A 30-year-old Georgia woman declared brain dead has been kept on life support for three months, raising fierce discussions over which state laws are responsible and reigniting the national abortion debate.

According to the Christian Post, Adriana Smith remains on life support as experts and advocates debate whether Georgia’s abortion restrictions or separate statutes regulating end-of-life care for pregnant patients are behind the decision.

Smith experienced a medical emergency involving blood clots in her brain and sought treatment at Northside Hospital after suffering severe headaches. Doctors gave her medication and released her the same day.

The next morning, Smith’s boyfriend found her struggling to breathe and called 911. Paramedics transported her to Emory University Hospital, where doctors eventually declared her brain dead. That happened three months ago. Since then, the hospital has kept her on life support while navigating the legal implications of her condition during pregnancy.

According to the Associated Press, Smith’s doctors told her family that the hospital could not remove her from life support because Georgia’s abortion restrictions prevent it. Lawmakers passed that law in 2019, but officials began enforcing it only after Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022. The law bans most abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected, typically around six weeks.

Focus Turns To Older Law On Pregnant Patients

However, some legal and medical professionals are pointing to a different law as the real reason Smith remains on life support. Monica Snyder, executive director of Secular Pro-Life, said that Georgia's statute regulating end-of-life care for pregnant patients, not its abortion law, is what requires hospitals to keep Smith alive.

The relevant law, Georgia Code § 31-32-9, dates back to 2007. It stipulates that life support cannot be withdrawn from a pregnant woman unless the fetus is not viable or the woman had a written advance directive permitting it. Smith’s family has not publicly shared whether such a directive exists, and there is no indication that hospital officials are aware of one.

Snyder criticized media coverage of the case, arguing that many news outlets have failed to consult with medical or legal experts before characterizing the situation as an effect of Georgia’s abortion bans. She also asserted that removing life support from a deceased pregnant woman does not qualify as an “abortion” under the law's definition.

Legal Definitions Affect Public Understanding

Georgia’s abortion statute defines abortion as an action specifically taken to terminate a pregnancy. Snyder and medical law specialists interviewed by the Associated Press contend that withdrawing life support in Smith’s case doesn't meet that definition. According to them, continuing to sustain a non-living woman mechanically is legally distinct from inducing an abortion.

“It’s more likely that Georgia’s law regarding withdrawing life support for pregnant patients is the issue,” Snyder said. “The way abortion advocates frame this case shows striking indifference to prenatal children,” she added, noting that many mothers, regardless of their views on abortion, might want similar protections for their unborn children.

Smith’s family believes her unborn child will face serious health complications if born. Neither Emory Hospital nor the family has publicly confirmed details about the child’s viability or gestational progress.

Ethical Questions Surround Medical Decision

Emory Healthcare, which manages the hospital where Smith is being cared for, released a general statement through the Associated Press. While declining to speak directly about Smith’s case, the organization said it “follows legal guidance” and prioritizes the safety and well-being of patients.

Public reaction to Smith’s condition has been polarized. Advocates calling for more reproductive rights have compared the situation to the fictional dystopia found in “The Handmaid’s Tale,” warning of excessive governmental control over women's bodies, even after death.

Monica Hesse in The Washington Post described the condition of Smith’s body as being “put through hell.” She argued that lawmakers are using “perverse definitions of life and dignity” to justify decisions that override the mortality of women like Smith.

Controversy Echoes Similar Past Cases

Georgia’s abortion policies have faced scrutiny before. In 2023, ProPublica published a report that described the deaths of two women, Amber Thurman and Candi Miller, after they experienced complications from abortion pills. Abortion-rights groups blamed state laws as contributing factors.

Pro-life doctors rejected the claim that Georgia’s abortion law caused those deaths. Dr. Christina Francis stated that when Thurman arrived at the hospital, no viable fetus was present, so the abortion ban did not apply. Similarly, legal experts said the law did not prevent doctors from acting and that they still had a duty to provide care.

Attorney Ben Crump, who represents Thurman’s family, filed a lawsuit against the doctors involved. He argued that they had a professional obligation to provide emergency treatment, especially since no legal barrier—such as the presence of a viable fetus—prevented them from doing so.

Ongoing Uncertainty Complicates Family’s Role

One critical element that remains unclear in Smith’s case is where her family stands regarding the continuation of life support. While they have expressed concern over the baby’s potential health challenges, they have not stated publicly whether they wish for life-sustaining measures to end.

The case has underscored how deeply conflicting laws can intersect in sensitive medical situations, making it difficult for families and care providers to navigate end-of-life decisions. It also reveals how public discussions about abortion can sometimes conflate distinct legal issues.

As of now, Smith remains on life support — not because of a recent ban on abortion, according to legal experts, but because of an older statute meant to protect unborn children until viability or without a contrary advance directive from the mother.