Cherise Doyley was in her 12th hour of contractions at University of Florida Health in downtown Jacksonville when a nurse brought her a bedsheet and a tablet. On the screen was Judge Michael Kalil in a black robe, along with lawyers, doctors and hospital staff. The state had filed an emergency petition at the hospital's behest.
The Sept. 9, 2024 hearing lasted three hours. Doyley, a professional birthing doula, had no lawyer and no advocate. She had not requested the hearing. The hospital wanted her to undergo a cesarean section, which she did not want. She had previously had three C-sections, one resulting in a hemorrhage, and hoped to avoid another serious complication unless there was an emergency.
Judge Kalil informed Doyley that the state had filed the petition in the interest of her unborn child. Doctors were concerned about the risk of uterine rupture, a potentially deadly complication for mother and baby. Doyley would say during the hearing that she understood the risk to be less than 2%. The choice, however, would not be hers. The judge would decide how she would give birth.
What the Right Is Saying
Fetal personhood advocates argue that states have a legitimate interest in protecting unborn children, and that this interest gives authorities the right to intervene when a mother's decisions pose demonstrable risks to fetal health. The concept, rooted in the idea that a fetus has equal or greater rights than the woman sustaining it, has been gaining legal ground.
Supporters of Florida's push toward stronger fetal personhood laws argue that the state has an obligation to protect the most vulnerable — including the unborn. They point to the state's history of pioneering fetal protection policies, dating back to 1989 when Florida was among the first states to prosecute a woman for delivering drugs to her fetus.
Conservatives note that Florida's proposed legislation would extend wrongful death protections to embryos and fetuses, arguing this is a matter of basic justice. They contend that hospitals acting in emergency situations are making life-saving decisions, not overriding patient autonomy.
What the Left Is Saying
Reproductive rights advocates and bioethicists say Doyley's case illustrates a fundamental inconsistency in how states treat pregnant patients compared to other medical patients. "There aren't any other instances where you would invade the body of one person in order to save the life of another," said Lois Shepherd, a bioethics expert at the University of Virginia School of Law.
Progressives argue that Florida's approach conflicts with the state's broader medical freedom position on issues like vaccine and fluoride preferences. Lawyers who represent women in fetal personhood cases say they have identified a higher number of forced C-sections in Florida than in other states. These advocates argue that pregnant patients should have the same rights as other competent adults to accept or refuse medical treatment.
The American Civil Liberties Union and similar organizations have long opposed court-ordered medical procedures during pregnancy, arguing they set a dangerous precedent that treats pregnant people as vessels rather than individuals with bodily autonomy.
What the Numbers Show
The link between fetal personhood and court-ordered C-sections dates back to the 1980s, when courts first ruled that hospitals could override patient decisions in favor of unborn children's health. Minnesota was the first state to recognize fetuses as victims in homicide cases in 1986.
Nearly 30 states have passed laws allowing hospitals to invalidate pregnant patients' advance directives. Alabama went further than any other state by giving frozen embryos the same legal status as children, though the Legislature later said the law could not be enforced.
Florida is now considering legislation that would enshrine fetal personhood in state law by giving embryos and fetuses the same legal status as people in wrongful death suits. Legal experts told ProPublica they anticipate the legislation could lead to more court interventions during childbirth.
The 4th Judicial Circuit state attorney's office declined to comment on Doyley's specific case, saying a response would violate her medical privacy.
The Bottom Line
The Doyley case has become a focal point in the ongoing debate over pregnancy rights and fetal personhood. As Florida considers further legal recognition of fetal personhood, medical-legal experts say more pregnant patients could face court-ordered procedures during labor. The case raises questions about where the line exists between protecting unborn children and respecting pregnant patients' constitutional right to make medical decisions. What happens in Florida could serve as a model for other states grappling with these questions.