Mother died of sudden illness and was declared brain dead, but her body was kept alive through medical means to continue nurturing the unborn baby. This is not a plot from a horror or thriller movie, but a real event that occurred in the state of Georgia, USA. The reason such shocking and unsettling events could happen is because Georgia had previously passed a law: abortion is prohibited after six weeks of pregnancy.

According to reports by National Public Radio (NPR) and The Guardian on local time February 21st, the unfortunate mother who passed away was named Adriana Smith (Adriana Smith). In February this year, she sought medical attention at Emory University Hospital due to severe headaches. At that time, she was around 8 or 9 weeks pregnant. The hospital prescribed some medication and discharged her. However, her condition worsened the next day and she was urgently sent back to the hospital. Doctors determined that she had a blood clot in her brain. A few hours later, she was pronounced brain dead.

Pregnant Mother: The fetus has fluid accumulation in the brain and may go blind.

However, according to Georgia's laws, abortion is prohibited after six weeks of pregnancy, and the ban also includes a clause reinforcing the concept of "fetal personhood."

This means that the law considers embryos and fetuses as "persons," thus they should enjoy full legal rights and protection, including the right to life. Considering this, doctors told Adriana's family that the law required her to remain "alive" and preserve the fetus, which they reluctantly agreed to.

This law, known as the "Life Act" or "Heartbeat Act" (LIFE Act), was narrowly passed in Georgia in 2019. However, it only became fully effective in Georgia after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade case protecting women's right to abortion in 2022.

Currently, Adriana has been maintained with life support systems for over 90 days, and the fetus has developed in her body for about 22 weeks. According to related plans, doctors will perform a cesarean section in early August to deliver the child.

One can imagine how complex the family's emotions are. Adriana's mother, April Newkirk, stated: "We have no choice, no say... We do want this child; he is part of my daughter, but the decision should be ours—not the state’s."

In addition, medical experts doubt whether the child can develop healthily. Steven Larsen, director of maternal-fetal medicine at George Washington University, told The Washington Post: "The chances of ultimately having a healthy newborn are very, very slim." Newkirk also mentioned last week that an examination found fluid accumulation in the fetus's brain: "He may be blind, unable to walk, and may not survive after birth."

"This relevant law is not medically sound and is inhumane."

One can imagine that this extreme case has sparked strong doubts among many American citizens and political figures regarding Georgia's "abortion ban."

Nabila Islam Parks, a Democratic state senator, wrote a letter to Chris Carr, the Republican Attorney General of Georgia, asking him to explain why the "abortion ban" applies to such extreme and unreasonable cases. Islam Parks stated: "Let me put it bluntly: this is a serious distortion of medical ethics and human dignity... Georgia's laws can be interpreted as requiring the preservation of brain-dead women's bodies through artificial means as 'fetal incubators.' This is not only unscientific but also inhumane."

Chris Carr's office responded in a statement: "There is nothing in the 'Life Act' that requires medical personnel to continue using life support systems after a woman is brain dead. Removing life support systems is not considered the prohibited 'act of terminating a pregnancy' (i.e., abortion)."

However, Emory University Hospital seems to have a different understanding. Although the hospital has yet to respond to the legal opinions of the Attorney General of Georgia and has not replied to multiple requests for comments from the media, it did provide several media outlets with a statement last week.

The statement reads: "The hospital will support our healthcare providers based on consensus among clinical experts, medical literature, and legal guidance to help them propose personalized treatment recommendations while complying with Georgia's 'abortion ban' and all other applicable laws... Our primary concern remains the safety and well-being of the patients we serve."

The party involved, Atlanta Emory University Hospital, Associated Press

Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at the University of California, Davis, said that Emory University Hospital's choice might be due to the fact that healthcare providers in states with strict abortion restrictions have to become more cautious to avoid risks. In many states across the U.S., violations of bans related to abortion may result in criminal penalties.

"Georgia's current situation is an example; the attorney general says, 'Go ahead,' while doctors and their lawyers read the law and say, 'We're not so sure,'" Ziegler stated.

Besides whether Adriana's case applies to the "abortion ban," the相关规定 regarding "fetal personhood" in the "abortion ban" have also sparked debates across the United States. These issues have long been focal points of arguments between anti-abortion factions and pro-abortion factions. Due to the complexity of the situation, this issue may ultimately be submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

But for now, Adriana's family members first have to face reality. They named the child "Chance," meaning "opportunity."

"Now, our only hope is for little Chance to survive," Newkirk said to the press on Monday. "No matter what state he is in when he comes into this world, we will love him just the same."

This article is an exclusive contribution by Guancha Observer and cannot be reprinted without permission.

Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7507487471065481768/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author. You can show your attitude by clicking the 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' button below.