Weaponizing Heartbreak: What the Adriana Smith Coverage Gets Wrong

The Pro-Choice Law That’s Actually Behind the Life Support Controversy

In Georgia, it’s not the LIFE Act that’s keeping Adriana Smith on life support—it’s a lesser-known law passed back in 2007 that’s being overlooked in the current media narrative.

Adriana Smith’s story is not the smoking gun that abortion activists are claiming it to be. The 30-year-old nurse, declared brain dead in February while 9 weeks pregnant, has been kept on life support in hopes her baby might reach viability. The media is in a frenzy, blaming Georgia’s LIFE Act—our so-called “heartbeat bill”—for forcing this outcome. But that’s not only misleading, it’s legally inaccurate.

The law at the center of this situation isn’t the 2019 LIFE Act. It’s the Georgia Advance Directive for Health Care Act of 2007, which predates Dobbs, Trump, and the “heartbeat” debate by over a decade. Under that law, if a pregnant woman doesn’t have an advance directive explicitly stating her wish to be removed from life support and her baby isn’t yet viable, doctors are prohibited from ending life-sustaining treatment.

It’s important to note that this law was enacted in 2007—when Roe v. Wade was still in effect—and reflects a legal framework shaped by pro-choice-era thinking, not today’s pro-life policymaking. It's not a conservative loophole, but a longstanding bipartisan recognition of prenatal life.

A Tragedy Twisted into a Talking Point

Adriana didn’t have an advance directive, and we don’t know whether she would have wanted one. At 9 weeks pregnant, she likely didn’t anticipate needing such a document. Now, as her son approaches 22 weeks, the goal is to give him the best shot at survival. Her family, understandably traumatized, has voiced that they should have had a say—and the media has amplified their grief into a broader political narrative.

Democrats like Sen. Nabilah Islam Parkes have seized on this moment, calling Smith’s situation “inhumane” and pinning the blame on Georgia’s abortion restrictions. But the LIFE Act explicitly states that withdrawing life support is not considered an abortion unless the intention is to terminate the pregnancy. Adriana’s case doesn’t meet that standard.

So why is the media pushing this narrative? The answer is simple: fear sells, facts don’t.

We've Been Here Before

In a previous piece, Fear Over Facts, I wrote about how the tragic death of Amber Nicole Thurman was similarly misused to stoke outrage against pro-life legislation. In that case too, it wasn’t the law that failed—it was medical mismanagement, hesitation, and fear of legal retaliation stoked by media confusion.

We’re seeing the same playbook again.

Just like Thurman, Adriana Smith deserved better care from the start. Her symptoms weren’t taken seriously. She wasn’t properly screened for blood clots. Her condition was preventable—but now her death is being spun to undercut legislation that wasn’t even responsible for it.

Baby-Making Is Serious Business

We live in an era where sex is too often treated as casual and consequence-free. But pregnancy is not a lifestyle accessory—it’s a biological reality with real stakes. Georgia law reflects that. Under both the LIFE Act and the Advance Directive law, once conception occurs, responsibility follows—for the mother, for her partner, and yes, for her physicians.

Those engaging in sex that could lead to pregnancy should be aware of the legal realities that come with it. That includes understanding what their state’s laws say about pregnancy, medical intervention, and life support. It includes considering an advance directive if pregnant—or even potentially pregnant—women should want to make their wishes known before a crisis hits.

Autonomy requires accountability.

The Real Inhumanity? Treating the Baby as Expendable

This selective outrage mirrors a larger trend I unpacked in Nothing But Abortion—mainstream feminist advocacy has increasingly centered corporate-safe abortion messaging while abandoning deeper protections for women’s sex-based rights, medical integrity, and informed consent.

And let’s not ignore the subtext...that much of the outrage centers on the idea that this baby—Adriana’s son—is somehow not worth saving because of potential disabilities. That kind of rhetoric is not only ableist, it’s chilling. It suggests that unless a child can promise a perfect life, he doesn’t deserve a chance at one.

Smith wasn’t just an “incubator,” as some are calling her now. She was a mother. And that child she carried is still alive, still developing, and still human. That reality deserves more than political spin.

The Bottom Line

Georgia’s LIFE Act does not mandate keeping brain-dead pregnant women on life support. The Advance Directive law—enacted under Roe—is what governs that scenario. If you want the legal right to be removed from life support in a case like this, you must make that known before the crisis.

This is not a pro-life failure. This is a media failure, a medical failure, and a societal failure to treat pregnancy with the seriousness it demands.

We owe it to women—and to their children—to tell the truth, even when it’s hard.