What's going on: A heartbreaking case in Atlanta, Georgia, raises new concerns about the consequences of abortion bans. Adriana Smith, 30, has been on life support for more than 90 days — not because doctors think she’ll recover, but because she was nine weeks pregnant when they declared her brain dead. Georgia law bans abortions after about six weeks, with exceptions to protect the mother’s life. Though Smith is legally deceased, her family says doctors have explained the hospital is required by law to keep her body functioning until the fetus reaches viability — likely another two months away. The law recognizes a fetal heartbeat as a legal “personhood” marker, effectively removing decision-making power from Smith’s family. Her mother, April Newkirk, says she’s being forced to keep her daughter on a ventilator to support a fetus that may not survive. “It’s torture for me,” Newkirk told NBC affiliate 11Alive. Emory Healthcare didn’t comment on Smith’s specific case, citing privacy rules, but said it uses “consensus from clinical experts, medical literature, and legal guidance” to help providers make treatment recommendations in compliance with Georgia’s laws.
What it means: Analysts say Smith’s case underscores the human cost of laws that strip away bodily autonomy. Critics argue policies like the one in Georgia force families to watch loved ones suffer — not for medical reasons, but political ones. This case also shows how so-called “exceptions” to abortion laws often fall short in complex situations. It comes as Texas lawmakers scramble to clarify the state’s near-total abortion ban amid rising maternal deaths, and just as Missouri lawmakers advanced a referendum to ban most abortions — despite voters backing abortion access six months ago. As Smith’s family faces emotional and financial strain from mounting medical bills, they’re sharing their story: “I think every woman should have the right to make their own decision,” Newkirk said. “And if not, then their partner or their parents.”
SCOTUS Sorta Heard Arguments on Birthright Citizenship
What's going on: The Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in a case that could curb judges’ ability to block presidential executive orders. The dispute stems from a nationwide injunction that stopped President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order. The Court isn’t deciding whether the policy itself is constitutional — just whether a single judge’s ruling should apply across all 50 states. Nationwide injunctions have blocked major policies under both parties, fueling years of debate over whether they protect constitutional rights — or tie the hands of presidents before courts fully review their policies. A decision in the case is expected by June.
What it means: The Supreme Court’s ruling could significantly change how challenges to presidential actions play out. Several justices appeared torn between the two different issues: Skeptical of giving one judge the power to freeze executive actions nationwide, but also uneasy about the legal and practical fallout of limiting them. While critics say limits to nationwide injunctions could lead to “unprecedented chaos,” Trump’s legal team argued that the broad rulings unfairly block presidential authority. If the Court agrees, it could become much harder to pause major executive actions — on immigration, health care, voting rights, and more — before they take effect. Legal experts widely believe Trump's birthright policy will eventually be struck down, but this case could limit how fast and how far courts can step in.
What's going on: Nine-month-old KJ Muldoon just made medical history. He’s the first person to receive a personalized gene-editing therapy, designed specifically to correct the tiny genetic glitch that put his life at risk. KJ has a rare condition that affects just one in 1.3 million babies and can be fatal within days. With no time to spare, doctors in Pennsylvania created a treatment in just six months. They used a next-gen form of CRISPR (a gene-editing tool) to swap out a single faulty “letter” in his DNA without cutting the strand — a safer, more precise fix. Since his first treatment in February, KJ can now eat more normally, takes half as much medication, and is hitting developmental milestones. Now, his parents are getting ready to take him home.
What it means: This isn’t just a win for one baby — it’s a breakthrough that could change the future of medicine for millions. Scientists say the same gene-editing method could be used to treat ultra-rare diseases and more common ones like cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy. KJ’s treatment cost about the same as a liver transplant — with researchers saying future versions are expected to be ten times cheaper. Experts say this case proves personalized medicine doesn’t have to take decades or break the bank. “Seeing him reach milestones that are important for any infant as they're developing blows us away,” KJ’s mom told NPR. And it’s a reminder that investment in new scientific research can have a monumental impact.
