LegisTrack
Back to all bills
HRES 522119th CongressIntroduced

Recognizing that Adriana Smith and her family's prolonged ordeal without their consent is the direct result of the Black maternal health crisis, the danger of laws that give rights to fetuses and take them away from pregnant people, and anti-abortion laws that continue to harm people who can become pregnant.

Introduced: Jun 17, 2025
Civil Rights & JusticeHealthcare
Standard Summary
Comprehensive overview in 1-2 paragraphs

H. Res. 522 is a non-binding resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives that states Adriana Smith’s stated ordeal illustrates the Black maternal health crisis and the dangers of laws that grant rights to fetuses while limiting or overturning the autonomy of pregnant people. It condemns fetal-rights laws and anti-abortion laws as harmful to pregnant people and their families, especially Black women, and calls on states to repeal abortion bans, protect pregnant people’s advance directives, and clarify how fetal-rights laws should be interpreted so they prioritize the health and autonomy of pregnant patients. The resolution frames Adriana Smith’s case as evidence of broader systemic issues and urges actions to reaffirm autonomy and dignity for pregnant people. Important context: as a House resolution, it expresses the views of the body and urges policy changes, but it does not itself create or change law or provide funding. It highlights concerns about advance directives, state abortion restrictions (including Georgia’s LIFE Act), and the chilling effect anti-abortion laws can have on medical care.

Key Points

  • 1Recognizes Adriana Smith’s case as illustrative of the Black maternal health crisis and the risks posed by fetal-rights and anti-abortion laws that limit pregnant people’s medical decisions.
  • 2Condemns laws that give rights to fetuses and take away rights from pregnant people, arguing such laws dehumanize pregnant people and undermine autonomy and medical decision-making.
  • 3Cites the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 and notes that many states limit or prohibit the enforcement of advance directives if a patient is pregnant, thereby restricting pregnant people’s ability to refuse care.
  • 4References Georgia’s LIFE Act (2022) as an example of anti-abortion laws that can complicate medical care and create fear or confusion for providers and patients.
  • 5Urges states to take concrete actions, including: (A) repealing abortion bans and related restrictions, (B) repealing laws that exclude pregnant people from having advance directives honored, (C) clarifying how fetal-rights laws should be interpreted in medical settings to prioritize patient health, and (D) reaffirming autonomy and dignity for pregnant people over life-sustaining decisions.

Impact Areas

Primary group/area affected: pregnant people (especially women of color and those at higher risk of maternal health disparities), and their families, who may be affected by laws about fetal rights, abortion restrictions, and advance directives.Secondary group/area affected: healthcare providers and hospital systems, who face legal and interpretive uncertainty around patient autonomy, life-sustaining treatment, and anti-abortion laws that could influence medical decision-making.Additional impacts: broader public policy and legal landscape regarding reproductive rights, patient autonomy, and the treatment of pregnant people within medical settings; potential influence on state legislative agendas and subsequent hearings or proposals addressing fetal rights, abortion restrictions, and advance directives.
Generated by gpt-5-nano on Oct 3, 2025