logo
People Are Absolutely Outraged Over A Black Woman In Georgia Being Forced To Carry A Pregnancy To Term — Even Though She Is Legally Dead

People Are Absolutely Outraged Over A Black Woman In Georgia Being Forced To Carry A Pregnancy To Term — Even Though She Is Legally Dead

Yahoo3 days ago

Note: This article contains mention of medical abuse and loss of life, including that of an infant.
Adriana Smith is a 30-year-old Black nurse and mother in Georgia. She was about nine weeks pregnant with a boy in February when her boyfriend woke up to her gasping for air in her sleep and gurgling.
Her mother told the media that her daughter had sought treatment at Northside Hospital the previous night and was released after being administered medication, but no CT scans or other tests.
Smith was taken to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta "with severe head pains," according to MSNBC. "A CT scan showed blood clots in her brain, and soon physicians declared Smith to be brain-dead." She has now been on life support for over 90 days.
The murky legality around this centers on Georgia's LIFE Act, a law banning most abortions after roughly six weeks of pregnancy once "fetal cardiac activity can be detected" — aka Georgia's heartbeat law. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed the bill into law in 2019, but it was only invoked once Roe v. Wade was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2022.
Officials seem to be in disagreement about the interpretation of the law, though. The office of the Georgia Attorney General issued a statement reading, "There is nothing in the LIFE Act that requires medical professionals to keep a woman on life support after brain death. Removing life support is not an action with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy." However, Ed Setzler, a Republican state senator who sponsored the 2019 bill, said he thinks it's "completely appropriate that the hospital do what they can to save the life of the child [...] 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."
Medical staff at Emory, where Adriana Smith worked, have been ignoring the wishes of her family in favor of the law, which leaves a glaring gray area in the case of a legally dead mother.
Brain death is "the legal and medical standard for death in the United States."
Smith's mother and family have expressed that they've had virtually no say in her medical care or that of her fetus. "She's been breathing through machines for more than 90 days," her mother said. "It's torture for me. I see my daughter breathing, but she's not there. And her son — I bring him to see her."
The family has reportedly been by her side every day since she was admitted to the hospital. Smith's young son reportedly thinks his mother is just sleeping.
According to Atlanta television station WXIA-TV, "The plan now is to keep Smith alive until doctors believe the baby can survive outside the womb — likely at 32 weeks gestation." That would mean 10 more weeks on life support; Smith's family said doctors have told them there are no other legal ways to proceed. "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," Smith's mother said.
She told WXIA-TV that the family is concerned about the health of Smith's baby, as doctors have told them he has fluid on the brain. "[Adriana] is pregnant with my grandson. But he may be blind, may not be able to walk, may not survive once he's born," Smith's mother said.
Many people have taken to social media to express their outrage over the anti-abortion legal and medical system that has allowed Adriana Smith to be kept alive by machines for the sake of preserving her pregnancy.
Related: This Reporter's Reaction To Donald Trump Talking About The Declaration Of Independence Is Going Viral
"I'm the mother of a brain-dead son whose organs were donated," said TikTok user Jennifer Comstock (@positivejen) in a video earlier this week. "People need to understand what it's like to keep a brain-dead body alive." She goes on to explain that it took time for the hospital to stabilize and prepare his organs for donation and to find suitable recipients because of his blood type.
"So I sat in that hospital bed with him for two days, because despite the fact that he was legally dead, that was my baby, and I wasn't leaving him in that hospital alone," she says.
"During that two days, the amount of interventions they had to do to keep my son's body was unbelievable," Comstock says. "Obviously, he was on a ventilator, but you also can't regulate your own heartbeat. You can't maintain your own blood pressure. They're giving you all kinds of medications [...] His kidneys were failing. They had to give him medication to fix that."
She goes on: "They would fix one thing, and another thing would go wrong. And sitting there watching it felt wrong. It was horrible watching what they were doing to him."
But, as Comstock says, there's one major difference between the case of her 30-year-old son and that of Adriana Smith: "My son wanted to be an organ donor, and that is why we continued to do it. And my son saved lives," she said. "But I don't think you guys understand. This woman is not in a vegetative state; she's not in a coma. She's dead."
"Her body is not functioning. Her brain is not producing the hormones required to sustain a pregnancy."
"This family is being put to torture. I did this of my own free will, and I am still traumatized," she concludes.
Related: A Clip Of Donald Trump Getting Angry After Being Fact-Checked Is Going Mega Viral, And It Sums Up His Entire Presidency In A Nutshell
People replied to the video in droves. This person wrote about how having a body that is technically "alive" is only one part of the equation in a healthy pregnancy.
Someone else echoed what Jennifer said in the video about the crucial difference in having the choice to be kept on life support; she replied, "Pregnant Georgia women seem to belong to the state not to them selves."
A lot of other folks just said that what's happening to Adriana Smith is wrong:
Another creator, Grace Wells (@0fficial.c0wgirl on TikTok), made a video with the heading, "What does it mean to be born of a corpse?"
"Adriana smith deserves to rest. Her family deserves peace. Humanity deserves safety from birth by corpse," she captioned the video.
"You think that a brain-dead person just isn't conscious anymore and their body's all working and so their body's just gonna grow the baby either way?" she says. "That's not what's happening."
"It is not pro-life to force a child to be born of a corpse," Grace repeats twice. "And what are the medical implications of a fetus gestating in the chemical environment of a corpse, of a brain-dead person who has to be on medication to regulate every single bodily function because their brain cannot do it because they are dead?"
"You can't even eat lunch meat when you are pregnant. But you think it's pro-life to force a brain-dead person, a corpse, to be medically kept some semblance of alive to force the birth of a 9-week-old fetus?" Wells says.
"If that's something that you can justify, we have very different interpretations of what is sacred," Wells says. "What does it mean for us as a society that we are attempting to do this as a political stunt? Force a child to be born of a corpse."
She also says that if Smith's child is born healthy enough to grow up, they will "live with the public political fear of keeping their dead mother on life support [...] following them for the rest of their life. That's not pro-life. That's not compassionate. It's not Christian. It's not healthy. It's disgusting. It's desecration of a corpse. It's horrific."
The comments resoundingly agreed. Some pointed out how Adriana Smith's case joins the long history of medical abuse and racism toward Black women.
"It's so sick. I also think about trauma and medical debt they are laying on her poor family," this person wrote.
One user pointed out the hypocrisy of this case within the "pro-life" movement.
And finally, someone shared the haunting reality that may await Adriana Smith's unborn child:
What are your thoughts? We want to hear in the comments.
Also in In the News: An Ad Against Far-Right Voters Is Going Viral For Being Both Terrifying And (Kinda) Accurate
Also in In the News: People Are Sharing Their Honest Opinions Of Elon Musk, And Boy, This Is Brutal
Also in In the News: 15 Extremely Difficult Things People Do Not Understand About The United States, And, Honestly, They Got A Point

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court lets President Donald Trump end humanitarian parole for 500,000 people from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua
Supreme Court lets President Donald Trump end humanitarian parole for 500,000 people from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua

Chicago Tribune

time12 minutes ago

  • Chicago Tribune

Supreme Court lets President Donald Trump end humanitarian parole for 500,000 people from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million. The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The court has also allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case. Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people, and in office has sought to dismantle Biden administration polices that created ways for migrants to live legally in the U.S. Trump amplified false rumors that Haitian immigrants in Ohio with legal status under the humanitarian parole program were abducting and eating pets during his only debate with President Joe Biden, according to court documents. His administration filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in Boston blocked the administration's push to end the program. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent that the effect of the court's order is 'to have the lives of half a million migrants unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent. Jackson echoed what U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote in ruling that ending the legal protections early would leave people with a stark choice: flee the country or risk losing everything. Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, found that revocations of parole can be done, but on a case-by-case basis. Her ruling came in mid-April, shortly before permits were due to be canceled. An appeals court refused to lift her order. The Supreme Court's order is not a final ruling, but it means the protections will not be in place while the case proceeds. It now returns to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The Justice Department argues that the protections were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference. The administration says Biden granted the parole en masse, and the law doesn't require ending it on an individual basis. Taking on each case individually would be a 'gargantuan task,' and slow the government's efforts to press for their removal, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued. Biden used humanitarian parole more than any other president, employing a special presidential authority in effect since 1952. Beneficiaries included the 532,000 people who have come to the United States with financial sponsors since late 2022, leaving home countries fraught with 'instability, dangers and deprivations,' as attorneys for the migrants said. They had to fly to the U.S. at their own expense and have a financial sponsor to qualify for the designation, which lasts for two years. The Trump administration's decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said. They called the Trump administration's moves 'the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.' The case is the latest in a string of emergency appeals the administration has made to the Supreme Court, many of them related to immigration. The court has sided against Trump in other cases, including slowing his efforts to swiftly deport Venezuelans accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.

Axios CEO Warns AI Will ‘Reorder Society'
Axios CEO Warns AI Will ‘Reorder Society'

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Axios CEO Warns AI Will ‘Reorder Society'

Axios CEO Jim VandeHei on Friday warned that artificial intelligence will 'reorder society,' further admitting he is alarmed and thrown off by how cavalierly lawmakers in Washington, D.C., are approaching the technology. VandeHei made the comment on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe,' while discussing an Axios story from earlier this week saying AI may lead to a 'white-collar bloodbath.' In the piece, which VandeHei wrote with Axios co-founder Mike Allen, the writers said 'AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs — and spike unemployment to 10-20% in the next one to five years,' according to one AI executive. 'I feel like I'm living in a simulation, where you see so clearly where the world's going over the next five years, and yet Washington pays very little attention to it,' VandeHei told Joe Scarborough on Friday morning. 'What we're saying is: just pay attention.' He also said he views AI as both a 'threat and a massive opportunity,' and that college grads need to be mindful of the industries they are heading into because of it. He added that AI does not have to lead to 'massive upheaval,' but he is concerned by the lack of concern shown by other CEOs and lawmakers over the tech's affect. AI has been a hot topic in media this week, with several attendees at the Wall Street Journal's 'The Future of Everything' event in New York City sharing their takes on it. Imagine Entertainment co-founders Ron Howard and Brian Grazer on Wednesday said they are both 'excited' by AI and use it as a tool to jumpstart ideas, but Grazer said it will never have the 'soul' necessary to replace professional writers. A day later, OpenAI COO Brian Lightcap said he believes artificial general intelligence — where AI models can perform any intellectual task that humans can — will be reached within the next four years. And Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian said during a different panel on Thursday that he believes 'the pure software part of Silicon Valley' will have a 'reckoning' in the next few years as a result of AI. For more on how Hollywood has moved from 'fearful observer to active participant in the AI revolution,' click here. The post Axios CEO Warns AI Will 'Reorder Society' appeared first on TheWrap.

Ten Commandments in Every Classroom: Texas Bill Nearing Law
Ten Commandments in Every Classroom: Texas Bill Nearing Law

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Ten Commandments in Every Classroom: Texas Bill Nearing Law

This article was originally published in The Texas Tribune. Come September, every public school classroom in Texas could be required to display the Ten Commandments under a requirement that passed the Texas legislature Wednesday — part of a larger push in Texas and beyond to increase the role of religion in schools. Senate Bill 10 passed the Senate 28-3, despite a federal court ruling that a similar Louisiana law violated a constitutionally required separation of church and state. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter The bill preliminarily passed the House 88-49 on Saturday — the Jewish Sabbath day. The Ten Commandments forbids work on that day, Rep. James Talarico noted in an effort to highlight legislative hypocrisy. The lower chamber's initial approval came after more than two hours of debate and despite last-ditch Democratic efforts to water down the law, including giving school districts the opportunity to vote on the policy, and adding codes of ethics from different faiths into the bill. On Sunday, the House passed the bill 82-46, but clarified in it that the state would be responsible for any legal fees if a school district were to be sued over the policy. The bill now goes to Gov. Greg Abbott, who is expected to sign it. Sponsored by Sen. Phil King, a Republican from Weatherford, the bill requires every classroom to visibly display a poster sized at least 16 by 20 inches. The poster can't include any text other than the language laid out in the bill, and no other similar posters may be displayed. 'It is incumbent on all of us to follow God's law and I think we would all be better off if we did,' Rep. Candy Noble, a Republican from Lucas who is carrying the bill in the House, said during the floor debate Saturday. Supporters argue that the Ten Commandments and teachings of Christianity more generally are core to U.S. history, a message that has resurged in recent years as part of a broader national movement that considers the idea of church-state separation a myth. That movement fueled Texas' push to require schools display 'In God We Trust' signs if they were donated by a private foundation — signed into law in 2021. In 2024, the State Board of Education approved Bible-infused teaching materials. This session, lawmakers have advanced bills that allow a prayer or religious study period in school, and one that would require teachers to use the terms 'Anno Domini' (AD) — Latin for 'in the year of the Lord,' and 'Before Christ' (BC) when expressing dates. Proponents of King's bill also say making the Ten Commandments more prominent in schools will combat what movement leaders see as a generations-long moral decline. Texas is one of 16 states where lawmakers have pursued the Ten Commandments bills. Although the Supreme Court ruled against a similar Kentucky law in 1980, supporters in Texas and beyond find support in the current makeup of the court's justices and in the 2019 Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which found a football coach could lead prayers on the field after games. But Robert Tuttle, a professor of religion and law at George Washington University, said allowing a private individual to pray — as in the Kennedy case — is different from displaying the Ten Commandments in the classroom. Last June, a federal court struck down a Louisiana law requiring all public school classrooms display the Ten Commandments — the first state this decade to pass such a law. The state is appealing the decision. 'The constant presence of a sacred text in the room with them is effectively telling them, 'Hey, these are things you should read and obey,'' Tuttle said. 'That's not the state's job — to do religious instruction.' He also said that despite the Supreme Court trending in a more conservative direction, its decision Thursday that leaves in place a prohibition on the establishment of a religious charter school in Oklahoma could mean that the Court, for now, is not throwing out that principle. During Texas legislative committee hearings, opponents from free speech and civil rights groups — some of whom waited till 4 a.m. to testify — said the policy could send a message of exclusion to students of other faiths or those who don't practice a religion. They also said the commandments were irrelevant to classes like math, and could prompt questions that were not age-appropriate, such as what adultery means. The teachers union said it opposes the bill because members believe it violates the principle of separation of church and state. 'Public schools are not supposed to be Sunday school,' said spokesperson Clay Robison. Talarico — who is studying to become a minister — raised concerns in House floor discussions Wednesday that the First Amendment forbids imposing a state-sponsored religion. 'My faith means more to me than anything, but I don't believe the government should be forcing religion onto any American citizen, especially our children,' the Austin lawmaker told the Tribune. 'I'm a Christian who firmly believes in the separation of church and state.' This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store