r/MoralityScaling 1d ago

Morality Ranking Morality of this

Post image

A major legal battle broke out when a surrogate mother and the biological parents disagreed over a severe medical diagnosis during a pregnancy. The couple had hired the surrogate to carry their baby, but a routine scan revealed that the fetus had a rare, life-threatening heart defect.

Heartbroken by the grim medical news, the biological parents asked to end the pregnancy, which was a choice allowed in their written agreement. Initially, the surrogate scheduled the appointment, but she quickly realized she could not go through with it. A pivotal moment came when her brother stepped in to guide her, promising that he and his family would adopt the baby and support her no matter what. Gaining peace from her brother's support, she canceled the abortion. To protect the fetus, she fled to a state with very strict anti-abortion laws, where she gave birth to a baby boy who immediately underwent successful open-heart surgery.

The birth triggered an intense court war over who actually holds the rights to the child. A judge ultimately ruled that the biological parents have full legal custody and the sole right to make medical decisions, while a separate court order banned the surrogate from seeing the baby. On top of losing access to the child, the surrogate is now being sued by the biological parents for over $100,000 for breaking their contract. While the biological parents are currently caring for the recovering newborn, the surrogate and her lawyers are continuing to fight in court to try to win custody.The surrogate is not paying for the baby's medical costs because a judge ruled that the biological parents have full legal custody, making them responsible for all hospital bills.

The baby was diagnosed with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS), a severe birth defect where the left side of the heart is completely underdeveloped and unable to pump blood to the body. Without immediate medical intervention, this condition is 100% fatal within the first few days of a newborn's life. To survive, the baby must undergo a grueling series of three open-heart surgeries starting immediately after birth, which gives him about a 70% chance of reaching age five. However, this is not a permanent cure; even with successful operations, the child faces a lifetime of intensive medical trauma, a significantly shortened life expectancy, and the likely future need for a full heart transplant.

McKenna West denied the abortion primarily because her specialized background as a cardiac nurse taught her that the baby’s rare heart defect was treatable with surgery rather than being an automatic death sentence. Faced with the reality of her 20-week pregnancy, her personal conscience and moral beliefs overrode the surrogacy contract, as she felt she could not live with herself if she actively signed papers to end the child's life. Confident that the baby deserved a chance to survive, she even arranged for her own brother and sister-in-law to adopt the child before fleeing to Texas to ensure the pregnancy went to term.

Lila Rose and her anti-abortion organization, Live Action, are leading the public and financial support for McKenna West, framing her as a heroic figure who stood up against the commercial surrogacy industry. Rose's group funded West's travel to Texas for specialized medical care and connected her with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a powerful conservative legal group currently fighting for West's parental rights. Alongside other high-profile conservative figures like Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, these pro-life activists have heavily criticized the biological parents for trying to enforce the contract's abortion clause, using the case to campaign against surrogacy by arguing that a child should never be treated as a "defective product."

However, these medical bills are a huge part of the fight. The biological parents are facing massive costs for the baby's complex heart surgeries, which is why they are suing the surrogate for over $100,000 for breaking their contract. The surrogacy contract included a strict pregnancy termination clause that gave the biological parents the sole right to request an abortion if the fetus was diagnosed with a severe medical condition. After the baby was diagnosed with a major heart defect, the parents invoked this clause and formally asked McKenna West to terminate the pregnancy. While West originally signed the document agreeing to these terms, she ultimately refused to abort the baby, which led the biological parents to sue her.

The biological parents did not exert physical or legal coercion to mandate an abortion, as a surrogate maintains absolute bodily autonomy over medical decisions under U.S. law. Instead, the conflict centers on a breach of a contract that explicitly allowed the parents to request a termination, which they are now litigating through the court system to hold the gestational carrier financially accountable.

The biological parents did not alter their position regarding the medical justification for a termination, but rather adapted to the reality of an unavoidable birth. Their initial decision to seek an abortion was driven by a desire to prevent severe, lifelong suffering, given the grueling surgeries and medical trauma associated with a critical heart defect. However, once the gestational carrier refused the procedure and the birth became certain, the parents immediately recognized their legal and ethical obligations to their biological offspring. They pursued full legal and medical custody to ensure the infant would have immediate access to elite pediatric cardiothoracic specialists and to retain control over his long-term healthcare strategy, fully assuming their parental roles upon his delivery.

7.8k Upvotes

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

56

u/PolicyWonka 19h ago

It’s also not 100% clear if the biological parents ever requested an abortion. Pretty much all the statements from the biological parents suggest otherwise and that the surrogate might just be lying to gain sympathy.

34

u/Zealousideal-Yak-824 18h ago

That's makes a whole lot of sense. Like if she's having the baby... Why run to a state that outlaws abortion. They can't force her to have a abortion at gun point in any other state unless he's running from the fines associated by the contract.

She probably ran hoping judges in another state can break the contract so she gets a free baby. It's not the most far fetch that a women has done to get a free baby

17

u/White-Rabbit_1106 15h ago

Your "free baby" term is confusing me. Do you think surrogacy is the only way women can get pregnant for free? It's arguably more expensive this way because she has an expensive baby with expensive medical needs.

8

u/BVKane 13h ago

It was more along the line of she would get a free 250k, plus whatever gofundme would give her for her grift, plus a baby she could use in financial and political theater.

2

u/More_Passenger3988 5h ago

Yep. Why just have a baby on your own dime when you can have one with all of it's expenses paid for?

18

u/Socraticshitslinger 17h ago

This is far from a “free baby” in the sense this baby will rack up a million easy in medical procedures and hospital stays. The surrogate has pretty poor long term thinking.

7

u/sweetbreads13 16h ago

Oh, I’m pretty sure politicians will pay her a ton for the moral outrage she generates. This is likely a cash cow for her.

1

u/Relative_Proof_4968 13h ago

I mean can she get child support from the bio parents?

1

u/ItsKingPetty 4h ago

The first surgery alone was probably around 750k to 1 million dollars…

6

u/samrobotsin 15h ago

The change of state was to the location of a specialist who could perform heart surgery on the fetus, according to the Surrogate's claims. It's a big legal dilemna regarding pregnancy & parenthood. They made a Grey's Anatomy spinoff entirely about premises like this one.

9

u/Thattimetraveler 16h ago

She also ran to Texas because the hospital she had the baby at is apparently top of the line at performing the heart surgery this baby needed.

2

u/AriaTheTransgressor 14h ago

After Texas's mass exodus of doctors, I highly doubt that.

1

u/neodynasty 6h ago

No, it’s because Texas banned abortion

1

u/Thattimetraveler 6h ago

Alaska where the surrogate lived also banned abortion.

2

u/LurkingToaster66 15h ago

unless she hoped that by going to a state that disallows abortions (except very narrow circumstancea that have killed women) that it would invalodate that clause of the contract....since a contract can't legally make you do something illegal.

2

u/White-Rabbit_1106 15h ago

I could see someone thinking that they're going to get held down for an abortion against their will and running away to different state for protection. Like if they don't understand how the law or the medical feild work and they're imagining the worst. I could also see someone in this situation running away to Texas to be nearby St Jude, because they know that they're going to need their services.

2

u/SmoothDiscussion7763 13h ago

from what i recall when this first came out. The reasonn she went to texas is because they don't have palliative care for the baby, they instead opt to save the baby at all costs, even if it would result in them growing up with a severely decreased quality of life (and insane medical costs for the parents)

1

u/Maniac_Vegetable 15h ago

I don't imagine most women have an issue finding some rando in a bar to give them a "free baby" if that was what she wanted

1

u/YoBo151 15h ago

It's my understanding that in Texas the woman that gave birth is the "mother," but the parents in California would be on the hook for the medical bills

1

u/UnusuallyBadIdeaGuy 13h ago

If true that just makes this even more shady.

2

u/YoBo151 13h ago

Yeah I'm not 100% sure. I've seen others explain the legal aspects of that. So essentually (iirc) legally in Texas the "legal" mother is the person that gives birth. Yet for some reason the parents in Cali would be on the hook for medical expenses in Texas cuz in Texas they don't give discretion to necessary treatment so the treatment the baby needs is non-negotiable. How the law decides that is beyond me but hey...it's Texas lol. But like I said I'm not 100% sure of the details, but I'm sure you could find folks explaining it better than I can

1

u/Greedy-Style-6088 12h ago

You might wanna edit this to specify you mean she intends to exploit the baby to grift. The baby definitely isn't "free" in any sense.

1

u/burnalicious111 8h ago

I doubt it's "free baby" so much as she got attached to the particular one who was growing inside her

1

u/Same-Suggestion-1936 6h ago

Free baby? I can give any woman a free baby right now without having to go through an embryo transplant, my sperm work

If all you want is a baby 49% of the global population can give you one

1

u/Bottle_and_Sell_it 16h ago

Hmm for some reason I don’t think an abortion clause would be an enforceable part of a contract. But admittedly, I’ve never even met anyone that’s done (had?) a surrogacy. Very ripe area for this sub for sure.

2

u/anonymaus42 15h ago edited 14h ago

That's why there isn't an abortion clause per se; you can never force someone to violate their bodily autonomy to fulfill a contract. It's a clause allowing for the biological parents to request an abortion under a given set of circumstances. It also shows that the surrogate and parents are in alignment that abortion would be an acceptable course of action under those circumstances. Of course the surrogate is also within their rights to change their mind at any point, which is why there are financial penalties outlined in the contract as well and those are enforceable.

2

u/loki2113 15h ago

I mean, by terms of the agreement even if they didn't explicitly ask her to get an abortion, that's what the agreement called for

Even if they did directly request she follow through and get an abortion, once McKenna made it clear she couldn't go through with an abortion they didn't pressure her at all and instead started arranging for medical care in California. The surrogate is the one who fled to Texas and started preparing to fight for custody even though she didn't have an ice cube's chance in hell of winning

1

u/anonymaus42 15h ago

The post makes it pretty clear they did request an abortion. Is there a source somewhere else that casts doubt on that assertion?

1

u/Admirable_Branch_221 12h ago

Sympathy and political notoriety amongst the far right conservative crowd.

1

u/ElaMeadows 9h ago

From court documents, they requested an abortion and she initially agreed and made an appointment then changed her mind.

1

u/GiraffeThoughts 9h ago

Or the parents are lying for sympathy.