McKenna West, a surrogate, refused the biological parents’ request she abort the baby she was carrying after a scan revealed hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Now the parents are demanding custody.
A McDonald’s IVF tradition turns into an unforgettable show of support
On the day of their embryo transfer in Atlanta, Vanessa and Lindsay Bennie invited loved ones to join an IVF tradition with McDonald’s fries.
The country has been transfixed by the Massachusetts murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, the mom who unfathomably strangled her three children to death.
Another legal battle is playing out in Texas, this one involving a mother, a father and a newborn. He’s alive, thankfully. Not because of his biological parents.
Because of his surrogate.
The case centers on a two-week-old baby born with a heart defect. It involves the biological parents Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed of California, a surrogate from Alaska and the state of Texas, chosen in part for its protections of the unborn and its proximity to a top children’s hospital.
What’s happening in the case exposes an ugly truth: Had the biological parents quietly aborted the baby, as roughly a million American couples do every year, no one outside their family would have known or cared. It was only because a surrogate broke her contract to save his life that the world is watching. Women considering surrogacy should take note: Saying yes to a contract can mean saying yes, in writing, to ending a pregnancy you might come to want.
Here’s the background. McKenna West, the surrogate, refused the biological parents’ request that she abort the baby after a 20-week scan revealed hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a rare defect that leaves one side of the heart underdeveloped. It’s treatable with surgery. She flew from Alaska to Dallas to give birth on Aug. 12.
Even though West’s surrogacy contract required her to have an abortion if requested, she couldn’t go through with it.
Now the biological parents are demanding custody and are reportedly suing West for $100,000.
It’s an ugly and sad fight. They can’t even agree on the baby’s name. Ahead of his birth, West called the baby Gabriel, but Gilkar and Ahmed have named him Rumi.
The legal battle is ongoing.
Ken Paxton got involved in the case. So it’s political, too.
Ahead of the baby’s birth, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton got involved. To ensure the child received necessary treatment after birth, Paxton asked the Dallas district court to block any effort to remove him from the state. According to Paxton, the intended parents had not committed to lifesaving measures ahead of the birth.
“Baby Gabriel deserves a chance at life, and I will not allow anyone to unlawfully deny him medically necessary care,” said Paxton in an Aug. 11 statement. “My office will use every tool available to protect innocent lives and ensure that every child receives the care required under Texas law.”
The baby has had one surgery but remains in critical condition. Other surgeries are expected.
West is represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group that has also intervened in the case supporting Paxton.
“It’s an honor and privilege to represent McKenna in her courageous stand for Baby Gabriel’s life,” said ADF senior counsel Erik Baptist in a statement. “Every life matters. No woman should be forced to kill the baby she is carrying, and every child deserves a chance at life.”
Biological parents now want custody of the baby. Should they get it?
The biological parents and West are now locked in a court battle. The latest hearing was on Aug. 25, during which the judge delayed a custody decision.
After the baby’s birth, his intended parents obtained a restraining order barring West from seeing the baby. The judge extended it another two weeks. At the hearing, West said she’d consider dropping her custody claims if the couple committed to the baby’s lifesaving care.
Gilkar and Ahmed confirmed in court that they had requested an abortion. They now say they want their baby and will do everything they can to save him.
Do they deserve custody after wanting him aborted? During the hearing, Gilkar said she didn’t regret the decision to demand the abortion.
An attorney for West asked Gilkar whether she would “trust somebody to care for your child that wanted your child dead.” Gilkar said she did not know how to respond, according to NBC News.
Many people, for good reason, are focused on the ethics of surrogacy itself. But I think this case exposes something bigger: our own inconsistency on abortion. Had Gilkar carried the pregnancy herself, no one would have blinked at her decision to abort after the diagnosis. California’s abortion laws are among the most permissive in the country.
Women abort for reasons ranging from fetal defects to simple convenience, and it almost never makes the news.
The only reason this case became a national story is that a third party, the surrogate, refused to go along. West may have breached her contract. In doing so, she saved a life.
Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@usatoday.com or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques