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.