Hospital tells family brain-dead Georgia woman must carry fetus to birth because of abortion ban
What abortion rights might look like under a new Trump administration
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.
With her 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, which 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.
Georgia's "heartbeat law" is among the restrictive abortion statutes that have been put in place in many conservative states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade three years ago.
Adriana Smith, a 30-year-old mother and nurse, was declared brain-dead - meaning she is legally dead - in February, her mother, April Newkirk, told Atlanta TV station WXIA.
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.
Newkirk said Smith is now 21 weeks pregnant. Removing breathing tubes and other life-saving devices would likely kill the fetus.
Northside did not respond to a request for comment Thursday. 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."
Smith's family says Emory 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.
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, opening the door to state abortion bans. 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. Those exceptions have been at the heart of legal and political questions, including a major Texas Supreme Court ruling last year that found the ban there applies even when there are major pregnancy complications.
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."
The situation echoes a case in Texas more than a decade ago when a brain-dead woman was kept on life support for about two months because she was pregnant. A judge eventually ruled that the hospital was misapplying state law, and life support was removed.
Brain death in pregnancy is rare. Even rarer still are cases in which doctors aim to prolong the pregnancy after a woman is declared brain-dead.
"It's a very complex situation, obviously, not only ethically but also medically," said Dr. Vincenzo Berghella, director of maternal fetal medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia.
A 2021 review that Berghella co-authored 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 Berghella 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," he said.
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 favor 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 into 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
32 minutes ago
- CNN
Social Security won't be able to pay full benefits in 2034 if Congress doesn't act
Social Security will not be able to fully pay monthly benefits to tens of millions of retirees and people with disabilities in 2034 if lawmakers don't act to address the program's pending shortfall, according to an annual report released Wednesday by Social Security's trustees. The combined Social Security trust funds – which help support payments to the elderly, survivors and people with disabilities – are expected to be exhausted in 2034, one year earlier than previously forecast, according to the trustees' annual report. At that time, payroll tax revenue and other income sources will only be able to cover 81% of benefits owed. The deterioration in the forecast stems from several factors, including a law passed by Congress last year that increased benefits for certain workers and the trustees' assumption that it will take longer for the nation's fertility rate to recover from historically low levels. Average earnings are expected to grow somewhat more slowly over the coming decade, according to the report. Medicare's fiscal outlook also worsened. Its hospital insurance trust fund, known as Medicare Part A, is expected to be able to cover scheduled inpatient hospital benefits until 2033, compared to 2036 in last year's report from the program's trustees. At that time, Medicare will only be able to pay 89% of total scheduled Part A benefits, which also cover hospice care, short-term skilled nursing facility services and home health services following hospitalizations. The program's trustees project that Medicare's trust fund will be drained sooner because of increased medical spending in 2024, which also raised the forecast for future expenditures. Plus, the trustees raised their assumed growth level of inpatient and hospice services in coming years.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law restricting gender-affirming care for minors
Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law that restricts access to gender-affirming care for minors experiencing gender dysphoria, a decision that is likely to have broad implications for access to medical treatments for transgender youth in half of the country. In the case of U.S. v. Skrmetti, high court ruled 6-3 to reject the challenge brought by the Biden administration, three families and a physician who had argued that Tennessee's law violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The court concluded that the state's measure, which is known as SB1 and was enacted in 2023, does not run afoul of the 14th Amendment. "Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. The court's majority found that Tennessee's law is not subject to a heightened level of judicial review and satisfies the most deferential standard, known as rational basis. "We are asked to decide whether SB 1 is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause," Roberts wrote. "We hold it is not. SB1 does not classify on the bases that warrant heightened review." The three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, were in dissent. Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench. The court, Sotomayor wrote, "obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it." Joined in her dissent by Kagan and Jackson, she continued: "The court's willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them." The Tennessee law Tennessee's law prohibits medical treatments like puberty blockers or hormone therapy for transgender adolescents under the age of 18. The state is one of 25 with laws that seek to restrict access to gender-affirming care for young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, marked the first in which the Supreme Court stepped into the politically charged debate over health care for transgender youth. In addition to the state prohibitions, President Trump has issued executive orders that address what he calls "gender ideology." One declares that it is the federal government's policy to recognize "two sexes, male and the female," and the second threatens federal funding for medical institutions that offer gender-affirming care to young people under the age of 18. Mr. Trump's proposals are being challenged in the federal courts. Known as SB1, Tennessee's law prevents health care providers from administering puberty blockers or hormone therapy if they're meant to enable "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex." The state had argued that it has a "compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty," and in barring treatments that "might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex." Shortly before the law took effect, three families with transgender children and a physician who provides the treatments to patients with gender dysphoria challenged the ban in federal court, arguing it is unconstitutional. The Biden administration then intervened in the case. A federal district court blocked the law, finding that it discriminates based on sex and transgender status. A divided panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit then reversed that decision and allowed Tennessee's ban to take effect while legal proceedings continued. The appeals court evaluated the law under rational-basis review, the most deferential of the tiers of judicial scrutiny. But the Biden administration and the families had argued Tennessee's ban should be subject to a more stringent level of review, known as heightened scrutiny, because it draws lines based on sex and discriminates based on transgender status. But Tennessee had argued that the state aims to protect young people from the consequences of the medical treatments, which it said are risky and unproven. The state said it was setting age- and use-based limits on medical care and exercising its authority to regulate medicine. Access to gender-affirming care has become a flashpoint in the culture wars, as half of the states have in recent years enacted laws that limit the availability of the medical interventions. Many of those same states have also enacted measures prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in women's sports. The court's decision The Supreme Court's conservative majority found that Tennessee's law classifies on the basis of age and medical use, since treatments like puberty blockers and hormones can be administered to treat certain conditions, but not gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder or gender incongruence. Classifications that turn on age or medical use are subject to only rational-basis review, the least demanding level of judicial review, it said. "Under SB 1, no minor may be administered puberty blockers or hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence; minors of any sex may be administered puberty blockers or hormones for other purposes," Roberts wrote. The majority said that Tennessee had "plausible reasons" for restricting access to gender-affirming care that brought its inquiry over the law's constitutionality to an end, namely concerns about the health risks. The justices said they wouldn't second-guess the legislature over the lines that the ban draws. "Recent developments only underscore the need for legislative flexibility in this area," Roberts wrote, pointing to a report from England's National Health Service that evaluated the evidence regarding the use of puberty blockers and hormones and characterized it as "remarkably weak." "This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field," he wrote. "The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best." Roberts concluded that the court's role is only to ensure that the law does not violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. Teen questioned after family's quadruple murder Iranians evacuate capital Tehran, some say the regime is frightened Parents, brother of slain Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman speak about her death
Forbes
33 minutes ago
- Forbes
InnovationRx: The Dangers Of RFK Jr.'s Vaccine Advisory Committee
In this week's edition of InnovationRx, we look at the dangers of RFK Jr.'s vaccine advisory committee, how Trump's visa ban bars foreign doctors, the first FDA-approved transcontinental telesurgery and more. To get it in your inbox, subscribe here. Dr. Robert Malone, one of the new members of the vaccine advisory committee, has promoted unproven treatments for Covid-19 and measles. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s remaking of the vaccine advisory committee represents a clear and present danger to public health. Last week, RFK Jr. disbanded the entire 17-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, known as ACIP. He then replaced the ousted members with eight people of his own choosing. The new members include Robert Malone, a former mRNA researcher who parlayed conspiracy theories about Covid-19 vaccines during the pandemic and has promoted unproven, alternative treatments for both Covid and measles. Other advisors include Martin Kulldorff, also an opponent of Covid shots and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated a herd immunity approach to the pandemic. The speed at which these new members were chosen raised red flags among experts. Until now, potential ACIP appointees were often vetted in a lengthy process that took more than a year to ensure they were qualified and didn't face any potential conflicts of interest. However, several of the new ACIP members don't have any expertise in vaccines or infectious disease, and two of them served as paid experts in a lawsuit against Merck involving its HPV vaccine. The new members are expected to convene at a scheduled ACIP meeting in Atlanta next week. The committee has been giving advice to doctors and patients on vaccination for 60 years. That advice is used by local governments for help in developing policies for schools that keep children safe and by health insurers to determine which vaccines they'll pay for and which they won't. The stakes of this advice is high because vaccination saves lives. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that giving routine vaccinations to children saved 1.1 million lives between 1994 and 2023. The shots also prevented about 508 million illnesses and 32 million hospitalizations in that time period. This past March, 6,653 foreign citizens, educated at foreign medical schools, matched to internships at American hospitals, according to data from the NRMP. Hasiba Karimi was supposed to be seeing patients at a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania hospital in just a few weeks. She is one of 144 foreign-born international medical school graduates who were slated to start their first year of residency in Pennsylvania this year, and are part of a solution to the critical shortage of doctors in the United States. But she won't be stateside anytime soon. That's because Karimi, who lives in Canada and got her medical education in Turkey, was born in Afghanistan. She was scheduled for an H-1B visa appointment on June 9, the same day President Donald Trump's executive order barring individuals from 19 specific countries from entering the United States took effect. While the order outlines some exceptions—including for diplomatic visas; athletes, coaches and relatives traveling for competitions; and for ethnic and religious minorities 'facing persecution in Iran'—it does not carve out an exception for doctors. So now Karimi, who spent years building her experience and resume to win this internship, can only wait and hope. 'One in four pediatric residents in the USA are international medical school graduates, and they are filling those spots in the most underserved communities that American graduates are not even applying to,' says Sebastian Arruarana, a resident physician at the Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, and an advocate for international medical graduates. 'If this is not solved, who will take care of our children?' Read more here. A gene editing therapy for severe hemophilia B showed promising results in a new study published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine. Between 2010 and 2012, 10 patients who had severe hemophilia B caused by a defect in their DNA that prevented their bodies from making Factor IX, a key blood clotting agent, received the therapy manufactured by St. Jude Research. The treatment they received included the correct gene. Prior to treatment, the patients required regular injections of Factor IX in order to prevent bleeding episodes. The NEJM study found that more than a decade later, the patients who received this gene therapy were still producing Factor IX. Seven of the patients were able to discontinue injections while the others were able to significantly reduce the amount needed. All reported far fewer bleeding incidents with no significant side effects from the medication. Because gene therapies are so expensive (often in the millions of dollars) a big question is whether a single administration can last without the need for additional doses. This study's findings show that it's possible for a treatment to remain durable for more than a decade, which is an encouraging finding for this class of medicine. Plus: 23andMe founder Anne Wojcicki will buy back the assets of the company from bankruptcy. She beat out Regeneron Pharmaceuticals with a $305 million bid. And Caris Life Sciences went public on Wednesday, raising $494 million at an expected valuation of more than $5 billion. Digital health startup Sword Health raised $40 million led by General Catalyst at a valuation of $4 billion. The company said it plans to use the new capital to expand its services to mental health care. It announced the launch of a new product, called Mind, that it said would combine an AI 'therapist' with human professionals. On Sunday, a patient in Angola received surgery for his prostate cancer. The team that performed the operation, meanwhile, was in Orlando, Florida–about 7,000 miles away. This was the first intercontinental operation of its kind to be approved by the FDA for a clinical trial of remote robotic surgery. The purpose of the test was to see if robotic surgery of this type could be performed at that distance using fiberoptic cables. The procedure was a success, which could pave the way for more remote procedures, increasing healthcare access in countries lacking in doctors and other resources. The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee ban on transgender care for minors. The justices voted 6-to-3 that limiting access to treatments such as puberty blockers for those under the age of 18 was not sex discrimination. The ruling, written by Justice John Roberts, comes as the Trump Administration has attacked transgender rights and could have an effect on two dozen other states with similar laws on the books. Leading medical groups endorse treatments for gender dysphoria. A federal judge ruled that hundreds of NIH grant terminations were 'void and illegal.' 'I have never seen racial discrimination by the government like this,' Judge William Young said from the bench. A coalition of academic groups proposed an alternative for NIH indirect cost reform in response to the Trump Administration's proposed slashing of billions in research overhead payments. Sarepta and Roche stopped the use of Duchenne muscular dystrophy therapy gene therapy Elevidys following two patients' deaths. The governor of Oregon signed a law enacting the country's strictest limits on private equity takeovers of medical practices. Germany's BioNTech agreed to buy rival CureVac to boost cancer research in $1.25 billion deal. South Africa built a medical research powerhouse. Trump's budget cuts have demolished it – and could threaten global progress on everything from heart disease to HIV. Digital startup Tennr raised $101 million at an undisclosed valuation to expand development of its software platform, which lets healthcare services automate and manage their faxes. (Yes, faxes–they're still a thing in healthcare.)
