Reproductive Rights at Risk: Georgia's LIFE Act in the Spotlight

In Georgia, abortions are prohibited once there is a “detectable” fetal heartbeat present. The only exceptions to the law are if a medical emergency is present, or if a rape or incest took place. Although “anti-abortion heartbeat” laws have been around for years, and have spiked ever since Roe v. Wade, they remain heavily controversial. 

Supporters of the law argue that life begins at the detection of a heartbeat, while critics cite that many women are unaware of their pregnancy at such an early stage, and claim that life does not begin at a heartbeat. Cells inside a woman’s body resemble or function like a recognizable heart five to six weeks after fertilization, allowing ultrasound exams to see the rhythmic motion and feel the heartbeat of the early cells. Within nine weeks, a recognizable four-chamber heart develops. Due to the premature development of a heartbeat, these laws target women as early as five weeks pregnant, preventing them from getting an abortion and using a heartbeat to assign a life and a moral status of personhood. Regardless of differing perspectives, both sides agree that these laws have had a significant impact on reproductive rights and recent political developments, specifically in Georgia. 

Last year, in 2024, Georgian woman Avery Davis Bill learned that she was going through a miscarriage, as dinner plate-sized blood clots hemorrhaged from her body on October 17. Within seven weeks of her pregnancy, Bill found out through ultrasounds that she had a subchorionic hemorrhage, also known as subchorionic hematoma. This meant that blood had formed between the wall of her uterus and her chorionic membrane since her membrane was detaching itself. Bell’s case differed from a usual subchorionic hematoma experience, since her blood appeared to be significantly larger than normal, which forced her to return to the doctor for testing every two weeks.   She reported that the doctors had told her, “We have to talk about this because we’re in Georgia,” and shared that they were “having conversations about the healthcare I can and can’t get because of the state I live in. I lost so much blood.” 

Doctors recommended a D&E to Bill, a dilation and evacuation procedure used for abortion past the first trimester, since “they could control the bleeding and keep [her] alive.” However, the doctors were forced to wait, since Bell’s conditions were not considered emergent enough to forgo a 24-hour waiting period mandated in Georgia. Rushing to get Bell’s paperwork signed so they could begin the clock, doctors waited until Bell was dying to save her, “putting doctors in impossible positions.” Soon, it was discovered that Bell’s hemoglobin had dropped low enough to hover above the level where an automatic transfusion would be necessary, allowing doctors to perform the procedure. In the end, Bill was able to undergo the life-saving abortion but shared that she was “furious that it was harder than it needed” to be since she was forced to wait 20 hours. Since then, she has campaigned against Georgia’s abortion laws and called upon others to share their own stories. Georgia’s bill, LIFE, allows medical professionals to be punished by up to 10 years in jail for delivering an abortion if there is a heartbeat. 

The Life Bill came under scrutiny again after Adriana Smith, a woman in Georgia, was declared brain dead after a health emergency in February 2025. After learning of the horrific news, Smith’s family was told by doctors that they had to let the fetus grow and keep Smith on life support and that they could not legally consider other options. This was due to the LIFE Bill since it bans most abortions after six weeks. 

On June 17, Smith’s baby was delivered through a C-section, and she was removed from life support. The baby, Chance, was born prematurely at 1 pound on June 13. Smith’s mother, Newkirk, is yet to comment on what had happened, but when sharing her experiences last month, she said, “It’s torture for me. I come here and I see my daughter breathing…but she’s not there. It should’ve been left up to the family.” 

Smith’s case has sparked national attention, prompting legal and ethical questions about medical consent, reproductive autonomy, and who has the authority to make decisions for permanently incapacitated patients. Bioethicist and law professor Lois Shepherd shared that she believes life support was not legally required for Adriana Smith, and Thaddeus Pope, a bioethicist and lawyer, declared that Smith’s case should not have been considered an abortion. Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong, shared their sentiments, declaring that her family deserved to make the decision instead of “enduring over 90 days of retraumatization, expensive medical costs, and the cruelty of being unable to resolve and move towards healing.” This controversy would not have happened without the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which found that fetuses did not have the rights of people. Now, states must determine whether to place fetal life over other important rights. 

The cases of Avery Bill and Adriana Smith have reignited debate over Georgia’s heartbeat law and abortion restrictions across the country. As more families and medical professionals navigate the consequences of the LIFE Bill, lawmakers and courts may soon face growing pressure to reconsider what the policy means for life, death, and the right to choose. 

Written by Claire Liu