Fetal Rights Clash with⁣ Pregnant Patients’ Bodily Autonomy

​ Updated June 16, 2025
⁣

The case of ‍Adriana Smith ⁤in‍ Georgia highlights the complex legal and ethical issues surrounding fetal rights and​ pregnant patients’ autonomy. Emory University Hospital kept Smith, declared brain-dead, on life support for three months to incubate her fetus, against her⁤ family’s ‌wishes. This decision stemmed from Georgia law,which defines ‍an​ unborn⁤ child at any stage as a “natural person,”⁤ coupled with the‌ state’s ⁤abortion ban after six weeks.

Smith’s case is not isolated. Similar situations have‍ occurred,raising concerns about‍ the treatment of pregnant individuals as⁣ mere vessels for fetal development.

These bioethical and legal dilemmas⁤ are amplified ​by increasing efforts to codify ⁤fetal rights into law, particularly ⁤following the Supreme‌ Court’s 2022 decision eliminating federal abortion protections. States ⁣like Texas,⁣ with strict⁣ abortion bans, expose pregnant individuals to potential harm, as ​providers may hesitate‍ to offer necessary medical interventions for conditions like ⁤preterm premature rupture of membranes or severe ⁤preeclampsia, fearing legal ⁣repercussions.

Even in states‌ like Minnesota, which⁢ champions reproductive freedom, laws⁤ exist that ‌permit the involuntary civil commitment of pregnant women deemed to be‌ engaging⁢ in “habitual or excessive use” of controlled substances.

critics argue that these ⁣laws prioritize fetal rights over the well-being and‌ autonomy of pregnant individuals, possibly leading to adverse health ⁤outcomes⁣ and a violation of bodily ​integrity.

Laura ​hermer, a professor of law at ⁤Mitchell Hamline School‍ of Law, argues ⁢that ⁢the legal system⁢ should not compel a ⁢pregnant⁢ person ‌to use their body ⁢to support another,⁣ even if that other is their fetus. She draws a parallel to organ donation, noting that even⁢ parents are not legally obligated to donate ⁤organs to their children, even if it’s ​life-saving.

Hermer contends that pregnant individuals should possess the ‌same rights, ‌including the ‌right to⁣ terminate a pregnancy,​ irrespective of whether the⁣ fetus is considered a legal person. she emphasizes that pregnancy involves⁤ significant⁤ bodily changes and ​that the decision to undergo these ⁣changes should rest solely​ with the ‌pregnant person.

The Kansas Supreme Court echoed this sentiment in ⁣2024, affirming⁢ that the decision⁢ to continue or terminate a pregnancy is integral to a woman’s right to personal​ autonomy.

Ultimately,⁤ Hermer argues that the law should‍ not treat pregnancy differently from other health conditions ‍and should ​not impose⁣ greater duties on⁢ pregnant individuals ​than parents have to their children. She⁢ believes there is no justifiable basis for⁤ such discrepancies.

What’s next

The ⁢legal battles surrounding fetal⁢ rights and pregnant patients’ autonomy are likely to continue, with ongoing debates about the definition of personhood, the scope of reproductive rights, ‌and the role of the state in​ regulating pregnancy. Future court decisions and legislative actions will shape the landscape of‍ reproductive‌ healthcare and determine the extent to which pregnant individuals’​ rights are ​protected.