Georgia’s Abortion Ban Is Forcing a Family to Keep Their Braindead Daughter Alive

5.14.25

Click to skip ahead: The Cruelty Is the Point has a horrific story out of Georgia. I’m sorry. Attacks on Abortion Pills reports that RFK is ordering a review of mifepristone. Criminalizing Care with more on the second Louisiana investigation into a New York abortion provider. In the States, news from Michigan, Florida, South Carolina, Washington, Maryland, and more. Extremism Rising has more (again!) on abortion ‘abolitionists’.=Attacks on Democracy reports on Missouri’s new anti-abortion ballot measure.

---

The Cruelty Is the Point

I’ve tried to write this section a hundred times, and there’s just no gentle way to say it: A brain-dead woman in Georgia is being kept ‘alive’ against her family’s wishes—because of the state’s abortion ban.

Adriana Smith, a 30-year-old nurse and mother, was declared brain dead more than 90 days ago after suffering multiple blood clots in her brain. But because she was 9 weeks pregnant at the time, Georgia law is forcing her body to be used as a vessel—kept on life support until the fetus is viable.

It was this sentence from 11 Alive that made me want to throw up: “The family said doctors told them they are not legally allowed to consider other options.”

They are violating this woman’s body and devastating her family. Her mother, April Newkirk, says, “It’s torture for me. I see my daughter breathing, but she’s not there.”

And the fetus—unsurprisingly—is not doing well. The doctors told Newkirk that there is fluid on the fetus’ brain and that he may not be able to see, walk—or even survive—once he’s born.

“This decision should’ve been left to us,” Newkirk said. “Now we’re left wondering what kind of life he’ll have—and we’re going to be the ones raising him.”

Naturally, the state isn’t covering this family’s medical bills: They’re going to be financially devastated by this horror. (I’m trying to track down a GoFundMe and will share it as soon as I can.)

I don’t know how many different ways they can make clear that they don’t see us as human beings. I’m just heart-broken.

I made a video about the story for Instagram and TikTok if you’d like to share, and I’ll have more on how to help soon.

Attacks on Abortion Pills

Well, we knew this was coming: RFK Jr., head of the Department of Health and Human Services, is calling on the FDA to review mifepristone’s safety—citing the junk study put out by an anti-abortion group.

Kennedy said the so-called “new data” was “alarming,” and is now asking new FDA chief Marty Makary to conduct a full review of mifepristone regulations.

This was always the plan: First, Makary said in an interview that he’d consider restricting mifepristone if new data showed it was unsafe. Then—like magic!—a conservative think tank released a ‘study’ claiming the abortion pill is dangerous. Since then, Republicans have been calling on the FDA to roll back access to the drug.

Leaving aside how obviously coordinated this is, the ‘research’ from the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) is complete nonsense—top to bottom. That’s why I spent weeks screaming from the rooftops that mainstream media needed to call the study out as bunk. We needed to make Republicans too embarrassed to attach their names to it.

That didn’t happen, and now here we are.

While we’re waiting for the FDA to “review” mifepristone, I suggest you order some abortion medication right now—whether or not you’re pregnant.

You can get pills to have on hand, just in case: Aid Access, Plan C Pills, Abortion Finder, I Need An A.

Criminalizing Care

Yesterday, I told you about the second Louisiana investigation into New York abortion provider Dr. Maggie Carpenter. You can read Abortion, Every Day’s reporting below, but the short version is that Attorney General Liz Murrill claims Carpenter sent abortion medication to a woman who ended a 20-week pregnancy and “threw it in a garbage can.”

The Post-Roe Witch Hunt Is Here

As I wrote last night, you can’t trust one word that comes out of these people’s mouths when it comes to abortion (or anything else)—and I hope that reporters remember that as they’re covering the case.

One reporter you can always count on, though, is Carter Sherman at The Guardian—who points out something incredibly important:

“Medical experts widely agree that it is safe to ‘self-manage’ your own abortion using pills in the first trimester of pregnancy. However, these pills can also safely induce an abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy. Doctors Without Borders offers guidelines on how to use abortion pills through 22 weeks of pregnancy.”

We know that Louisiana Republicans will making a big deal out of this woman allegedly ending her pregnancy at 20 weeks, because FDA guidelines only allow the pills to be used in the first ten weeks. But as Sherman points out, that doesn’t mean it isn’t sometimes used later in pregnancy.

This is part of the reason it’s so important that we push back against so-called ‘viability’ language and restrictions. Not just because “viability” isn’t a real medical standard—but because it’s being used to criminalize and stigmatize abortion later in pregnancy.

The ‘viability’ lie is what makes people think that disposing of a miscarriage at a certain number of weeks is somehow wrong or criminal (as we saw in Georgia). And it’s what gives people like Murrill license to paint abortion patients and providers as monsters.

For more information and resources on abortion care later in pregnancy, check out Patient Forward.

In the States

I think we could all use a little bit of good news, so let’s start by talking about Michigan. A court has struck down the state’s 24-hour waiting period for abortions, ruling that the restriction violates the Michigan constitution.

Voters in the state codified protections for abortion until ‘viability’ in 2022, and abortion rights activists have been working to do away with restrictions since then. From Judge Sima Patel’s ruling:

“The mandatory delay exacerbates the burdens that patients experience seeking abortion care, including by increasing costs, prolonging wait times, increasing the risk that a patient will have to disclose their decision to others, and potentially forcing the patient to forgo a medication abortion for a more invasive procedure.”

In addition to the waiting period, Judge Patel also repealed a law requiring patients to look at a fetal development chart and information about alternatives to abortion, calling them “coercive and stigmatizing.”

She also struck down a rule that limited abortion provision to physicians only—clearing the way for other qualified healthcare providers, like physician assistants and nurse practitioners, to legally offer care. That change, in particular, is likely to make a big difference for Michigan access. With doctors overwhelmed by out-of-state patients, expanding who can provide abortions isn’t just helpful—it’s essential.

That said, the judge left in place a requirement that abortion providers screen patients for “coercion” and post notices stating that it’s illegal to pressure someone into ending a pregnancy. Now, obviously reproductive coercion is real—but more often, it looks like abusers forcing people into pregnancy or preventing them from getting care. And we know that anti-abortion activists have been using the guise of caring about abused women to label anything and everything ‘coerced’ abortion.

I started warning about this back in 2023, when anti-abortion strategists flagged “coercion” as the GOP’s most promising talking point—because, as they put it, “no one is openly in favor of coerced abortions.”

While I’m thrilled that the folks in Michigan no longer have to deal with waiting periods—and that the state can finally expand its pool of abortion providers—there’s still one major restriction left on the books: parental consent.

It’s never made sense to me that someone can be too young to choose an abortion but old enough to be forced into parenthood. Logic aside, it’s just wrong. I strongly recommend reading “In Harm’s Way”—a Human Rights Watch report on how Michigan’s forced parental involvement law harms young people.

Unfortunately, across the country, Democratic lawmakers and even some mainstream repro groups have been hesitant to repeal these laws. They’re afraid of provoking backlash and giving ammunition to conservatives, who are increasingly weaponizing “parental rights” rhetoric.

Just today, a Florida appeals court ruled that the state’s judicial bypass process—which allows some minors to get abortions without parental consent—is unconstitutional. Why? The court argued that the law violates parents’ due process rights.

For context: Florida’s judicial bypass law lets judges waive the consent requirement if they find a young person “sufficiently mature” to decide for themselves. It’s a humiliating process that forces teens to prove they ‘deserve’ an abortion—and allows judges to shame young women.

One Florida teen was told that her poor grades were proof that she wasn’t mature enough to decide to end her pregnancy. Another was denied because she didn’t have a learner’s permit or car. Still—flawed as it is—the bypass process offered some path to care without involving unsupportive or abusive parents.

Now even that’s under threat. In the ruling, the court cited Dobbs to argue that abortion is no longer a protected privacy right—and claimed the Florida constitution “offers more protection for parental rights.” The opinion, written by Judge Jordan Pratt, even cited a “rich common-law tradition of empowering parents to order their children’s affairs, even over their children’s objections.” Yuck.

This is exactly why I was so glad when Right By You (RBY), a youth-focused organization, brought a suit challenging Missouri’s parental consent and notification laws a few weeks ago. RBY’s director Stephanie Kraft Sheley said it best: “These laws don’t protect youth—they are designed to punish those already in vulnerable situations.”

More of this, please! We need bold, proactive efforts that protect young people—and make it clear that forced parental involvement only causes harm.

Let’s move on to South Carolina, where the state Supreme Court has upheld a ’heartbeat’ ban. As some of you may remember, Planned Parenthood has been fighting the ban based on what exactly constitutes a fetal ‘heartbeat’: the state’s ban prevents doctors from providing abortions after about 6 weeks—even though there isn’t a heart, let alone a heartbeat, that early in pregnancy.

Read below for a refresher, but the short version is that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic has been trying to get the state’s ban changed to prohibit abortions after 9 weeks, rather than 6 weeks. (Because that’s when most of the primary parts of the eventual heart have formed.)

South Carolina's “Heartbeat” Lawsuit

You all know I’m not usually a fan of an incremental approach, but then I remember the vital point a Planned Parenthood representative made a while back: The difference between a 6-week ban and a 9-week ban is the difference between doctors turning away half of their patients or 90% of them.

I’m sorry the case didn’t work out once again for South Carolina activists, but I’m so grateful that they’re continually fighting—and keeping the issue in the public consciousness, reminding voters what absolute bunk this all is.

By the way, if you want a reminder of what a 9-week pregnancy looks like, click here.

Let’s check in quickly on Washington, where the state budget has cut $8.5 million from the Abortion Access Project—the biggest cut to funding for abortion access in the state’s history.

Jennifer M. Allen, CEO of Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, says, “To our knowledge, it is the only cut to abortion funding in state history. Our state has never before gone backwards on access to abortion.”

At least there’s some good news on abortion funding—this time in Maryland, where a new bill would allocate millions to abortion access in the state.

Finally, more on Texas coming tomorrow—but I just had to flag this absolutely nightmare anti-trans bill being advanced under the guise of protecting women. In fact, Republicans are calling it the “Women’s Bill of Rights.” Something tells me Texas women are more interested in making sure they don’t die of sepsis during pregnancy than being ‘protected’ from trans women in public bathrooms.

Quick hits:

• There were only 146 abortions in Indiana under the first year of the state’s ban;

• The Associated Press has an article on the closure of Dr. Warren Hern’s clinic in Boulder, Colorado;

• And California Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to stock up on abortion medication.

Extremism Rising

I am so incredibly glad that we’re starting to see big national publications cover abortion ‘abolitionists’—the mostly-male extremists who want to see abortion patients punished as murderers. NPR had a terrific, in-depth piece about the growing power of the movement last week, and ran the accompanying radio segment yesterday. (They interviewed me, if you’d like to take a listen)

Today, The Washington Post got in on the action. They do a good job laying out how we’re seeing more ‘equal protection’ bills then ever, and notes that while the bills are seen as “long-shot legislation,” abortion rights activists are still (rightly) worried. From Molly Duane, senior attorney with Center for Reproductive Rights:

“I don’t take anything for granted. No one thought Roe would be overturned or the bounty-hunting law in Texas would pass. Everyone says ‘it’s a messaging bill’—until it’s not anymore.”

Speaking of messaging, it wasn’t so long ago that I flagged two new terms associated with this ‘equal protection’ push: loophole and immunity. The idea is to make it seem as if these activists aren’t trying to punish women, they’re just trying to close legislative loopholes and make things fair. Right on cue, check out this quote in WaPo from T. Russell Hunter, the president of Abolitionists Rising:

“Pro-lifers are willing to forgo equal justice now to save babies. If you’re talking about the most pro-life states in the nation, mothers are afforded what we call special ‘murder rights’—the right to terminate humans in the womb if it’s their progeny.”

They’re literally arguing that by not sending abortion patients to jail, women are being afforded “special” protections. I’m just going to end this section with one more quote from Molly Duane, who gets it exactly right: “We’re not going back in time; we’re going to a different planet.”

Attacks on Democracy

Well, it’s official: Missouri Republicans have passed a resolution to get abortion on the ballot (again). Unhappy that voters protected abortion rights until viability this past November, conservative lawmakers want to put the issue to voters once more—hoping that they can trick their constituents into banning abortion.

Truly, remember what the ballot measure language sounds like? They’re trying to make voters believe that they’d be protecting abortion. That’s par for the course for Republicans, though, who have been doing anything they can to stop voters from having a true say on abortion rights across the country.

Missouri’s anti-abortion measure will likely go in front of voters next year. In the meantime, I’ll make sure to keep you updated.