There is a heartbreaking story coming out of Atlanta. A young woman named Adriana Smith suffered brain clots while nine weeks pregnant with her second child. She was put on life support but officially declared brain-dead. However, this tragedy doesn’t just involve Adriana — her brain is gone, but her otherwise healthy body is still supporting the young life inside her. Doctors were faced with a moral and legal dilemma: Do they take the mother off life support and allow her preborn baby to die with her, or do they keep the mother’s body alive until they can deliver the baby at a more viable gestational age?

The doctors at Emory Decatur Hospital chose to follow Georgia’s pro-life law, which states that a child in utero with a detectable heartbeat (six weeks gestation) is a protected life and cannot be aborted.

Adriana’s mother, April Newkirk, strongly objects to her family not being able to make that decision for the young mom, telling news outlets: “I’m not saying that we would have chosen to terminate her pregnancy. What I’m saying is that we should have had a choice.”

They arguably do have that choice. National Review contributor Wesley J. Smith lays out the legal arguments that actually push back against the hospital’s decision. He states:

• Abortion is outlawed in Georgia after the fetal heartbeat can be detected, with a health or life-of-the-mother exception. Neither apply here as she is legally dead.
• Removing medical technology would not be an abortion because nothing would be administered to end the pregnancy, nor would the pregnancy be terminated surgically. If Adrianna’s body ceased functioning, the baby would die naturally. …
• Apparently, there is no law in Georgia requiring mechanical body support to continue when a brain-dead woman is pregnant, as exists in a few states. (I generally support such statutes to save unborn babies’ lives.)
• Thus, I agree with lawyer/bioethicist Thaddeus Mason Pope’s assessment — with whom I disagree about almost everything — that the hospital is not legally required to maintain Adriana’s body.

Newkirk is understandably trying to navigate life without her daughter in it. She is grieving and thinking about the financial burdens that continued life support put on the loved ones who are left behind. Adding to all that, doctors told Newkirk that they discovered fluid on the baby’s brain and are concerned about potential health consequences after birth.

“She’s pregnant with my grandson,” Newkirk explained. “He may be blind, may not be able to walk, may not survive once he’s born. 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.”

This journey is extremely difficult, and those of us who are not in Newkirk’s shoes cannot fathom the level of grief, stress, and confusion she is trying to manage. However, National Review’s Smith also outlines the excellent moral case for sustaining Adriana’s life to nurture her preborn son.

• Adriana is not being harmed.
• Her baby’s life is precious.
• The baby will be viable in the next several weeks.
• Potential disability does not make the baby’s life less important.
• We allow the bodies of people declared dead by neurological criteria to be maintained for organ donation, so why not gestation? Both are gifts of life.
• The crucial question is consent.
• Would Adriana have wanted her death to kill her child? There is nothing to indicate in the story that she would.

There are other aspects to consider as well, like support for the family. Are there means by which Smith’s medical bills can be covered? There was no GoFundMe for this cause that I found, but this seems like a worthy use for such a platform.

This sort of situation is also what pro-life pregnancy resource centers were made for. They are there to support families not only until birth but afterwards as well. Does Newkirk have access to a pregnancy resource center whose counselors and caregivers can walk with her family during this tragedy?

The Left is pouncing on this tragedy to use it as a cudgel against pro-life laws. It’s yet another example of why the Left has turned into a death cult. Pro-abortion apologists seek to simplify this complex and tragic situation by asserting that pro-life bills dehumanize mothers. I.e., they’re just “human incubators” or “vessels.” They would rather a mother and her baby both die for the sake of “bodily autonomy” than celebrate that at least the little baby has a chance to survive.

This story is very sad, but not as sad as it could have been. Instead of the loss of a mother and her preborn baby, Adriana gets to continue to nurture the life inside her even though her brain is gone.