• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

[RD] Abortion, once again

Georgia hospital says it's following state law in continuing pregnancy of woman on life support​

Cases where doctors aim to prolong pregnancy after woman declared brain-dead extremely rare

A pregnant woman in Georgia who was declared brain-dead after a medical emergency has been on life support for three months to let the fetus grow enough to be delivered, a move her family says a hospital told them was required under the state's strict anti-abortion law.

Members of Adriana Smith's family say Emory University Hospital doctors have told them they are not allowed to stop or remove the devices that are keeping her breathing because state law bans abortion after cardiac activity can be detected — generally around six weeks into pregnancy.

With the due date still more than three months away, it could be one of the longest such pregnancies. Her family is upset that Georgia's law that restricts abortion once cardiac activity is detected doesn't allow relatives to have a say in whether a pregnant woman is kept on life support.

The law was adopted in 2019 but not enforced until after Roe v. Wade was overturned in the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling by the Supreme Court, which opened the door to state abortion bans.

Smith, a 30-year-old mother and nurse, was declared brain-dead in February, her mother, April Newkirk, told Atlanta TV station WXIA.

Newkirk said Smith is now 21 weeks pregnant. Removing breathing tubes and other life-saving devices would likely kill the fetus.

Emory Healthcare said it could not comment on an individual case because of privacy rules, but released a statement saying it "uses consensus from clinical experts, medical literature, and legal guidance to support our providers as they make individualized treatment recommendations in compliance with Georgia's abortion laws and all other applicable laws. Our top priorities continue to be the safety and wellbeing of the patients we serve."

Twelve states are enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy and three others have bans like Georgia's that kick in after about six weeks.

Like the others, Georgia's ban includes an exception if an abortion is necessary to maintain the woman's life.

Legal confusion over rights of fetus​

Newkirk said her daughter had intense headaches more than three months ago and went to Atlanta's Northside Hospital, where she received medication and was released. The next morning, her boyfriend woke to her gasping for air and called 911. Emory University Hospital determined she had blood clots in her brain and she was declared brain-dead.

Smith's family, including her five-year-old son, still visit her in the hospital.

Newkirk told WXIA that doctors told the family that the fetus has fluid on the brain and that they're concerned about his health.

"She's pregnant with my grandson. But he may be blind, may not be able to walk, may not survive once he's born," Newkirk said.

She has not said whether the family wants Smith removed from life support.

Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging Georgia's abortion law, said the situation is problematic.

"Her family deserved the right to have decision-making power about her medical decisions," Simpson said in a statement. "Instead, they have endured over 90 days of retraumatization, expensive medical costs, and the cruelty of being unable to resolve and move toward healing."

Lois Shepherd, a bioethicist and law professor at the University of Virginia, said she does not believe life support is legally required in this case.

But she said whether a state could insist Smith remains on life support is uncertain since the overturning of Roe, which found that fetuses do not have the rights of people.

"Pre-Dobbs, a fetus didn't have any rights," Shepherd said. "And the state's interest in fetal life could not be so strong as to overcome other important rights, but now we don't know."

Complications frequent in known cases​

Brain death in pregnancy is rare. Rarer still are cases in which doctors aim to prolong the pregnancy after a woman is declared brain-dead.

A 2021 review scoured medical literature going back decades for cases in which doctors declared a woman brain-dead and aimed to prolong her pregnancy. It found 35.

Of those, 27 resulted in a live birth, the majority either immediately declared healthy or with normal follow-up tests. But Dr. Vincenzo Berghella, who co-authored the study, also cautioned that the Georgia case was much more difficult because the pregnancy was less far along when the woman was declared brain-dead.

In the 35 cases he studied, doctors were able to prolong the pregnancy by an average of just seven weeks before complications forced them to intervene.

"It's just hard to keep the mother out of infection, out of cardiac failure," said Berghella, director of maternal fetal medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia.

Berghella also found a case from Germany that resulted in a live birth when the woman was declared brain-dead at nine weeks of pregnancy — about as far along as Smith was when she died.

Georgia's law confers personhood on a fetus. Those who favour personhood say fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses should be considered people with the same rights as those already born.

Georgia state Sen. Ed Setzler, a Republican who sponsored the 2019 law, said he supported Emory's interpretation.

"I think it is completely appropriate that the hospital do what they can to save the life of the child," Setzler said. "I think this is an unusual circumstance, but I think it highlights the value of innocent human life. I think the hospital is acting appropriately."

Setzler said he believes it is sometimes acceptable to remove life support from someone who is brain-dead, but that the law is "an appropriate check" because the mother is pregnant. He said Smith's relatives have "good choices," including keeping the child or offering it for adoption.

Georgia's abortion ban has been in the spotlight before.

Last year, ProPublica reported that two Georgia women died after they did not get proper medical treatment for complications from taking abortion pills. The stories of Amber Thurman and Candi Miller entered the presidential race, with Democrat Kamala Harris saying the deaths were the result of the abortion bans that went into effect in Georgia and elsewhere after Dobbs.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/georgia-pregnancy-controversy-1.7536691
 

Missouri Voted in Favor of Abortion Rights and Paid Sick Leave. State Republicans Just Overturned Them Both​

The two major ballot initiatives were passed in November 2024 by the popular vote

Missouri Republicans were able to swiftly overturn abortion rights and paid sick leave using an uncommon procedural move, sparking outrage from Democrats and advocates who say the legislature has ignored the will of the people.

In November 2024, Missouri voters passed two major ballot initiatives: Amendment 3, which reinstated abortion rights lost after the fall of Roe v. Wade, and Proposition A, which guaranteed paid sick leave for over 700,000 workers, the Missouri Independent reported.

Both passed with strong support across party lines, with Proposition A earning 58% of the vote. Since their passage, conservative lawmakers have worked to undermine or reverse the measures, citing economic concerns and ideological opposition.

On Wednesday, Republican senators invoked "previous question," a rarely used rule in the Missouri Senate, to cut off debate and force immediate votes on both reversals. The first measure proposes a new constitutional amendment to replace Amendment 3, reinstating abortion restrictions but adding exceptions for rape, incest and medical emergencies.

The second bill repeals paid sick leave protections passed under Proposition A and ends the state's inflation-based minimum wage indexing. Both votes passed swiftly, despite an hours-long Democratic filibuster.

The repeal of Proposition A is set to take effect August 28, stripping benefits from hundreds of thousands of workers. Meanwhile the proposed abortion restrictions are likely to end up back on the state's ballot in 2026.
https://www.latintimes.com/missouri...-republicans-just-overturned-them-both-583149
"we just want to return the rights to the states, then they can vote on it"
 

Georgia hospital says it's following state law in continuing pregnancy of woman on life support​

Cases where doctors aim to prolong pregnancy after woman declared brain-dead extremely rare

A pregnant woman in Georgia who was declared brain-dead after a medical emergency has been on life support for three months to let the fetus grow enough to be delivered, a move her family says a hospital told them was required under the state's strict anti-abortion law.

Members of Adriana Smith's family say Emory University Hospital doctors have told them they are not allowed to stop or remove the devices that are keeping her breathing because state law bans abortion after cardiac activity can be detected — generally around six weeks into pregnancy.

With the due date still more than three months away, it could be one of the longest such pregnancies. Her family is upset that Georgia's law that restricts abortion once cardiac activity is detected doesn't allow relatives to have a say in whether a pregnant woman is kept on life support.

The law was adopted in 2019 but not enforced until after Roe v. Wade was overturned in the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling by the Supreme Court, which opened the door to state abortion bans.

Smith, a 30-year-old mother and nurse, was declared brain-dead in February, her mother, April Newkirk, told Atlanta TV station WXIA.

Newkirk said Smith is now 21 weeks pregnant. Removing breathing tubes and other life-saving devices would likely kill the fetus.

Emory Healthcare said it could not comment on an individual case because of privacy rules, but released a statement saying it "uses consensus from clinical experts, medical literature, and legal guidance to support our providers as they make individualized treatment recommendations in compliance with Georgia's abortion laws and all other applicable laws. Our top priorities continue to be the safety and wellbeing of the patients we serve."

Twelve states are enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy and three others have bans like Georgia's that kick in after about six weeks.

Like the others, Georgia's ban includes an exception if an abortion is necessary to maintain the woman's life.

Legal confusion over rights of fetus​

Newkirk said her daughter had intense headaches more than three months ago and went to Atlanta's Northside Hospital, where she received medication and was released. The next morning, her boyfriend woke to her gasping for air and called 911. Emory University Hospital determined she had blood clots in her brain and she was declared brain-dead.

Smith's family, including her five-year-old son, still visit her in the hospital.

Newkirk told WXIA that doctors told the family that the fetus has fluid on the brain and that they're concerned about his health.

"She's pregnant with my grandson. But he may be blind, may not be able to walk, may not survive once he's born," Newkirk said.

She has not said whether the family wants Smith removed from life support.

Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging Georgia's abortion law, said the situation is problematic.

"Her family deserved the right to have decision-making power about her medical decisions," Simpson said in a statement. "Instead, they have endured over 90 days of retraumatization, expensive medical costs, and the cruelty of being unable to resolve and move toward healing."

Lois Shepherd, a bioethicist and law professor at the University of Virginia, said she does not believe life support is legally required in this case.

But she said whether a state could insist Smith remains on life support is uncertain since the overturning of Roe, which found that fetuses do not have the rights of people.

"Pre-Dobbs, a fetus didn't have any rights," Shepherd said. "And the state's interest in fetal life could not be so strong as to overcome other important rights, but now we don't know."

Complications frequent in known cases​

Brain death in pregnancy is rare. Rarer still are cases in which doctors aim to prolong the pregnancy after a woman is declared brain-dead.

A 2021 review scoured medical literature going back decades for cases in which doctors declared a woman brain-dead and aimed to prolong her pregnancy. It found 35.

Of those, 27 resulted in a live birth, the majority either immediately declared healthy or with normal follow-up tests. But Dr. Vincenzo Berghella, who co-authored the study, also cautioned that the Georgia case was much more difficult because the pregnancy was less far along when the woman was declared brain-dead.

In the 35 cases he studied, doctors were able to prolong the pregnancy by an average of just seven weeks before complications forced them to intervene.

"It's just hard to keep the mother out of infection, out of cardiac failure," said Berghella, director of maternal fetal medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia.

Berghella also found a case from Germany that resulted in a live birth when the woman was declared brain-dead at nine weeks of pregnancy — about as far along as Smith was when she died.

Georgia's law confers personhood on a fetus. Those who favour personhood say fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses should be considered people with the same rights as those already born.

Georgia state Sen. Ed Setzler, a Republican who sponsored the 2019 law, said he supported Emory's interpretation.

"I think it is completely appropriate that the hospital do what they can to save the life of the child," Setzler said. "I think this is an unusual circumstance, but I think it highlights the value of innocent human life. I think the hospital is acting appropriately."

Setzler said he believes it is sometimes acceptable to remove life support from someone who is brain-dead, but that the law is "an appropriate check" because the mother is pregnant. He said Smith's relatives have "good choices," including keeping the child or offering it for adoption.

Georgia's abortion ban has been in the spotlight before.

Last year, ProPublica reported that two Georgia women died after they did not get proper medical treatment for complications from taking abortion pills. The stories of Amber Thurman and Candi Miller entered the presidential race, with Democrat Kamala Harris saying the deaths were the result of the abortion bans that went into effect in Georgia and elsewhere after Dobbs.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/georgia-pregnancy-controversy-1.7536691
This would be a source of unanimous outrage in any sane society. Her right to a humane death is being denied because under the GOP, women are legally treated as wombs only and not people.
 
We routinely keep brain-dead bodies on life support in order to harvest their organs to save lives. Tell me, what's the difference here? I don't see any mention about her considering abortion before the stroke, given how far along she was it's reasonable to assume that she intended to keep the baby.
So what the hell is wrong with doctors giving their best to honor that wish?
 
We routinely keep brain-dead bodies on life support in order to harvest their organs to save lives. Tell me, what's the difference here? I don't see any mention about her considering abortion before the stroke, given how far along she was it's reasonable to assume that she intended to keep the baby.
So what the hell is wrong with doctors giving their best to honor that wish?
That's for her prior legally expressed wishes and next of kin to determine, just as with organ donation. This is extremely basic medical consent and autonomy stuff. The very essence of medical ethics.

As EE notes, this being the United States, they're also almost certainly going to saddle everyone around her with bankrupting levels of medical debt, too.
 
It may be an interesting legal case.

Someone, perhaps her stricken relatives, may have agreed to pay for her medical treatment,
but does that include keeping a dead person's body otherwise alive to financially stiff them further.
 
We routinely keep brain-dead bodies on life support in order to harvest their organs to save lives. Tell me, what's the difference here? I don't see any mention about her considering abortion before the stroke, given how far along she was it's reasonable to assume that she intended to keep the baby.
She was eight weeks pregnant (remember this is actually only six weeks, because we count pregnancies from two weeks before conception) when she died. I'd expect she just found out she was pregnant. You can't make any reasonable assumptions about whether she intended to continue the pregnancy from the length of it.
 
(remember this is actually only six weeks, because we count pregnancies from two weeks before conception)
wait what i missed this, can you source?

i trust that it's true, it's just absurd legislation to me
 
We routinely keep brain-dead bodies on life support in order to harvest their organs to save lives. Tell me, what's the difference here? I don't see any mention about her considering abortion before the stroke, given how far along she was it's reasonable to assume that she intended to keep the baby.
So what the hell is wrong with doctors giving their best to honor that wish?
- for one, we don't "harvest" babies
- for two, even if we did, nowhere has any consent for kawaii baby harvesting been demonstrated, ie "if i become braindead and the fetus' brains gets filled up with liquid, please keep me alive and make my family pay the bill for X months of life support"
- and for three, it's not even certain that she knew she was pregnant during the stroke. we have no info on any of this

edit this is an accidental remix of the other posts, but i guess make note of that; the answers to your questions are quite obvious :)
 
That's for her prior legally expressed wishes and next of kin to determine, just as with organ donation. This is extremely basic medical consent and autonomy stuff. The very essence of medical ethics.

That's right, we don't know her wishes. And the ethical principle, so elementary that I'm surprised I have to spell it out here, is: when in doubt, attempt to save life.

Because morally, this isn't about abortion rights at all. It's about whether to attempt to save at least one life from this tragedy, nothing else. But media wrapped it in an "abortion ban bill" package, and those of you who were outraged, swallowed it. You've been had. Played like a puppet. A shining case of tribalism brought on by the US two party system.

This would be a source of unanimous outrage in any sane society. Her right to a humane death is being denied because under the GOP, women are legally treated as wombs only and not people.

That's funny, because the article cites multiple cases that show what civilized, sane society does in this case. Attempt to salvage at least one life out of this tragedy.

One does wonder who will be paying for keeping her body going ?

Ah, yest, the financial twist. Something that would not be an issue in country with a civilized approach to healthcare. Maybe that's why this is all a moral dilemma for Americans. The country isn't civilized yet.
 
That's right, we don't know her wishes. And the ethical principle, so elementary that I'm surprised I have to spell it out here, is: when in doubt, attempt to save life.
uhm no. if she doesn't have the faculties to decide for her own body, so jurisdiction of that falls on her family. media reported that they didn't even necessarily want to abort, they just wanted fair access to terminate treatment for a braindead person, as everyone has such right. they didn't get to decide. and because a fetus is involved, blocking this right by necessity becomes makes it about abortion. because the government's jurisdiction over pregnancy is instrumentally core to this case
Because morally, this isn't about abortion rights at all. It's about whether to attempt to save at least one life from this tragedy, nothing else.
as above
But media wrapped it in an "abortion ban bill" package, and those of you who were outraged, swallowed it. You've been had. Played like a puppet. A shining case of tribalism brought on by the US two party system.
hi i'm danish and this neither applies here politically nor is it applicable to the discourse here; my parents (and my father's new wife) all work in medicine, and this forcing of a baby to term in spite of a family's wishes over a braindead person is something the medical environment would consistently center around the question of terminating a pregnancy.

pulling life support is reasonably normal. here it is blocked because a pregnancy can't be terminated, ie it's about abortion. this right is also blocked by georgia's literal abortion law. like what are you even talking about
 
We routinely keep brain-dead bodies on life support in order to harvest their organs to save lives.

No, "we" don't do that in the United States, unless the person explicitly consented to be an organ donor
 
You've been had. Played like a puppet. A shining case of tribalism brought on by the US two party system.
1. I'm Australian, abortion is settled law here. 2. The breach of ordinary medical decision-making here is explicitly getting caused by American anti abortion laws.

If I'm braindead, the decision chain to keep me alive for organ donation goes:

1. Are my wishes to donate post-mortem written down (ie have I signed up to the organ donor register).
2. If no record exists, does my wife wish for this to happen.

That's pretty much it. At no point do doctors, hospitals, or the state itself, get to unilaterally decide to hold my body to do this. Certainly not for 7 months. The Americans here are violating those medical ethics norms where consent is everything.
 
Last edited:
uhm no. if she doesn't have the faculties to decide for her own body, so jurisdiction of that falls on her family. media reported that they didn't even necessarily want to abort, they just wanted fair access to terminate treatment for a braindead person, as everyone has such right. they didn't get to decide. and because a fetus is involved, blocking this right by necessity becomes makes it about abortion. because the government's jurisdiction over pregnancy is instrumentally core to this case

as above

hi i'm danish and this neither applies here politically nor is it applicable to the discourse here; my parents (and my father's new wife) all work in medicine, and this forcing of a baby to term in spite of a family's wishes over a braindead person is something the medical environment would consistently center around the question of terminating a pregnancy.

pulling life support is reasonably normal. here it is blocked because a pregnancy can't be terminated, ie it's about abortion. this right is also blocked by georgia's literal abortion law. like what are you even talking about

Pulling life support when it's only about whether the body dies now or later is normal. But it's not just about it. It's about another life too. And that's where the issue lies.

You want to stick to abortion line, fine. Let's see if I can get through that way. Every abortion is a compromise at best, choosing the lesser evil at worst. Some people try to avoid that reality, call fetus a non-sentient clump of cells..but that clump of cells is well on its way to become a human being, and that potential is what's traded away for a benefit of actual human being. But now we're in a situation where on one side is just an actual non-sentient clump of cells, with no potential other than rot.What makes it more valuable in this tradeoff than the potential of the other clump that can become a human being?

No, "we" don't do that in the United States, unless the person explicitly consented to be an organ donor

I believe organ donation should be opt-out instead of opt-in, but that's another thing entirely. Point is, there are cases where we keep brain-dead bodies alive for the benefit of others, what makes this different?

1. I'm Australian, abortion is settled law here. 2. The breach of ordinary medical decision-making here is explicitly getting caused by American anti abortion laws.

If I'm braindead, the decision chain to keep me alive for organ donation goes:

1. Are my wishes to donate post-mortem written down (ie have I signed up to the organ donor register).
2. If no record exists, does my wife wish for this to happen.

That's pretty much it. At no point do doctors, hospitals, or the state itself, get to unilaterally decide to hold my body to do this. Certainly not for 7 months. The Americans here are violating those medical ethics norms where consent is everything.

As far as I'm concerned, this is an edge case where the standing ethical norms are open to debate and change.
 
Pulling life support when it's only about whether the body dies now or later is normal. But it's not just about it. It's about another life too. And that's where the issue lies.

You want to stick to abortion line, fine. Let's see if I can get through that way. Every abortion is a compromise at best, choosing the lesser evil at worst. Some people try to avoid that reality, call fetus a non-sentient clump of cells..but that clump of cells is well on its way to become a human being, and that potential is what's traded away for a benefit of actual human being. But now we're in a situation where on one side is just an actual non-sentient clump of cells, with no potential other than rot.What makes it more valuable in this tradeoff than the potential of the other clump that can become a human being?



I believe organ donation should be opt-out instead of opt-in, but that's another thing entirely. Point is, there are cases where we keep brain-dead bodies alive for the benefit of others, what makes this different?



As far as I'm concerned, this is an edge case where the standing ethical norms are open to debate and change.

You have not thought through the consequences of requiring all pregnancy age women be kept on life support post-death until confirmed non-pregnant
 
You're only embarrassing yourself with this strawman.
Brother, letting a thing happen by ignorance is still a human dying, IF it is a human.

If we choose to define it as a human, we must act consistently with that in all matters. Condemned houses get checked before demolition. Condemned bodies should be checked for unexpected occupants, or else you're causing a death.
 
Back
Top Bottom