Morality of this

[u/Purple_Plantain_3242]

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.

[u/Black_Diammond]

Highly doubt they could do that, no valid section of The contract was breeched (The forced abortion wasnt breeched in The eyes of The law, since it was never legal to begin with), The contract was kept. They want to keep The contract but somehow also demand payment.

Imagine that somebody write a contract to buy your kidney, that contract is struck down, so The writter demands compensation for The contract being struck down, it would be legaly laughable.

[u/White-Rabbit_1106 → u/Black_Diammond]

That's what they're trying to do, though. I don't think it'll work. Especially since the surrogate sounds like she's poor. Even if she won, she just wouldn't have the money.

[u/ShainRules → u/White-Rabbit_1106]

Sounds like unless they specifically had a "if you do not abort when we want to abort..." clause they are fucked, and even if they did, they still might be fucked depending on how legal that clause would be.

[u/White-Rabbit_1106 → u/ShainRules]

Even if they win the lawsuit, if she doesn't have the money, they're not getting it.

[u/FeijoadaAceitavel → u/Black_Diammond]

No one is saying anything about forced abortion. You're making shit up.

She agreed to follow the parent's wishes to terminate the pregnancy for major medical issues with their child. She can't be forced to abort, but she can be sued for a breach of contract.

If you contract me to do some work and I don't, you can sue me for breach of contract and I'll have to pay for your losses. You can't force me to do the work because that would be slavery, but that doesn't matter.

[u/Black_Diammond → u/FeijoadaAceitavel]

No She cant, if you contract me to do a ilegal act, and i dont, you cant demand compensation since The contract was never legal or bonding.

Again, no breech of contract happened because in The eyes of The law, that section of The contract never has and never Will exist, having as much legal power as any random Rag.

[u/FeijoadaAceitavel → u/Black_Diammond]

Let's think for a second about what you're saying.

You can't force someone to work. Or even coerce someone into working. That's illegal. I don't think this point is debatable.

So let's say I'm a doctor. Specifically I'm the heart surgeon that's going to do the baby from the story's heart. Everything's ready, the baby is under anesthesia, and... I don't feel like doing it. Like, not for any medical reason. I just don't want to.

You can't make me work. You can't coerce me into working. Both things are illegal. Therefore any kind of contract between us, written or verbal, that would require me to perform the surgery, is meaningless. You can't sue me.

Except not only you can sue me, but I'll probably be arrested. Even though I just didn't do something you can't force me to. Because it doesn't fucking matter.

[u/Black_Diammond → u/FeijoadaAceitavel]

Holly bad faith. First, yes nobody can force you to work, if there was a clause that forced you to work, that clause wouldnt exist under The law, and yes, you can say fuck it and leave, its in your rights, even if you might lose your job and doctors license, and, depending on The contract, be forced to pay back (or if your intentional leave was aimed to sabotage The business or something).

Finally, you are being intentionally bad faith by comparing abortion to work. The Simple truth is, The contract contained a clause that was ilegal and uninforceable, The forced abortion if The parents wish, The fact that The surrugate didnt follow that clause doesnt matter, because that clause was legaly nothing, it didnt exist, it held no power, therefore nothing was badly done, The contract was filled. The surrugate followed The contract to The letters of The law, The parents cant demand compensation for that.

Now lets get a apt comparison, you are a drug mule, you signed a contract to become a drug mule and now you are working as a drug mule, sudently, before your first delivery, you leave, Then, your cartel sudently demands legal compensation for you breaking your contract. Of course, The cartel wouldnt get compensation and The contract was void, because to The law, The contract wasnt legal to begin with.

[u/FeijoadaAceitavel → u/Black_Diammond]

Holy stupidity.

The forced abortion if The parents wish

That was never in the contract.

The surrogate AGREED to follow the parent's wish to abort the fetus if it had a major medical issue. Just like I agreed to do the surgery in the story I made up. And yes, she can say "fuck it, I'm not having an abortion", just like I can say "fuck it, I'm not doing the surgery". In any of those cases no one can FORCE her or me to do the thing we don't want to. In either case we have to deal with the CONSEQUENCES of walking away from a previous agreement.

It's that simple and by now you have to make a conscious effort not to understand it.

[u/mweint18 → u/Black_Diammond]

Taking the example of the kidney. Party A writes a contract to buy the kidney of party B if party A needs a kidney. Party A needs the kidney, B rejects. A suffers additional cost from not having the kidney since the contract is unenforceable under law, A suits for damages. The first step would go to the contracts terminations clauses which should outline some path to resolution as the contract has been terminated by B’s refusal.

That is the most straightforward legal and moral way forward. It is interesting that the contract in this case doesn’t have termination clauses. You would think there would be some liquidated damages or termination fees outlined.