A normal mother would be on her knees to the people giving her grandchild a chance to survive. What’s wrong with people not to want to give the dead daughter’s progeny a chance at life? What about respecting the woman’s last wishes? She died while pregnant, which means that her wish was for the baby to be born. Doesn’t that matter to her own mom?
It’s 11 pm and I’m traveling but I’ve got half a mind to start calling people, waking them up, and demanding reassurances that if I had kicked the bucket during my very high-risk pregnancies, they wouldn’t have gotten rid of my children.
Clarissa's Blog 
I’m confused that doctors seem to think the Georgia law requires this. If a pregnant woman dies and her fetus dies along with her, that’s not an induced abortion. I see so many head scratching stories like that that I suspect that it’s malicious, overbroad compliance by pro-choice doctors who are waging a political battle.
But yes, I’m also confused that this woman is so desperate for her grandchild to die. Most people would find a surviving grandchild to be a great comfort after the death of a child. Is she worried possibly having to raise this grandchild will “cramp her style?”
LikeLike
\ I’m confused that doctors seem to think the Georgia law requires this.
They don’t want to endanger their livelihoods and potentially lose their profession in the situation of legal uncertainty.
Btw, I doubt it’s the decision of one doctor instead of the hospital and their legal representatives. (Don’t know how it works in US, but the guess seems most likely.)
Why should medical system take great risks? It’s the job of politicians to pass clear, normal laws, and they unsurprisingly couldn’t care less about the suffering this law is bound to bring.
\ I suspect that it’s malicious, overbroad compliance by pro-choice doctors who are waging a political battle.
Yes, lets blame doctors instead of politicians and their voters. / sarcastic
LikeLike
Disagreement is fine, but was the rude attitude necessary?
LikeLike
Yeah, that’d be my guess. “Life of the mother” law really does not apply if the mother has zero chance of survival. But this is no the first time those laws have been used maliciously by hospital staff to reap a huge paycheck against the will of the mother/family. I recall a case where a woman who was pregnant with twins had lined up an experienced midwife willing to deliver them naturally, both mom and midwife fully understanding the risks involved. Hospital basically had a “safety of the fetus” hearing, had the mom arrested, and forced her to have a C-section anyway (what she’d been hoping to avoid). That was *not* a case of the law being applied by prolife people doing a prolife thing. That was a law being applied by opportunists who want to collect a big insurance payout, and don’t care about the wishes of mom/family– they’d vastly prefer that the only choices anybody has in pregnancy are “expensive procedure A” and “expensive procedure B”, both administered by the medical industry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
\ Yeah, that’d be my guess. “Life of the mother” law really does not apply if the mother has zero chance of survival.
It’s “life of the fetus” law, not of the mother.
One can easily argue that the intent and the directly expressed goal of the law is to keep all fetuses beyond 6 weeks alive, and I am not even a lawyer.
Imagine hospital staff taking her off life support and then a boyfriend or a mother or a sister suing the hospital for millions for “killing their son / grandchild / relative.”
// this is no the first time those laws have been used maliciously by hospital staff to reap a huge paycheck against the will of the mother/family.
Are there any pro-life lawmakers or activists interested in legally permitting letting a fetus die in such cases? If not, and the laws are unclear, it’s unfair to put the majority of the blame on the healthcare system.
\ This is more media manipulation about what should be a legally simple case (however difficult for the family). The picture used suggests later pregnancy.
I bet this picture was taken during her first pregnancy.
LikeLike
But think about it. Isn’t it better than the other way round? Hospitals not trying to preserve life because why bother? Do you know how Cuba creates its excellent fetal mortality stats? By forcing women with pregnancies that have any degree of risk to abort.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it’s a life of the fetus law. But pretty much all laws dealing with abortion/fetal-rights have a carve-out for the life of the mother. This could not have been used in this case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also suspect this has nothing whatsoever to do with the abortion law. Journalists are always framing things in ways that serve their political goals. I’m simply stunned that a mother would take this attitude. It’s incomprehensible to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read the article and this poor woman died when the fetus was only nine (!) weeks old. Not yet close to being a child.
Her mother says it’s different at the current 21 weeks of pregnancy, but that they should’ve had the choice at 9 weeks and imo she’s right.
“She died while pregnant, which means that her wish was for the baby to be born.”
Nobody can know that now. It’s one thing to wish to create the second child, when one intends to raise him oneself, and completely another to want to do that when one creates an orphan, forcing one’s old parents to take responsibility for raising additional grandson. And what happens when they die, btw?
“Under the law, abortions are illegal after six weeks of pregnancy.”
This is insane. Pretty much all fetal abnormalities can be discovered much later. For instance, NIPT screening test for chromosomal conditions like Down syndrome can be done only at 10 weeks and this is considered super early in today’s medicine:
She already has one child, whom her parents most likely support, at least partially. I suppose the latter since the article mentions a “boyfriend,” but doesn’t clarify he’s the father of both children. The article also interviews her mother, while this boyfriend is out of the picture entirely. We don’t hear about him being eager to raise any kids.
“Newkirk said the family is also having to deal with the financial responsibility of keeping Smith on life support.”
We don’t know what their financial situation is. May be, they cannot give a good quality of life for 2 children without a mother. Again, no mentioning of this boyfriend taking any costs upon himself.
Clarissa, you had and have a loving husband and a sister capable of raising too, this woman may be in a completely different situation. We don’t know.
LikeLike
My mother is a complicated person with a severe narcissistic disorder. But even she would fight to keep the grandchild alive. I don’t think I’ve met anybody who wouldn’t. It’s inhuman not to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Demotrash, I did not intend to sound personally hurtful.
It is just the idea of ‘malicious pro-choice doctors’ impressed me as a cospiracy-theory like.
And, being a woman, I imagined myself living under such horrible laws. Even in Israel it is not that horrible and I have always thought we were backwards ones because of religion.
LikeLike
“mother would be on her knees to the people giving her grandchild a chance to survive.”
My opinion (may alienate some….).
This is more media manipulation about what should be a legally simple case (however difficult for the family). The picture used suggests later pregnancy. She was 9 weeks pregnant, that’s long before natural viability and according to the article another 22 or so weeks before any delivery can be attempted. In such a case the decision about what to do should not be up to legislators or doctors alone but to family members guided by whatever principles they deem appropriate.
These might include ideas about the late mother’s wishes or what she thought about artificial life support or concern about fetal development in a brain dead body and anything else that might occur to them.
““It should have been left up to the family,” Newkirk said, telling the station that doctors informed the family they are legally not allowed to consider any other options. “I’m not saying that we would have chose to terminate her pregnancy, but what I’m saying is, we should have had a choice,” she said.”
I agree. People can judge the family however they want, but it should have been their (difficult in any case) decision.
LikeLike
I have a strong suspicion that we are not being told about the real legal situation in this case. We know what journalism has become and how egregiously it lies. So I don’t want to discuss the “abortion” aspect. It sounds completely made up to me.
My point here is that I’ve never met people like this grandma. I come from a culture of extreme family dysfunction yet this is shocking even to me. That she would say such things aloud and think it’s ok, I don’t know, maybe the journalist invented that, as well.
This whole thing reminded me of that terrible man who wanted his wife to be taken off life support so he could marry the mistress. I’m still traumatized by the cynicism of that whole situation.
LikeLike
If grandma is the one claiming rights here, is it possible that the father of the baby was the dissenting opinion?
LikeLike
Very possible. There can be all sorts of complications that we aren’t being told because it’s convenient to frame this as an abortion story. Abortion is a topic that produces such volumes of lies among journalists that I don’t trust anything at this point.
This is why I’m only discussing what we know for sure. A mother who is complaining that her brain-dead daughter is allowed to carry to term. I can’t get over that because it seems so shocking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well to answer Clarissa’s question…..Assuming there is nothing more to the story….I personally would feel absolutely ghoulish and sickened to think of keeping my dead daughter artificially alive so she could gestate a baby. It would feel like we were turning a corpse into a machine. She’s gone: no soul, no light, no laughter. Her loss would be unbearably painful…..but to not let her be at peace, to not let her rest, to make her body labor after death…..it just seems impossibly cruel and morbid.
Plus…can this even be good for the baby? No Mommy to connect with. No voice to hear. No walks. No movement. It’s like being gestated in a tomb. I just don’t think this is a healthy way to begin life.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“ghoulish and sickened to think of keeping my dead daughter artificially alive so she could gestate a baby.”
Yes, it’s the instrumentalization of a human body that creeps me out. If that’s what they want, then fine but I can understand them not wanting that.
Especially creepy…. the idea that they’ll cut the baby out and then just discard the dead body that’s served its purpose. Again, I can understand if they don’t see it that way but there’s something very disturbing there that should be acknowledged.
Also…. we know that some male workers can and do rape comatose/brain dead patients…. what if the family wishes to terminate a pregnancy in that case and can’t?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacienda_HealthCare_sexual_abuse_case
LikeLike
I’m a mother, so I don’t see it that way. I’d undergo absolutely anything for my child to survive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I’d undergo absolutely anything”
That’s fine, but other people might not perceive the situation the same way…. I can understand both viewpoints (my curse).
LikeLike
OR (a little…): This is maybe a first? Anti-natalist terrorism?
https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/1924027672113377780
LikeLike