#88. Their Surrogate Refused to Abort. Now They're Suing Her.

But what if you do that? You kept them fat and happy in the Red Center until they gave birth, and then they could take their money and go on their merry way.

Isn't that sounding

more and more like exactly what we do? McKenna West, she is a 20-year-old Alaskan nurse.

She is a single mother of two children, and she entered a surrogacy agreement with Nashin Gilkar and Omar Ahmed.

They're the genetic parents.

They live in California.

And under this agreement, McKenna was to receive $60,000.

The contract contained a clause that allowed the genetic parents to request an abortion in an event of serious fetal abnormalities.

This happened at the 20-week ultrasound.

The baby was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome.

This is a severe genital heart defect, and it requires a series of surgeries after birth, but it is treatable.

There's no dispute about what happened next.

Gilkar and Ahmed, the genetic parents, they consulted doctors and they decided they wanted the baby aborted.

And McKenna, she made an appointment.

And remember, we're now after the 20-week mark.

And she changed her mind.

She went to the appointment.

She changed her mind.

She says afterwards she felt pressured and she couldn't bring herself to go back to her two children having had an abortion.

So, McKenna now finds herself in a legal clinch.

She left Alaska, relocated to Texas, where she would be under a different protection.

She sought legal protection from right-to-life groups so that she could continue the pregnancy.

This became a three-state legal battle.

Alaska, the contract was made with a Connecticut surrogacy firm.

She's in Texas, and the genetic parents live in California.

Now, the birth mother, which I will insist on calling her, she's asserting her rights in Texas.

And the baby was born in Dallas on October the 12th and is still in critical care in the hospital.

So last week, there was a Dallas family court.

This is now in court.

He heard both testimonies.

He maintained that the genetic parents would retain physical custody and medical decision-making authority.

And he extended the temporary restraining order for two weeks.

That was on McKenna.

So she's not allowed now to see or hold the baby she just gave birth to, and she's not allowed to make medical decisions.

At first, McKenna, she sought full parental rights and conservatorship.

But now in the hearing, she said that she would drop that claim if the genetic parents would formally commit to the baby's life-sustaining cardiac

treatments.

And that really reminds me of the story of King Solomon.

You know, the two women, they claim the same baby, one having lost her baby at birth and switched out the baby while the other one was sleeping.

And they come before King Solomon claiming they're both the mothers.

And he threatens to divide the child.

And the false mother accepted the loss and the true mother begged the baby be spared, which would mean giving him up.

And McKenna is being criticized on the left for changing her mind.

That's what they focus on, that she made the appointment and changed her mind and they were all in agreement and then she changed her mind and that's awful behavior.

And here I would like to point out that the genetic parents were in California.

They never attended any of the ultrasound appointments.

And having given birth to three children, I've seen a 20 week ultrasound appointment.

And I can imagine how you will feel you feel obligated to go in, make an appointment for an abortion, and then you see it is a human being and then changing your mind.

So for me, when I heard that, I think, well, I can completely imagine how that would play out.

And so now the genetic parents are suing McKenna for breach of contract and emotional distress.

And they're seeking $100,000.

And when you hear this case discussed, you hear a lot of legality thrown around.

Oh, it's a contract.

What was in the contract? And they have a stronger legal claim.

And that's how they try to avoid the more important question here, which is a moral question.

And they try to avoid it by dividing motherhood into sort of purchasable components within a contract.

Someone supplies the egg, someone supplies the sperm, someone supplies the gestation, someone supplies the money, and someone supplies the legal parenthood.

This case just really shows how quickly that whole bit, that whole house of cards can collapse when suddenly you realize you're dealing with human beings and not contractual components.

When suddenly McKenna is no longer simply a uterus providing a service and suddenly when the child, he has a heart defect and so he...