Georgia has been at the center of the national stage regarding abortion issues for several months now. First was the arrest of a woman who miscarried and put the baby’s body in a dumpster (all charges have been dropped); now it is the case of Adriana Smith, a pregnant brain dead woman on life support.
I strived to find as much as possible about this case.
Adriana Smith was merely 9 weeks pregnant when she went to the hospital for the debilitating headaches she was experiencing back in February of this year.
She was given medication and sent home.
That very night in February, she had trouble breathing and her boyfriend called for an ambulance. She went to the ER and had a CT scan, which showed multiple blood clots in her brain. For a brief time, surgery to reduce pressure was on the table, but Adriana experienced brain death before surgery could be done.
She has been kept on life support since Feb 19. Why?
Well, Adriana’s mother, April Newkirk, says the doctors told her it was due to Georgia’s abortion law, the LIFE act.
Abortion in Georgia is prohibited after a heartbeat can be detected, except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother being physically at risk. However, Adriana was a grey area, Newkirk said the doctors told her. She was no longer alive, but that also meant she was no longer physically at risk. To withdraw life support and let the baby die with mom, then, is implied to fall under the Georgia LIFE Act.
Pro-choice news outlets have been having an absolute field day with this.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
What the media is focusing on
I read 26 secular, pro-choice, or neutral articles, Newkirk’s GoFundMe page, and one pro-life news article covering this situation.
The consensus from the news articles from the legacy media outlets is that Georgia’s LIFE act is what is causing Emory hospital to keep Adriana on life support until her baby is old enough to be delivered via C-section. Some headlines include:
- MSNBC (1): “Georgia hospital keeps brain-dead pregnant woman alive due to abortion ban”
- People (2): “Mother Forced to Keep Pregnant Daughter Alive After She’s Declared Brain Dead Due to Abortion Ban: ‘It’s Torture’”
- The Guardian (3): “Pregnant US woman declared brain dead is being kept alive under state abortion law”
- The Cut (4): “We’re Just Human Incubators to Them”
- Newsweek (5): “Abortion Law Forces Doctors to Keep Pregnant Brain Dead Woman Alive"
- (6): “Adriana Smith and the Legal Horror of Reproductive Servitude in the U.S."
- Rewire (7): “Adriana Smith Died 3 Months Ago. Georgia Could Make Smith’s Family Pay to Use Her as a Human Incubator."
- The AP (8): “Hospital tells family brain-dead Georgia woman must carry fetus to birth because of abortion ban"
- MSNBC (9): “What a Georgia woman’s plight reveals about anti-abortion forces’ endgame”
- NBC News (10): “Georgia mother says she is being forced to keep brain-dead pregnant daughter alive under abortion ban law"
Georgia’s LIFE act has a fetal personhood provision clause which many suspect is at play here. Additionally, since Adriana’s life is no longer at stake, she would not be able to get an abortion because she no longer meets any of the abortion law exceptions.
Now, a few news articles have been slightly more forthcoming and some even refreshingly honest, quoting the hospital’s statement, which does not specifically blame abortion laws, and even mentioning other possible laws at play.
The blame for the abortion laws all comes down to Adriana’s mother telling news sources that the doctors told her that abortion bans were the reason they could not remove life support. Adriana’s mother also mentions this on the GoFundMe page for Adriana’s medical expenses.
Besides basically repeating over and over “abortion bans bad,” the media has also focused on the trauma of the situation for the remaining family — to really drive home how cruel abortion bans are. It’s implied or outright stated that the family can have no closure for their grief because they have to endure Adriana being on life support.
A few news stories mentioned whether the family wanted Adriana pulled off life support or not.
Early statements by her mother were ambiguous, but she seemed to indicate the unborn child was wanted, though not having any decision-making capacity added to the trauma of her daughter’s death.
Only one news story mentioned what Adriana herself may have wanted — and her mother stated she did not know what Adriana would have chosen to do. However, family wishes and specifically, what Adriana would have wished for, is curiously not focused on at all or very much in most articles.
I would like to point out that Secular Pro-Life has a great article asking some important questions regarding this case; they were the pro-life source that seemed to have the most legal and medical information so far.
Some media sources additionally focused on the report from Newkirk that the baby had some fluid on the brain in an early ultrasound. This is used to again show the cruelty of abortion bans — not only is the mother’s body just being used as an incubator without the dignity of burial or cremation, but now the baby may be disabled.
Obviously, withdrawal of life support should be allowed; why waste it on a disabled baby?
Is the abortion ban the problem here?
Not at all.
Who got it wrong?
Did the doctors have the wrong reasoning when they talked to April Newkirk, Adriana’s mom?
The hospital should have a legal team available for counsel on this issue, and this legal team surely knows or could have found out exactly what I did by Googling:
- That withdrawing life support from a pregnant woman would be unlikely to constitute an abortion under the LIFE act (which the state AG’s office already clarified).
- That Georgia, like many other states, has a law specifically for this situation and it is not related to abortion legislation, generally. It’s under advanced directive laws and life support laws in general. This law states that a pregnant woman in Georgia who must go on life support cannot have that support withdrawn unless she has made an advanced directive to withdraw life support AND if the fetus is not viable.
While at 9 weeks, the baby would not have been considered viable yet, Adriana apparently had no advanced directive. Therefore, according to a 2007 law that had nothing to do with abortion, Adriana would have been kept on life support anyway. This situation did not need the fall of Roe or Georgia’s LIFE Act to play out just as it currently is.
Many pro-choice states even have this type of law!
In total, 31 states restrict the decision of withdrawing life support when a woman is pregnant. Of those 31, 26 of them invalidate a woman’s own advance directive to end life support if she is pregnant and the fetus is viable. Of those 31, 19 of them prohibit a surrogate decision maker to end life support if the woman is pregnant and the fetus is viable. A total of 19 states prohibit ending life support when the pregnant woman has a viable fetus, and 12 states prohibit ending life support during pregnancy, period — the woman must stay on life support until the baby can be delivered.
The reasoning behind this law is that we should assume that if a woman is still pregnant when she becomes braindead, she would wish to remain pregnant. Basically, continue with the status quo.
This is the same type of reasoning that EMS providers often use when treating a pregnant woman; if the woman is unconscious or in a coma, EMS does not presume she would want an abortion. The EMS providers and the hospital would assume she wants to remain pregnant unless there is evidence on paper stating otherwise! Pregnant women who are unconscious or in a coma do not get abortion performed automatically once they reach medical care; why would a woman on life support?
Tweet This: Many U.S. states have laws restricting the withdrawal of life support when a woman is pregnant.
This case is tragic, traumatizing, and costly
This loss of life has been obviously traumatic to Adriana’s mother and boyfriend. Her six-year-old son may also have to deal with trauma related to his mother’s death, which he does not really understand right now.
The media has really played up the emotional trauma of the family, especially Adriana’s mother, who seems to be the only one talking to the news.
“They gave her some medication, but they didn’t do any tests. No CT scan. If they had done that or kept her overnight, they would have caught it. It could have been prevented.” (In response to her daughter visiting ER for headaches)
“It’s torture for me. I see my daughter breathing, but she’s not there. And her son—I bring him to see her.”
“She’s pregnant with my grandson. But he may be blind, may not be able to walk, may not survive once he’s born. This decision should’ve been left to us. Now we’re left wondering what kind of life he’ll have—and we’re going to be the ones raising him.”
“But every day that goes by, it’s more cost, more trauma, more questions.”
And I just want to pause and say — yes, it’s all true. I want to pause and have some empathy here. People on both sides of the aisle can be quick to jump on a case like this and use it purely for their own movement, ideology, etc. That’s normal — it’s a horrible situation revolving around a very heated topic, so of course it’s going to be centered on in the media for the purpose of advancing a cause.
But the least we all can do is pause to imagine ourselves in this scenario.
What if we were the left-behind mother and grandmother? What if we were the boyfriend (and presumably the father of the children)? How would we feel in this situation? Helpless, frustrated, angry, despondent, sad, grieving, withdrawn? Probably all that and more.
And because we as pro-life people do often consider the life of the unborn child as front and center in our thoughts and actions and arguments, I want to slow down for a moment to acknowledge that although Newkirk’s initial words seem a bit callous to me, she’s also not wrong.
Yes, women, especially black women, do have their health concerns and pain downplayed more than men’s in the American healthcare system.
Yes, keeping someone on life support is costly. No one seems to know for sure if Adriana had health insurance and if so, whether it will cover part or all the cost of her months-long hospital stay. If the family is left with these bills and a new baby and a seven-year-old boy, it is going to be really costly to pay off.
Yes, the baby may have some health issues. While a prenatal diagnosis can be made, a prenatal prognosis for life after birth is not possible; the baby, if he survives until delivery, must be assessed post-delivery before an accurate prognosis can be made about his quality of life.
Yes, death is traumatizing. Seeing a body be kept breathing and knowing the person is not really there is traumatizing. Feeling a complete lack of agency is traumatizing.
This case is tragic but not without precedent
While not common, women who are brain dead and pregnant have been kept on life support.
A systematic review found that for pregnant women who died and went on life support about halfway through pregnancy, 77% of the babies survived to delivery. An older review found a smaller survival rate, likely due to limits in technology.
There are a few studies reporting on women who were brain dead at 15 or 16 weeks who had successful pregnancy outcomes.
Ethicists and medical professionals have talked a lot about the issue of a pregnant woman being on life support who cannot make her own decisions. This is not a new issue or argument.
I have not found any studies yet with a woman going on life support at 9 weeks. However, Adriana’s baby has made it to 21 weeks and even now has a chance of survival outside of Adriana’s body.
Updates
On Monday (May 19), news station 11Alive gave us an update about the family and the baby’s condition. Adriana is having a boy, and the family has named him Chance. Newkirk, the grandmother, has made it clear now that the family does want Chance to be born; she continues to lament the lack of agency in making that decision, though:
“We want the baby. That’s a part of my daughter. But the decision should have been left to us — not the state. But right now, the journey is for baby Chance to survive — and whatever condition God allows him to come here in, we’re going to love him just the same.”
Additionally, the newer ultrasounds show baby Chance is in good health and developing normally, even being slightly above average in weight for his age.
Interestingly, even news stories after this update refrain from noting that the family actively wants the baby, including Fox 5 Atlanta, MSNBC, and NPR.
Last remarks
Adriana is dead. She died tragically, and her death may have been prevented. Her boyfriend and grandmother are left to take care of her young son and her unborn son.
Adriana cannot have any opinion anymore over whether to remain on life support until her son can be delivered. I find it very telling that only a single news agency even reported on what Adriana’s wishes might have been.
Additionally, not a single peep from the father is to be found; if he has talked to the news, no one has reported on it (that I can find).
Adriana’s mother does want the grandbaby, but this fact is barely touched on.
The pro-choice side is revealing their hand.
By using a horrible tragedy not at all related to abortion to try to advocate for more abortion access, they have shown they actually don’t care about bodily autonomy, the woman’s choice, or doctor’s opinions. The default position is abortion, and anything outside that is seen as weird, archaic, fringe, oppressive, unjust.
This is a gross misuse of a family tragedy.
Adriana deserved medical care to begin with. Her family even now deserves empathy, respect, and support.
As pro-life people, we can grieve the untimely loss of a mother and care for the family’s financial and emotional burdens while also advocating for the care of her unborn child. This isn’t an either/or situation. While the media may lack nuance, we do not have to.
References:
- Detzel, Allison. “Georgia hospital keeps brain-dead pregnant woman alive due to abortion ban” MSNBC, 05/16/2025
- Etienne, Vanessa. “Mother Forced to Keep Pregnant Daughter Alive After She’s Declared Brain Dead Due to Abortion Ban: ‘It’s Torture’” People, 05/15/2025
- Associate Press. “Pregnant US woman declared brain dead is being kept alive under state abortion law” The Guardian, 05/15/2025
- González-Ramírez, Andrea. “We’re Just Human Incubators to Them” The Cut, 05/15/2025
- Mordowanec, Nick. “Abortion Law Forces Doctors to Keep Pregnant Brain Dead Woman Alive” Newsweek, 05/14/2025
- Slocum, Ava and Szal, Roxanne. “Adriana Smith and the Legal Horror of Reproductive Servitude in the U.S.” Ms., 05/19/2025
- Gandi, Imani. “Adriana Smith Died 3 Months Ago. Georgia Could Make Smith’s Family Pay to Use Her as a Human Incubator.” Rewire, 05/21/2025
- Amy, Jeff; Mulvihill, Geoff; and Thanawala, Sudhin. “Hospital tells family brain-dead Georgia woman must carry fetus to birth because of abortion ban” The Associated Press, 05/16/2025
- Zeigler, Mary. “What a Georgia woman’s plight reveals about anti-abortion forces’ endgame” MSNBC, 05/21/2025
- Burke, Minyvonne. “Georgia mother says she is being forced to keep brain-dead pregnant daughter alive under abortion ban law” NBC News, 05/16/2025
