for someone else.
This is infuriating. A country filled with people that love our so-called freedom, but that doesn't include bodily autonomy. Like it or not, women are not incubators. I'm sure a fetus grown in a literal corpse is not going to produce the outcome that these religious lunatics are hoping for. This entire cosplay of The Handmaid's Tale that we have going on is straight lunacy.
My heart goes out to this young woman who will not live to raise her children. My heart goes out to her five year old son, who doesn't yet know his mother will not 'wake up'. And my heart goes out to the child she is carrying, who is expected to be born in August and so far, is reportedly growing and developing on par with gestational age (currently 22 weeks). This child is a boy, who the family has already named Chance.
By all accounts, it appears Adriana wanted this child. I am glad April Newkirk (Adriana's mother), has expressed that the family wants this child, that this child is wanted. I expect if that were not the case, it would be additional grief upon the tragedy that currently exists. And as a mother, watching your child on life support - regardless of circumstances - I just can't imagine the pain. I haven't seen any reporting about the father of this child.
This case raises all kinds of legal issues as Sharon's article (and other reporting) describes, and I don't know what the next steps will be. I'm a Georgia resident so this has been and continues to be in the local news, and no doubt more (legislatively? judicially?) is to come.
As a Georgia resident, I hope you're advocating for the law to change and allow the family to have the ability to make their own choices. And as the family didn't get the choice, I hope you're advocating for the state to pay their medical bills.
I understand that stepping into the Preamble comments section without expressing full agreement with every aspect of an article—or echoing the prevailing tone of the conversation—can make one an easy target. I also recognize that if I don’t spell out every opinion I hold on every issue mentioned, it’s often assumed I must believe the opposite.
For the record, I’m pro-choice. That may surprise some, especially since I was among the first to express compassion for Adriana, the 22-weeks-pregnant mother carrying a baby boy her family has named Chance. My intention was to acknowledge her humanity—and her family’s—not to dismiss legal concerns, bodily autonomy, or the care she received.
I believe the father of this child or the next of kin should have had the choice. That time has passed, and her mother has said this child is wanted, so any change in law will apply to future scenarios and (presumably) not this one.
I'm not a lawyer, though it appears in the state of Georgia there are laws about who is responsible for unpaid hospital bills once someone has died, and it's unlikely that her family will be responsible for the bills related to Adriana's care. There have been no details - that I'm aware of - that have specifically shared the financial details (does she have private insurance, if so is it covering any of these expenses, is she on any other insurance, did her mother or other family member co-sign medical debt responsibility, etc.). Georgia also has specific laws on how debts from the estate are paid, and her minor child/ren are first entitled to a year's support before any other debt can be paid. Her family has also set up a GoFundMe, and those of you who feel compelled to offer financial support are encouraged to donate. I also suspect this family has or will have considerable (and likely pro bono) legal support, though I admit that's a prediction. Like I originally stated, more is to come and I'll be watching and advocating when and where I see fit.
The words we use to tell the story are important too. Adriana passed away 13 weeks ago. Her corpse is being artificially kept functioning via a ventilator, artificial nutrition and multiple medications. I understand wanting to be be compassionate (I spent about a decade of my nursing career working in the ICU) but Adriana is not “the 22-weeks-pregnant mother carrying a baby boy her family has named Chance”. She is deceased and should be allowed to go with dignity.
I don't see her condition as undignified. She was once a walking, talking, breathing human being and it is so surprising to me that you would find it necessary to type a comment referring to her as a corpse. Even if, by medical definition, that's what she is. That's not telling the story, that's - at best - clinical detachment. At this point, you advocate she should be taken off life support, and the 22-week life her body has carried thus far should...what? Because we can't go back in time 13 weeks ago.
She’s not alive. How else can you define that? And yes, after all this time I would still advocate that she be removed from support because that is the humane thing to do.
Until you see the amount of effort that goes into keeping a person who has been declared brain dead’s organs functioning, you have no clue what that entails. It’s not as simple and just leave her lying there for 6 months and wait it out. The strong IV medications that regulate blood pressure (which she would absolutely need to be on) can cause your limbs to die, should we amputate those for the sake of preventing infection to keep the fetus alive as well? When her skin is decomposing in the bed and we’re trying to keep her from getting bed sores and infections do we consider which antibiotics to use based on what’s best for treatment or for the fetus?
This is horrible situation and I feel sorry for everyone who is involved to have witness it getting to this point.
You find it necessary to refer to her as a corpse. I don't. You think Sharon should edit her article to say, "Over three months later, Adriana'S CORPSE is still being kept alive by machines." because you think those words matter when telling the story. I don't. If you were in charge of her case today, you would remove her from life support and let the 22-week old life inside of her die, too. I wouldn't.
You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.
Why do you feel the need to bring up that Adriana wanted the child she was carrying? What is the relevance to this situation? It's not like she went to the hospital with the intent of getting an abortion, though that should be her right to do.
She was 9 weeks pregnant and got very sick and the hospital refused to care for her, and now she is dead.
I'm gutted for Adriana, her living son, and her whole family and friends. And I know from experience her hospital bills will be in the multi millions, considering in August will 5 or 6 months. No way the family should have to pay the bills for something being forced upon them by the state. Georgia should have to pay for it.
I really appreciate that Go Fund Mes exist. But every time they are used I cringe inside a little. How sad that we as a country prefer to donate to funds like this rather than provide healthcare for people. Saying this as someone who has had to crowd source funds for a family members healthcare. Because insurance, even if yours is 'good', sometimes leaves the patient and their family with overwhelming bills.
I commented above to Ashley at the same time you posted this comment (I'm unsure if the comment was directed at Janet, at me, or at both of us). So for what it's worth, this was my comment specifically about Adriana's hospital bill:
I'm not a lawyer, though it appears in the state of Georgia there are laws about who is responsible for unpaid hospital bills once someone has died, and it's unlikely that her family will be responsible for the bills related to Adriana's care. There have been no details - that I'm aware of - that have specifically shared the financial details (does she have private insurance, if so is it covering any of these expenses, is she on any other insurance, did her mother or other family member co-sign medical debt responsibility, etc.). Georgia also has specific laws on how debts from the estate are paid, and her minor child/ren are first entitled to a year's support before any other debt can be paid. Her family has also set up a GoFundMe, and those of you who feel compelled to offer financial support are encouraged to donate. I also suspect this family has or will have considerable (and likely pro bono) legal support, though I admit that's a prediction.
Why do you feel the need to attack me for bringing that up? Why are you so offended by that idea that she wanted the child she was carrying? When others are commenting that this pregnancy wasn't viable, that this child will have guilt all his life, that she is a Handmaid for all intents and purposes, why is it so offensive to suggest that it appears she wanted this child? More than one thing can be true. And by the way, I agree the family shouldn't have to pay for this care. Nowhere did I say otherwise.
Tammy -- Janet can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your statements about Adriana wanting the child implies that Adriana--if she were capable of expressing her desires--would choose the path that has/is being taken. As if Adriana would say, "Yes, though I am dead, please keep my body alive for the next few months in order to incubate my baby...regardless of the fact that it will bring financial and emotional devastation to my family." At least that's how I took it.
I appreciate you commenting (looks like around the same time Janet did). Your comment brings up another issue in this, if we're thinking hypotheticals. What if Georgia allowed this type of advanced directive, and she did say that 'if something happens to me, keep my body alive so this child of mine can be born' - and her next of kin/family didn't want to, didn't want the unborn child? Is an advanced directive legally binding on the surviving family? Would the next of kin's desires, in this case, supersede the 'dead but for life support'? Please know I'm not expecting you to have answers (legal or otherwise) to these questions, but other scenarios can also sometimes bring up other, near equal ethical, practical considerations.
My understanding is that advance directives are no longer binding after the patient has died, at which point decision-making powers would (at least theoretically) be transferred over to your next of kin.
Thanks for sharing this resource. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, and if I was, I'd probably say something like well, there's the law, and then there's the interpretation of the law, and then there are the court cases that evaluate and affirm, modify or overturn the law, and then there's another law...
The initial point I was awkwardly trying to make (and maybe 'advanced directive' was the wrong thing to ascribe it to), is: what if that was her wish? what if it was her wish to be resuscitated if it came to that, to be put on life support if it came to that? In other words, what if it was her express wish not to die, and therefore she didn't (because of life support), is her family forced to comply? This still feels awkwardly worded. Adriana is young, which doesn't mean she wanted to be on life support. But it also doesn't mean she wouldn't have wanted to be.
And all of this is just speculation, in response to a hypothetical. It appears, again, based on the media reports, that this child is wanted - and that the family wishes they'd had the choice from the beginning. Both things appear to be true. Again, thank you for sharing this resource.
I was asking a question Tammy, not attacking you. What if we find out that she wasn't sure she wanted the baby. How would that change your thinking about the situation. That's my question and encouraging you to consider why whether she wanted the baby or not is relevant to the horror that is happening.
I apologize for misreading your comment, and I appreciate you clarifying. I can say - based on the evidence that has been presented in the media, including comments by her family - that I am glad her family wants this child, and that being that she was knowingly pregnant and went in for care for her symptoms, that she wanted this baby.
We can always consider other scenarios, and with new information, come to different conclusions. Yes, of course. But I reject the idea that her desire to have this child or not is irrelevant to the situation at hand. I can say it wasn't influential, in that it had no bearing on the outcome. But irrelevant? I can't agree with that.
I have wondered about the child’s father as well. Does he have a say in any of this? I’m speculating they were not married since Adriana’s mother is the one speaking on her behalf. Otherwise, the next of kin would be the husband/father.
The Mother and Father were not married. It doesn't appear the family of Adriana or the boyfriend have much say in this situation right now. The hospital is making decisions. But in this case it's murky whether the fetus' next of kin or mother's next of kin would get to make decisions. I'm not sure if that has been discussed anywhere - who would get the say. I admittedly haven't watched any interviews from the family or boyfriend. It's possible they have made their positions known somewhere. Other than the child is wanted, but what that means could be different from their opinion on whether or not they choose to keep Adriana on life support.
It’s exactly what I thought it was, laws and government making decisions for people in place of themselves and their families when it’s not necessary. This is not a public health risk, a national security risk, etc. This is a decision that should only be between the woman and her family, that’s it.
This might be an unpopular opinion, especially with this crowd, but I’m honestly a little tired of the constant Handmaid’s Tale comparisons. Not every law you disagree with is a dystopia. It might be time to close the book, turn off Hulu, and find some new material. Protecting unborn children isn’t about control, it’s a moral obligation. In that same vein, pregnancy is not slavery, and it’s not oppression. It’s the natural result of two people creating life. When that life begins, science (not religion or politics) tells us it’s a distinct human being. Defending that life isn’t authoritarianism. It’s the most basic form of justice.
In the case of Adriana, I think most of us agree this is both an unusual and heart-wrenching situation. But, continuing life support isn’t “using” her. It’s recognizing that her body, though no longer sustaining her own life, can still protect the life of her developing child. Adriana is a mother of two, even in death, and this is about giving her second child a chance to live, not denying her passing.
Abortion is a deeply charged issue, but the language around it has become wildly exaggerated. Take the claim here that pro-life laws prove politicians secretly believe women are only valuable if they give birth. That’s not just cynical, it’s absurd. Many of the strongest, most passionate pro-life voices ARE women. They’re not brainwashed or oppressed. They speak out because they know abortion harms women and ends the lives of children.
The only ones I really see clinging to outdated narratives are those still pretending every pro-life voter is part of some patriarchal cult. The truth is, the pro-life movement is filled with women, young people, and minorities who believe both mother and baby matter. Maybe it’s time we all step back and reflect on the rhetoric we use regarding this issue.
"I’m honestly a little tired of the constant Handmaid’s Tale comparisons. Not every law you disagree with is a dystopia."
Fully agree with this, but for clarity's sake: this situation does eerily mimic a specific plotline in The Handmaid's Tale Hulu series, wherein a black woman dies but her body is kept alive in order for her baby to continue gestating and be delivered later via C-section. While I'm not personally a fan of the TV series, and I do think it is generally over-relied upon as a touchstone for our current politics, even I have to admit that the callbacks here are not merely hyperbole. It's just life imitating art in the saddest way possible.
(also, as a woman who is generally very pro-life, I cannot deny the strong overtones of toxic patriarchal notions within this movement. It does make me feel like many men don't believe they can trust me with my own body, and it can't really be divorced from the larger framework in which many women are denied even non-abortive reproductive surgical procedures because we "Might want kids later!" I feel strongly that we need to call this out, and not in a "Not all pro-lifers are like that!" kind of way, but in a "Do you truly think women are more than their wombs?" kind of way. Just my two cents as a lifer in these spaces.)
Whether it’s the abortion ban or the law that a pregnant woman’s wishes are null and void while pregnant, to me it ends up in the same place. Women don’t get say or control over their bodies while pregnant. Why should pregnancy take away the rights of a person when the fetus/baby isn’t yet viable?
The problem is many pro-birthers believe the fetus is viable the moment cardiac activity can be detected. They don’t base viability on when it could survive outside the womb.
Honestly I don’t know what they actually believe because they’ve been so brainwashed by politicians and people at the pulpit telling them what to believe. IMO any human being with a heart and common sense would be able to say that a woman and or next of kin should be given full control over what happens to her body (& the unborn fetus).
If pro-birthers think they’re going to hell because they failed to prevent Adriana’s fetus from being born, then that’s something THEY need to deal with. The fact that we let these people impose their will over other’s is just insanity to me.
This!!
Thank you, Amanda!
Also, why didn’t they perform the emergency surgery?
Doctors said it was necessary immediately.
Lawyers/Politicians stopped it.
They have blood on their hands.
Everyone that voted for this law has blood on their hands.
This is the exact same law the MO Legislature passed last Wednesday. AFTER MO Voters passed an amendment legalizing abortion last Nov!
MO Republican Lawmakers are making us vote again after we told them we want legal abortion.
Their trick this time is nowhere in the ballot language does it say it overturns legal abortion, nowhere does it say it’s an Abortion BAN!
Liars and Cheats!
Vote Them Out!
Agreed. If I needed a kidney transplant to save my life snd my mother was the only match, I couldn't legally force her to give it to me if she wasn't willing. If you die and have not given permission for your organs to be donated, doctors can't take them even to save multiple lives. And yet, women can be legally forced to donate their uterus even at risk to themselves? Do we have less bodily autonomy than a dead person? It seems to Mr, laws like this aren't actually giving fetuses the same human rights as any living person - they are getting more. Moral views aside, it seems to me that most pro-life stances are very inconsistent from a legal standpoint.
We do not have as much control over our bodies as a dead person. That is indisputable in states with abortion bans. We can't force people to donate organs before or after death. We can't force anyone to donate blood. We can't force anyone to donate bone marrow. The only people who can be forced to relinquish control of their bodies are pregnant women. Someday, these politicians will come out and say it. They will say, "the value of a women lies in her ability to give birth". They say it quietly now in back rooms, in private, in places where men like these gather to decide our fate. Someday, they will have the control they want, and they'll say it with their whole chest. When that day comes, I wonder if anyone will remember that they were warned over and over and over, but removing brown people and ending all abortion and liberal tears were more important to them.
Once prégnant, woman no longer has agency. It’s horrific what America has become for women and their most deeply held rights.
The amount of effort and resources to keep a brain dead body working properly is astronomical. We have no idea if that kind of environment allows for the normal development of a fetus at 9wks gestation. Reports have said the fetus on US appears to have hydrocephalus. I worry very much about if this baby will survive outside the womb and if so what lifelong complications it will endure. Working closely with palliative care docs and medically complex kids I know the term life is a subjective word. It means something different to every family. Life at all costs is not always life. A family should get a choice in this situation. They will be the ones who have to pay for the cost of keeping a brain dead person “alive.” They will be the ones caring for a child who is high risk for neurological injury. The government should not be a third party in the exam room dictating decisions that should be made between patient (or proxy) and provider, period.
I know it's not the most important factor in this situation, but it seems to me that if the state is forcing a person to remain on life support, it should ABSOLUTELY be the state's responsibility to pay the medical bills. I hope Adriana's family sues the hell out of Georgia.
I think that's part of what makes this case so troubling: the state does not appear to have a unified position on this case, so they haven't actually come out to say, "Yes, we require that this woman's body be kept on life support for the sake of her pregnancy." The hospital is taking the least legally-risky path based a legal threat that's still a bit hypothetical.
I wonder whether the Smith’s would be able to then hold the hospital liable for the cost of Adriana’s care? I just don’t see how the family should have to pay the cost for a decision they didn’t make.
I'm with you, Ashley. This was one of the first thoughts that came into my mind when I read about it. The medical bills must be astronomical. If the state/hospital is forcing them to keep her on life support, the state/hospital should pay for it.
People don’t realize that brain dead is DEAD. Legally dead. And it’s often a Herculean effort to keep people alive on machines for an extended amount of time. In normal situations, families are required to disconnect brain dead patients from the ventilator usually within hours of pronouncement. And insurance usually stops paying for coverage at that point as well…because there’s no decision to be made. This case disgusts me all around because I KNOW what all is involved from all sides. Signed- current organ donation and former labor and delivery RN
Yes! I’m a pediatrician. You articulated it very nicely. Thank you!
What if we had a law keeping people alive so they could be organ donors? How is this any different when it comes to personal agency over one’s body? I want the GA legislators to explain this in public.
And likely her family will
be billed for this care, to keep her alive for months, care they never wanted.
Even if they did want the care, they weren't allowed to choose that themselves. It's a decision that was made for them that they will pay for emotionally, mentally, and financially for a long time to come. It will be millions of dollars that will almost certainly not be covered at all by insurance. And on top of that, the cost of caring for their grandson, who will most likely have severe disabilities.
If the patient is an adult and she isn’t married, who is the hospital expecting to pay this bill. No family member should be held responsible. As was said previously, if the patient is Brain dead her insurance will not pay.
The hospital will go after her estate which would negatively impact her living son.
Black women and the bodies of black people have been non-consensually experimented on for hundreds of years. I imagine if this was a white woman there would have been a different course of action (for example, having the brain surgery to save the mother even though it risked the pregnancy).
The only comment worth making here, is that if men were the ones who got pregnant, we would never have these laws because they would consider themselves able to make their own decisions about their bodies.
Thank you, Kim.
Smash the Patriarchy!
If men were the ones who got pregnant, there would be more abortion clinics than McDonald's franchises. Abortion pills could be bought at a gas station. Absolutely disgusting how women are treated as children, like we are unable to make decisions concerning our own bodies and lives.
An important medical distinction— the mother is not being kept “alive” in this situation. She is brain dead. The hospital is artificially pumping blood and oxygen and IV nutrients into a corpse to incubate a fetus. Brain dead people are legally and medically dead with no chance at recovery. The words we use matter.
There have been a few cases where much later in pregnancy a pregnant person has been placed on a vent and a fetus is allowed to continue to gestate. However, there is almost no reason to believe a 9 week fetus being incubated artificially full of all the medications required for keeping a brain dead person from having their heart also stop will have a normally developing pregnancy. As far as I am aware, we have zero medical evidence if a brain dead body is even capable of producing the hormones required to allow the fetus to appropriately develop from such an early gestational age.
Ultrasound has already shown hydrocephalus. Depending on the severity of this it can already be incompatible with life. The fetus also went without oxygen for however long the mother was after she was not breathing overnight before her partner woke and called 911. That can be devastating on neurological function for a brain. Especially one that has barely had a chance to start growing.
So not only is the family enduring the media circus and death of their beloved daughter, mom or partner, but it’s extremely likely that they are going to be on the hook for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars of medical bills futilely keeping a brain dead person on machines for a fetus that has a significant likelihood of either dying in utero, or having a short and painful life once born prematurely after all this. Or having a slightly longer but still painful life limited to a NICU due to the severity of their complications. All while Medicaid funding that would insure a medically fragile child is being cut. And all against the wishes of the entire family.
Sounds super pro-life to me. /s
In my opinion, this is a very important distinction. This woman is dead. Her artificially animated corpse is being held as an incubator for the dubious purpose of bringing a fetus to a point of viability outside of the womb. And we're not talking about a few days to give a premature baby time to develop its lungs a bit more. We're talking about MONTHS. At this point, the fetus might be viable outside the womb (with high risk of death) within the next 2 weeks. Yet, they're pushing for August?! What's to stop anyone from coopting female corpses for incubators even if they aren't the mothers at this point? Why not just take brain dead women and incubate all the IVF embryos? This situation is just gross (and I'm not terribly impressed with her family going along with it, either). Add to this, the likely monetary burden on the family and likely disability of the baby, assuming it lives.
Calling out obvious harm and blatant hypocrisy is not a “jab”. Pro life people don’t get to advocate for these laws then deflect blame when something awful (that was foreseeable!) happens as a direct result of them. And then asking everyone else to just play kumbaya instead of admitting that these laws have harmful unintended consequences, is a slap in the face to everyone who has told these lawmakers and advocates such tragedies WOULD occur.
Would you have responded better if she had ended with, "These facts do not seem to be pro-life as advocates would claim," or something to that effect? I get that sarcasm is not always received well, but I'd hope you'd also acknowledge the frustration that people experience when faced with the kind of hypocrisy that pro-life groups often embrace in their efforts to oppose abortion care.
Marti, everything you have said makes you pro-choice. You are pro-women making the best choice for themselves without the interference of the government. I am pro-life for me and me alone. You are pro-life for you and you alone. You and I and everyone who feels as we do should be angry that extremists have co-opted a term that should be positive and turned it into a war against women making their own healthcare decisions. You should be angry about that. Getting angry at the people calling out the hypocrisy of being so-called "pro-life" when they are really pro-birth and pro-control of women, isn't going to change the fact that it's the fake pro-lifers we need to be fighting against.
People say a lot of negative things about Christians, and I consider myself a Christian. Do I think they're talking about me? No. I don't think that because I don't behave in the ways Christian Nationalists (almost always the ones being described) do. If a criticism is not about you, don't internalize it. If you know they aren't describing you, then there is no reason to be offended. This could have been a moment of unity if you wanted it to be. You could have seen the comment for what it was and said, "Yes! I hate that fake 'pro-life' people don't really care about life at all! That isn't what it means to be pro-life!". Instead, you decided to be offended about words that had nothing to do with you or your beliefs.
And sometimes, when a state is using a dead person as an incubator, we have to call a spade a spade. There is nothing pro-life about what's happening to this woman. Nothing.
When legislation is enacted that *favors* one life over another, and removes that decision from the principle parties directly involved with a particular situation...maybe we should stop using the moniker, "pro-life" to describe those who support this legislation. Hence, Sarah's sarcasm.
Adding "/s" indicates sarcasm.
And sarcasm is unkind and unneeded.
Yes, but adding "/s" after "Sounds super pro-life to me" turns that statement on its head: it obviously DOESN'T sound super pro-life. That's what she was saying.
I'm pro-life as well and, like you, am also against forced birthing. I just don't see where what Sarah said is a mockery or insult toward pro-life beliefs. She's right: politicians absolutely are using "pro-life" as a cudgel to push through draconian legislation. We should be able to call that out for the hypocrisy that it is.
Marti, I'm curious what your definition of a pro-life politician is. Is it someone who supports or enacts the very laws that are now causing Adriana Smith to remain on life support against her family's wishes? I'm genuinely curious, because I'm struggling to see a pro-life politician in the year 2025 who *wouldn't* want to enact these very abortion bans that it feels like we're all agreeing are a bad idea. Is there a politician out there who says they are pro-life, but doesn't agree with abortion bans?
Then pro-life people need to stop electing medically illiterate politicians who write draconian laws that punish women.
Women have died-lots of them-due to “pro-life” laws. There are states trying to make obtaining an abortion a capital offense. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-forced birth. A doctor got arrested and went to trial for helping a ten year old rape victim get an abortion. That’s not pro-life.
It is supposed to be offensive because it’s morally reprehensible what “pro life” legislation is doing to women. People aren’t going to magically stop needing abortions because states make it illegal. People are going to get sketchy abortions, or get septic before they qualify for one under laws written by people who don’t understand when a fetus is viable or that ectopic pregnancies can’t be magically implanted back in a uterus.
You can personally not want an abortion, you can advocate for support systems where women don’t feel that they have to have one because they have social safety nets to support them, but when the same people electing officials who write laws that kill women, wrote laws that take healthcare from kids, and cut programs that feed and educate kids, you lose any “pro life” moral high ground.
Marti, that makes you pro-choice for others.
It's not a problem - I think Danica is making the point that you are actually pro-choice. :) Not choosing an abortion for yourself, but allowing the space for others to make that choice in their own personal lives, is the definition of pro-choice. And that is a good thing!
No, I definitely would not consider that a problem. Since you said you want others to be able to make their own choices that sounds like pro-choice to me, even if you wouldn’t choose an abortion for yourself. Pro choice doesn’t necessarily mean you would want an abortion.
Whether you like what Sarah said or not, this sad situation is a direct result of current pro-life policy. Full stop.
No one attacked you, Marti. And unfortunately the “most staunch pro-life folks” we know are the ones making things like this a reality. Our laws are made by (mostly) men in our government who couldn’t possibly understand less about the reproductive system and couldn’t define “brain dead” if their lives depended on it. This is a feature of their laws, not a bug.
I mean this with every ounce of respect. I would encourage you to consider whether your framing of your identity (“pro-life”) is still truly compatible with your values (“there is great need for choices for women.”)
But this is what most pro-choice people would do--encourage someone to deeply consider keeping a pregnancy and pursuing all of the options available. That is the definition of choice. Pro-choice people don't think everyone should get abortions or think it's the best choice. Pro-choice people think women get to choose, and do so privately and with as much support as they want. The definition of pro-life is life for the fetus at any cost. Your definition here is admirable and right, but others have co-opted that phrase to mean something other than it's literal definition, and their stance at this moment in history overshadows your literal and genuine intentions when using the phrase. If that's what pro-life means to you, please work with other pro-life identifying people to make the political stance of that group reflect your amazing values. They align perfectly with mine, and at this moment in history I see the pro-choice movement's policies best reflecting those values.
Very true!
The Senators who sponsored Georgia's LIFE Act have all publicly labeled themselves as pro-life. It's fair to assume they believe that label is consistent with the law that has led to this situation.
*Edited to add: "Georgia Sen. Ed Setzler (R-Acworth), who introduced the LIFE Act, has praised the hospital’s decision to keep Smith on life support, calling it a recognition of the value of life. 'I’m thankful for the hospital recognizing the full value of this small human life that’s living inside of this tragically dying young mother'." https://www.newsbreak.com/law-crime-520571/4013419107624-nothing-in-the-life-act-state-ag-insists-hospital-is-not-keeping-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-alive-so-her-fetus-can-be-delivered-under-heartbeat-law-despite-bill-author-s-praise
I think this speaks to why some people are rebranding “pro life” as “forced birthing” and the like. Every pro choice person I know IS pro life in the sense that they want the best outcome for every human involved. They don’t want preteens being forced to carry a baby to term. They don’t want women getting infections and dying. They want people who WANT babies to be able to have them safely. They want people to know what all the options are.
Is that very different than your perspective of what being pro choice is? I’m genuinely curious, bc you and I agree with each other on what we want to happen here! 😁
Im not “pro abortion”, (I don’t think anyone would call themselves that), but I think “pro life” is a misleading candy coating when the actual policies increase maternal mortality, prevent life-saving medical care, and don't support children after birth. The actual statistics show it’s more about controlling reproductive choices, not protecting life.
Anyway just my thoughts. Thanks Marti!
Your last sentence is exactly what Sarah was agreeing with: this situation would be antithetical to the very basis of the beliefs held by many pro-life folks.
The problem is, the same people screaming about being “pro-life” (who are really just against abortion), are most often (these days, anyway) the same people who are okay with deporting immigrants, taking free lunch away from children, cutting aid programs that support families, etc.
I also consider myself to be “pro-life,” but I mean pro-immigrants’ lives, pro-prisoners’ lives, pro-children’s lives. I mean “let’s do something about the guns that are killing people,” and “let’s support medical research and scientists who are saving lives.”
But far too often, the “pro-life” movement in the US is simply about forcing birth and against anything to help that child after birth.
Considering that it's basically the state of Georgia requiring this woman to be kept on life support, I dearly hope that they intend to pay for the medical bill. The family should be suing their ass.
They do not. (This would also be a perfect opportunity for pro-life groups to put their money where their mouth is, but I don't see them scrambling to offer any kind of aid.)
And the insurance company isn't likely to pay for it either since she's not actually alive.
They're likely to get a denial for "not medically necessary" but they still stand a very good chance to get that overturned on appeal (the state insurance board would be a good resource for them, but the sheer publicity of the case could probably be enough to rely on as extenuating circumstances). I really hope these folks have the advocates that they need 💔
What's so despicable to me is that it sounds like surgery could have saved her life, but the hospital was so afraid of the law, that they chose the fetus over a fully-formed, adult MOTHER! Now her other kid has no Mama. I just hate her whole situation and I'm gutted with grief for this family!
When Republicans say the abortion issue "belongs" with the states, they seem to be proposing some moral rightness to state-level decision making. But if we follow this principle of local control to its logical endpoint, why stop at states? After all, a state like Texas or California contains millions of people with widely varying values and beliefs. Shouldn't cities and towns be even better positioned to create abortion laws that reflect their local values and customs? And if community-level decisions make sense, why not go further and let individual hospitals set their own policies based on their ethical frameworks? Or each neighborhood? Each household? Following this reasoning to its natural conclusion, wouldn't the most "local" decision possible be leaving it to each individual person to decide what happens with their own body? This "states' rights" argument, when carried to its logical end, accidentally makes the strongest case for personal choice. The ultimate local jurisdiction is the individual herself.
And then on top of that, it’s really none of the government’s business anyway.
The most local form of if government is the individual. The Constitution recognizes that. They stop at states because they don't actually want to allow individuals to make decisions they don't like, and while the majority of individuals don't like this sort of cooption of bodily autonomy, the majority of states are run by politicians who are perfectly fine by it.
If only there was a way to align the needs of the public with the wants of their elected representatives... 🤔
This is literally a scene from “Handmaids Tale” (tv show not book.) We all understand on some level that keeping a dead person sort of alive-ish for the benefit of others is creepy. That body is dead. A fetus is growing inside a corpse. How ANYONE can make this ok is beyond me. We don’t force people to donate organs once they’re dead but we CAN force them to remain on life support? This is incomprehensible. There is no logic here. The mental gymnastics people are doing to make this ok… *shakes head*
Without explicit legal permission a person's organs can not be harvested. BUT if that body is carrying a blob of cells that will develop into a fetus all rights of that person are removed and the law steps in and does whatever the h*ll it sees fit. Adriana is not only a corpse she is a corpse with less rights than other corpse since she was "pregnant" when she died. This is disgusting and shows us EXACTLY what the pro-life ghouls intend with the laws post Roe. Women have less rights than dead bodies.
And what becomes of this family who is responsible for all the hospital bills for keeping this zombie alive? For the ongoing care of the "child" who will most certainly have developmental and physical challenges. Will they get support from the state? Medicaid that is being gutted by the federal government? Or are they going to be forced to use Go Fund Me which is a sick thing that people have to do to stop from going bankrupt for medical charges?
When Adriana went to the ER the first time she was patted on the head, given no tests and sent home, told to take some Tylenol for her little "headache" which brings us to anther foundational issue with women's healthcare. Doctors do not take women's concerns, and especially Black women, seriously.
Just now, in 2025, the medical community is recognizing that women need pain management when having an IUD placed. Just now. This month.
Women should have the right to decide their own medical decisions with a doctor. Doctors need to listen to women when they have health concerns. Humans should have more rights than zombie dead bodies. PERIOD.
I almost died due to refusal of care in a risky twin pregnancy in the state of Georgia. One twin had severe structural anomalies & letting him pass away on his own would have and almost did kill his healthy twin, and myself included. I had to travel to NYC for the life saving procedure and it took 4 extra weeks to work out travel and appointment- nearly 18 weeks at termination. Because of my delay I had medical emergency after medical emergency- at one point a doctor told me I was going septic and they’d have to abort my healthy twin because the sepsis was going to kill me. Thankfully my numbers started dropping in the nick of time. I was hospitalized 10 times in 10 weeks after- every day was a risk to both of our health. Simple decisions like using a bar of soap rather than pump soap could cause an infection that would kill her. She was born premature at 27 weeks and had a brain bleed, ROP & BPD that could have affected her for life- because I could not receive timely medical care in my state. Thankfully she is very healthy today and doing fantastic. Situations like mine and Adriana’s and so many other women are complex and layered and should not be decided by politicians.
I’m sorry this happened to you. Thank you for sharing your story.
Gosh this is scary and heartbreaking. You were going through one of the hardest things in life, and your state made it so much worse and even more dangerous than it already was. I'm so sorry, and I'm thrilled to hear that your daughter is thriving.
This is the logical conclusion of abortion bans. Let's call this for what it is. Women have fewer rights than a corpse. In no other situation can a human being be forced to give up any part of their body to save anyone else's life, period. You can't even harvest organs from a corpse unless prior consent or consent from the family has been given. Women are being treated as nothing more than incubators.
Interestingly, I imagine that while supporters of this sort of situation will argue that the fetus has all the rights of person hood at the moment of conception, they probably aren't on-board with those rights including citizenship. I think it's reasonable to argue that if conception equals legal person hood with enhanced rights over its mother, then it must follow that a baby conceived in the US is a citizen. Whether anyone WANTS to be a citizen in light of this and other human rights abuses perpetrated in the US, especially against women and POC, is a different story.
While I absolutely see your logic here, I don't think it's a safe argument to use because it legitimizes fetal personhood, which is bad for everyone. (The logical conclusion of fetal personhood is something we're already starting to see -- women imprisoned for miscarriages, IVF clinics closed, etc.)
I agree that fetal personhood shouldn't be legitimized. But if it is legal to force women to carry a fetus to term, even if it means she has no legal authority over her own body, then it makes no sense that a fertilized ovum is not a citizen. If the courts can limit citizenship to only those that are born here, and they have, then it makes no legal sense that the law can prioritize the rights of an unborn person over an autonomous human. My argument is that you can't have it both ways. If one doesn't apply, neither can the other.
Again, I totally agree with you and see your point, but the inherent risk in these types of arguments is: what if the birthright citizenship argument does indeed fail, and birthright citizenship is upheld by SCOTUS as a constitutional right regardless of the parents' citizenship status? Suddenly, our argument is a bit of a moot point. Birthright citizenship exists, therefore fetuses have personhood and citizenship in the womb. (This is a stretch - but do you see the logical argument here, and how pro-lifers could quickly jump to this conclusion and use this as a tool FOR fetal personhood?) We need to not waste time on arguments that won't actually help the cause, EVEN THOUGH I totally agree with you that it makes zero sense that some people are fighting for both of these things simultaneously (fetal personhood + no birthright citizenship if your parent isn't a citizen), two ideas that are incongruous with each other.
In my opinion, the best argument against fetal personhood is the idea that in no other use case are we ever forcing one human being to donate part or all of their body in order to keep another human being alive; therefore, we cannot prioritize a fetus' rights over the human carrying the fetus. That argument doesn't change regardless of what SCOTUS might rule in the future, imo.
I don't think that the argument will be made. But I expect that setting up a case where a woman who is a citizen of another country might be prevented from leaving the US because her fetus is a citizen of the US by way of fetal personhood would be a fast road to a hostage crisis. And I expect that idea would terrify most judges, so likely they would need to find a way around this conundrum in a way that would have to undermine the legal basis for fetal personhood. I also believe that if we ever get to the point where fetal citizenship has to be tested because fetal personhood is enshrined in law, the rule of law might just be a moot point because we'd be in The Handmaid's Tale. Of course, this is all hypothetical because I'm not in the position to test any of this.
You make some good points here. And I totally agree re: Handmaid's Tale. What a time to be alive and a woman in the US.
Based on many of the comments that populate this thread (that this has become a "pro-life" "pro-choice" debate), I'm going to offer this one, general suggestion: Given that each of these terms has evolved to describe the two extremes (pro-life is now viewed as "pro-birth", and pro-choice..."pro-abortion") and serve no purpose but to polarize. I believe it is time to abandon them. Neither of these terms can sufficiently describe the sentiments of most individuals in this country. At best, when we use one of them to describe our own stance, we do so with caveats. But, adding caveats and exceptions does not satisfy our need to quickly describe ourselves, or understand others. Everything must be a soundbite. OK. Then I propose we all start referring to ourselves as supporters of "Abortion Mitigation." I believe we can all agree that a world where no woman felt the need to seek an abortion due to medical, emotional, or financial factors would be the 'best' world. IF legislators were motivated to seek policies that supported mothers (and families) with these criteria at the heart--I believe 'abortion' laws would follow the path of common sense, and (mostly) de-polarize the issue.
While I appreciate the utopian desire to find a way to unite the majority on this topic, I fear that even a term like "abortion mitigation" and the "common sense" laws still seek to control the decisions a woman should have the right to make for herself. While I personally would love to see no one choose abortion as a birth control method, I also don't think it's a choice I or anyone should make for someone else.
This is infuriating. A country filled with people that love our so-called freedom, but that doesn't include bodily autonomy. Like it or not, women are not incubators. I'm sure a fetus grown in a literal corpse is not going to produce the outcome that these religious lunatics are hoping for. This entire cosplay of The Handmaid's Tale that we have going on is straight lunacy.
It only doesn't include bodily autonomy for women. Men still have complete bodily autonomy.
My heart goes out to this young woman who will not live to raise her children. My heart goes out to her five year old son, who doesn't yet know his mother will not 'wake up'. And my heart goes out to the child she is carrying, who is expected to be born in August and so far, is reportedly growing and developing on par with gestational age (currently 22 weeks). This child is a boy, who the family has already named Chance.
By all accounts, it appears Adriana wanted this child. I am glad April Newkirk (Adriana's mother), has expressed that the family wants this child, that this child is wanted. I expect if that were not the case, it would be additional grief upon the tragedy that currently exists. And as a mother, watching your child on life support - regardless of circumstances - I just can't imagine the pain. I haven't seen any reporting about the father of this child.
This case raises all kinds of legal issues as Sharon's article (and other reporting) describes, and I don't know what the next steps will be. I'm a Georgia resident so this has been and continues to be in the local news, and no doubt more (legislatively? judicially?) is to come.
As a Georgia resident, I hope you're advocating for the law to change and allow the family to have the ability to make their own choices. And as the family didn't get the choice, I hope you're advocating for the state to pay their medical bills.
I understand that stepping into the Preamble comments section without expressing full agreement with every aspect of an article—or echoing the prevailing tone of the conversation—can make one an easy target. I also recognize that if I don’t spell out every opinion I hold on every issue mentioned, it’s often assumed I must believe the opposite.
For the record, I’m pro-choice. That may surprise some, especially since I was among the first to express compassion for Adriana, the 22-weeks-pregnant mother carrying a baby boy her family has named Chance. My intention was to acknowledge her humanity—and her family’s—not to dismiss legal concerns, bodily autonomy, or the care she received.
I believe the father of this child or the next of kin should have had the choice. That time has passed, and her mother has said this child is wanted, so any change in law will apply to future scenarios and (presumably) not this one.
I'm not a lawyer, though it appears in the state of Georgia there are laws about who is responsible for unpaid hospital bills once someone has died, and it's unlikely that her family will be responsible for the bills related to Adriana's care. There have been no details - that I'm aware of - that have specifically shared the financial details (does she have private insurance, if so is it covering any of these expenses, is she on any other insurance, did her mother or other family member co-sign medical debt responsibility, etc.). Georgia also has specific laws on how debts from the estate are paid, and her minor child/ren are first entitled to a year's support before any other debt can be paid. Her family has also set up a GoFundMe, and those of you who feel compelled to offer financial support are encouraged to donate. I also suspect this family has or will have considerable (and likely pro bono) legal support, though I admit that's a prediction. Like I originally stated, more is to come and I'll be watching and advocating when and where I see fit.
The words we use to tell the story are important too. Adriana passed away 13 weeks ago. Her corpse is being artificially kept functioning via a ventilator, artificial nutrition and multiple medications. I understand wanting to be be compassionate (I spent about a decade of my nursing career working in the ICU) but Adriana is not “the 22-weeks-pregnant mother carrying a baby boy her family has named Chance”. She is deceased and should be allowed to go with dignity.
I don't see her condition as undignified. She was once a walking, talking, breathing human being and it is so surprising to me that you would find it necessary to type a comment referring to her as a corpse. Even if, by medical definition, that's what she is. That's not telling the story, that's - at best - clinical detachment. At this point, you advocate she should be taken off life support, and the 22-week life her body has carried thus far should...what? Because we can't go back in time 13 weeks ago.
She’s not alive. How else can you define that? And yes, after all this time I would still advocate that she be removed from support because that is the humane thing to do.
Until you see the amount of effort that goes into keeping a person who has been declared brain dead’s organs functioning, you have no clue what that entails. It’s not as simple and just leave her lying there for 6 months and wait it out. The strong IV medications that regulate blood pressure (which she would absolutely need to be on) can cause your limbs to die, should we amputate those for the sake of preventing infection to keep the fetus alive as well? When her skin is decomposing in the bed and we’re trying to keep her from getting bed sores and infections do we consider which antibiotics to use based on what’s best for treatment or for the fetus?
This is horrible situation and I feel sorry for everyone who is involved to have witness it getting to this point.
You find it necessary to refer to her as a corpse. I don't. You think Sharon should edit her article to say, "Over three months later, Adriana'S CORPSE is still being kept alive by machines." because you think those words matter when telling the story. I don't. If you were in charge of her case today, you would remove her from life support and let the 22-week old life inside of her die, too. I wouldn't.
You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.
Why do you feel the need to bring up that Adriana wanted the child she was carrying? What is the relevance to this situation? It's not like she went to the hospital with the intent of getting an abortion, though that should be her right to do.
She was 9 weeks pregnant and got very sick and the hospital refused to care for her, and now she is dead.
I'm gutted for Adriana, her living son, and her whole family and friends. And I know from experience her hospital bills will be in the multi millions, considering in August will 5 or 6 months. No way the family should have to pay the bills for something being forced upon them by the state. Georgia should have to pay for it.
So who among us will contribute to the hospital bill? It’s easy to opine harder to act.
As ghoulish as it is for anyone to need crowdfunding for medical care, so far over a thousand folks have contributed toward the bill: https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-adrianas-family-during-this-heartbreaking-journey
I really appreciate that Go Fund Mes exist. But every time they are used I cringe inside a little. How sad that we as a country prefer to donate to funds like this rather than provide healthcare for people. Saying this as someone who has had to crowd source funds for a family members healthcare. Because insurance, even if yours is 'good', sometimes leaves the patient and their family with overwhelming bills.
I commented above to Ashley at the same time you posted this comment (I'm unsure if the comment was directed at Janet, at me, or at both of us). So for what it's worth, this was my comment specifically about Adriana's hospital bill:
I'm not a lawyer, though it appears in the state of Georgia there are laws about who is responsible for unpaid hospital bills once someone has died, and it's unlikely that her family will be responsible for the bills related to Adriana's care. There have been no details - that I'm aware of - that have specifically shared the financial details (does she have private insurance, if so is it covering any of these expenses, is she on any other insurance, did her mother or other family member co-sign medical debt responsibility, etc.). Georgia also has specific laws on how debts from the estate are paid, and her minor child/ren are first entitled to a year's support before any other debt can be paid. Her family has also set up a GoFundMe, and those of you who feel compelled to offer financial support are encouraged to donate. I also suspect this family has or will have considerable (and likely pro bono) legal support, though I admit that's a prediction.
Why do you feel the need to attack me for bringing that up? Why are you so offended by that idea that she wanted the child she was carrying? When others are commenting that this pregnancy wasn't viable, that this child will have guilt all his life, that she is a Handmaid for all intents and purposes, why is it so offensive to suggest that it appears she wanted this child? More than one thing can be true. And by the way, I agree the family shouldn't have to pay for this care. Nowhere did I say otherwise.
Tammy -- Janet can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your statements about Adriana wanting the child implies that Adriana--if she were capable of expressing her desires--would choose the path that has/is being taken. As if Adriana would say, "Yes, though I am dead, please keep my body alive for the next few months in order to incubate my baby...regardless of the fact that it will bring financial and emotional devastation to my family." At least that's how I took it.
I appreciate you commenting (looks like around the same time Janet did). Your comment brings up another issue in this, if we're thinking hypotheticals. What if Georgia allowed this type of advanced directive, and she did say that 'if something happens to me, keep my body alive so this child of mine can be born' - and her next of kin/family didn't want to, didn't want the unborn child? Is an advanced directive legally binding on the surviving family? Would the next of kin's desires, in this case, supersede the 'dead but for life support'? Please know I'm not expecting you to have answers (legal or otherwise) to these questions, but other scenarios can also sometimes bring up other, near equal ethical, practical considerations.
This might be helpful: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_aging/publications/bifocal/vol_37/issue_1_october2015/myths_and_facts_advance_directives/
My understanding is that advance directives are no longer binding after the patient has died, at which point decision-making powers would (at least theoretically) be transferred over to your next of kin.
Thanks for sharing this resource. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, and if I was, I'd probably say something like well, there's the law, and then there's the interpretation of the law, and then there are the court cases that evaluate and affirm, modify or overturn the law, and then there's another law...
The initial point I was awkwardly trying to make (and maybe 'advanced directive' was the wrong thing to ascribe it to), is: what if that was her wish? what if it was her wish to be resuscitated if it came to that, to be put on life support if it came to that? In other words, what if it was her express wish not to die, and therefore she didn't (because of life support), is her family forced to comply? This still feels awkwardly worded. Adriana is young, which doesn't mean she wanted to be on life support. But it also doesn't mean she wouldn't have wanted to be.
And all of this is just speculation, in response to a hypothetical. It appears, again, based on the media reports, that this child is wanted - and that the family wishes they'd had the choice from the beginning. Both things appear to be true. Again, thank you for sharing this resource.
I was asking a question Tammy, not attacking you. What if we find out that she wasn't sure she wanted the baby. How would that change your thinking about the situation. That's my question and encouraging you to consider why whether she wanted the baby or not is relevant to the horror that is happening.
I apologize for misreading your comment, and I appreciate you clarifying. I can say - based on the evidence that has been presented in the media, including comments by her family - that I am glad her family wants this child, and that being that she was knowingly pregnant and went in for care for her symptoms, that she wanted this baby.
We can always consider other scenarios, and with new information, come to different conclusions. Yes, of course. But I reject the idea that her desire to have this child or not is irrelevant to the situation at hand. I can say it wasn't influential, in that it had no bearing on the outcome. But irrelevant? I can't agree with that.
I have wondered about the child’s father as well. Does he have a say in any of this? I’m speculating they were not married since Adriana’s mother is the one speaking on her behalf. Otherwise, the next of kin would be the husband/father.
The Mother and Father were not married. It doesn't appear the family of Adriana or the boyfriend have much say in this situation right now. The hospital is making decisions. But in this case it's murky whether the fetus' next of kin or mother's next of kin would get to make decisions. I'm not sure if that has been discussed anywhere - who would get the say. I admittedly haven't watched any interviews from the family or boyfriend. It's possible they have made their positions known somewhere. Other than the child is wanted, but what that means could be different from their opinion on whether or not they choose to keep Adriana on life support.
It’s exactly what I thought it was, laws and government making decisions for people in place of themselves and their families when it’s not necessary. This is not a public health risk, a national security risk, etc. This is a decision that should only be between the woman and her family, that’s it.
This might be an unpopular opinion, especially with this crowd, but I’m honestly a little tired of the constant Handmaid’s Tale comparisons. Not every law you disagree with is a dystopia. It might be time to close the book, turn off Hulu, and find some new material. Protecting unborn children isn’t about control, it’s a moral obligation. In that same vein, pregnancy is not slavery, and it’s not oppression. It’s the natural result of two people creating life. When that life begins, science (not religion or politics) tells us it’s a distinct human being. Defending that life isn’t authoritarianism. It’s the most basic form of justice.
In the case of Adriana, I think most of us agree this is both an unusual and heart-wrenching situation. But, continuing life support isn’t “using” her. It’s recognizing that her body, though no longer sustaining her own life, can still protect the life of her developing child. Adriana is a mother of two, even in death, and this is about giving her second child a chance to live, not denying her passing.
Abortion is a deeply charged issue, but the language around it has become wildly exaggerated. Take the claim here that pro-life laws prove politicians secretly believe women are only valuable if they give birth. That’s not just cynical, it’s absurd. Many of the strongest, most passionate pro-life voices ARE women. They’re not brainwashed or oppressed. They speak out because they know abortion harms women and ends the lives of children.
The only ones I really see clinging to outdated narratives are those still pretending every pro-life voter is part of some patriarchal cult. The truth is, the pro-life movement is filled with women, young people, and minorities who believe both mother and baby matter. Maybe it’s time we all step back and reflect on the rhetoric we use regarding this issue.
"I’m honestly a little tired of the constant Handmaid’s Tale comparisons. Not every law you disagree with is a dystopia."
Fully agree with this, but for clarity's sake: this situation does eerily mimic a specific plotline in The Handmaid's Tale Hulu series, wherein a black woman dies but her body is kept alive in order for her baby to continue gestating and be delivered later via C-section. While I'm not personally a fan of the TV series, and I do think it is generally over-relied upon as a touchstone for our current politics, even I have to admit that the callbacks here are not merely hyperbole. It's just life imitating art in the saddest way possible.
(also, as a woman who is generally very pro-life, I cannot deny the strong overtones of toxic patriarchal notions within this movement. It does make me feel like many men don't believe they can trust me with my own body, and it can't really be divorced from the larger framework in which many women are denied even non-abortive reproductive surgical procedures because we "Might want kids later!" I feel strongly that we need to call this out, and not in a "Not all pro-lifers are like that!" kind of way, but in a "Do you truly think women are more than their wombs?" kind of way. Just my two cents as a lifer in these spaces.)