Author: Abinaya Raja, Chennai Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Pudupakkam
To the point
Adriana Smith is a 30 years old pregnant woman, mother of one child and a nurse in Georgia, United States. In February 2025, Adriana experienced severe headache in her 9th week pregnancy and went to hospital but she was not taken proper care by the hospital. They said it was normal during pregnancy but within a few days she became brain dead due to multiple blood clots in her brain.The main concern arose from the fact that, although she had been pronounced brain dead, Adriana was still just nine weeks pregnant, and the fetus had a heartbeat .Abortion is illegal in Georgia, So her body was kept alive with life support to incubate the fetus without her family’s consent, as they were given no other options. Adriana was not even allowed to die peacefully just because she is 9 weeks pregnant. This article will flaunt the defects of abortion laws in Georgia.It’s no longer just about politics or theories it’s about what actually happens when strict laws affect real people.
Use of Legal Jargon
According to Article 5, Title 16, Chapter 12, Section 141 of Code of Georgia Under Georgia law, abortion is prohibited except in limited circumstances such as when the pregnant woman experiences a medical emergency, the fetus has a condition incompatible with life, or the pregnancy results from rape or incest, provided a police report is filed and the gestational age is under 20 weeks. While these exceptions prioritize fetal rights, the framework overlooks the woman’s reproductive autonomy and fails to uphold her consent in deciding whether to continue or end the pregnancy.emergencies, rape, and incest.The Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act, 2019 recognizes a fetus as a legal person once a heartbeat is detectable, typically around six weeks into pregnancy. Under this law, abortion is generally prohibited unless specific exceptions such as, Although brain death is legally recognized as death, the lack of statutory clarity led to a legal and ethical gray zone, particularly concerning the principle of medical futility, since Smith could no longer benefit from treatment.These concepts expose deep tensions between reproductive rights, medical ethics, and constitutional protections.
The proof
The case of Adriana Smith has drawn global attention and sparked intense debate.This tragic incident created fear among the women of Georgia. In February 2025, Adriana Smith a 30-year-old woman who was two months pregnant and already a mother—was declared brain dead.. Her body was kept alive with life support till June 17, 2025 inspite of the fact that she has no chance of survival just because abortion of a fetus over 2 weeks is illegal in Georgia. They delivered her baby through cesearen on June 12, 2025. Finally after four days her life support was withdrawn with the consent of her family. After the death of Adriana Smith, this issue has been debated in the House of Representatives and a resolution was introduced calling on states to lift abortion bans and define the legal framework surrounding fetal personhood more precisely.The resolution characterized the Adriana Smith case as a consequence that rooted directly from the Black maternal health crisis.This case revealed a legal system that prioritized fetal viability over a woman’s dignity, consent, and humanity. This case stands as irrefutable proof of how law, when rigid and applied without regard to individual circumstances, can turn a person into policy.
Abstract
This article critically examines the legal and ethical consequences of Georgia’s abortion laws through the real-life case. This article examines the moral, legal, and racial implications of reproductive autonomy by exploring the case of Adriana Smith, a brain-dead pregnant woman kept on life support under Georgia’s heartbeat law. The article raises the question of whether women are being viewed only as an incubator for carrying a fetus, rather than as individuals with rights and autonomy.It looks closely at how certain laws ignore a woman’s right to choose and her personal dignity, all to protect the life of the fetus. The article explores how rigid legal interpretations can override consent, erase personhood, and prioritize fetal viability over maternal dignity.It explores how such laws disproportionately impact Black women and draws the line between medical care and state control. The paper concludes with a call for legal reforms that affirm life without voilating the rights of those who carry it.
Case Laws
1.Roe v. Wade (1973)
- In the case of Roe v. Wade filed an appeal by an American activist against the Texas abortion ban the US Supreme Court ruled that the woman in the United States has the right of abortion by declaring the Texas abortion ban as unconstitutional. It made abortion legal and safe in the United States.The Court held that the Constitution protects a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy, as part of the broader right to privacy. The court made the trimester framework in this case as in the first trimester, the state could not regulate abortion decisions. In the second trimester, the state could regulate procedures in ways related to maternal health. In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortions, except when necessary to protect the woman’s life or health.
2.Doe v. Bolten (1973)
- The ruling in this case was delivered on the same day with the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, and similarly struck down Georgia’s abortion restrictions as unconstitutional.The Court invalidated Georgia’s requirements that abortions must be approved by a hospital committee,two additional physicians concur with the attending doctor, the procedure be performed only in accredited hospitals,and that the woman seeking an abortion must be a resident of the state.The court stated that these were deemed overly restrictive and not sufficiently justified by the state’s interest in regulating abortion.
3.Planned Parenthood v. Cassy (1992)
- In this case, the Court upheld the core principles established in Roe v. Wade recognizing a woman’s right to seek an abortion before fetal viability but replaced the trimester-based approach with the “undue burden” standard to evaluate the constitutionality of abortion regulations.The court stated that a law becomes unconstitutional if it significantly hinders a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion before the fetus is viable.The requirement that a married woman notify her husband before obtaining an abortion was struck down by the court in this case. The court upheld that for abortion there must be a 24-hour waiting period, informed consent and parental consent for minors.
4.Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)
- Gonzales v. Carhart was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, marking a significant shift in abortion jurisprudence.The Court applied the Planned Parenthood v. Casey standard and concluded that the law did not place an undue burden in the path of women seeking abortions.This case was most significant in US history as this was the first time the Court upheld a ban on a specific abortion method without a health exception.
5.Dobbs v. Jackson (2022)
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned almost fifty years of established abortion rights by ruling that the Constitution does not protect the right to abortion. The case focused on a Mississippi statute that banned most abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. The judgment, which faced strong public backlash, concluded that abortion is not expressly stated in the Constitution and lacks grounding in the nation’s historical and legal foundations.
Conclusion
The case of Adriana Smith forces us to confront a painful question, when a woman is declared brain-dead but kept on life support solely to sustain a pregnancy, is she still seen as a person or just an incubator to carry a fetus. Adriana’s story, shaped by Georgia’s strict abortion laws, shows how legal systems can strip away dignity, autonomy, and even the right to die with respect to women. Her body was kept functioning for months, not because it could heal, but because it could carry a fetus. Her family had no say. Her passing was not recognized as a final moment of rest, but rather used as a tool to serve another purpose. This is not just a legal issue, it’s an inhumane treatment to women. It challenges how we define life, motherhood, and consent. Georgia’s LIFE Act, 2019 didn’t just control abortion, it controlled a family’s grief, a woman’s body, and the definition of personhood. Adriana became a symbol of what happens when reproductive laws ignore the humanity of the people they affect. This incident highlights the need for refoems in the abortion laws of the country considering not only fetal personhood but also the right of women over her body. Reproductive legislation must recognize that the right to life cannot come at the cost of someone else’s humanity. It is time to shift from control to care, from coercion to consent.
FAQs
1.What law was applied in Adriana Smith’s case?
The Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act, 2019 in Georgia was applied, which recognizes a fetus with a detectable heartbeat (around six weeks) as a legal person and prohibits abortion except in very limited circumstances.
2.Why was Adriana Smith’s family not allowed to withdraw life support?
Georgia law lacked clear statutory guidance on brain death during pregnancy and gave legal personhood to the fetus. This created an ethical and legal gray area, where the rights of the fetus overrode the family’s consent, despite Adriana being legally brain-dead.
3.Is brain death considered legal death in Georgia?
Yes, both U.S. federal and Georgia state law legally define brain death as equivalent to death. However, in Adriana Smith’s case, the presence of a viable fetus created a legal contradiction where her body was kept alive despite her legal death, showing a lack of statutory clarity when brain-dead pregnant women are involved.
4.What are the ethical concerns raised by this case?
The case raises serious ethical issues regarding the bodily autonomy of brain-dead women, medical futility and consent, state control over a woman’s body after death, racial and maternal health disparities.
5. How does this case reflect on reproductive rights?
It shows how overly rigid laws can ignore a woman’s right to choose, strip her of dignity, and reduce her to an incubator. The case questions whether reproductive laws are designed with humanity or only with ideological rigidity.
6.What reforms does this article suggest?
The article calls for reforms that balance fetal personhood with maternal dignity,
recognize consent and the right to die, address racial inequities in maternal health, ensure reproductive laws are humane and ethically sound.
