—
News
A surrogate mother is petitioning the Supreme Court to secure life-saving treatment for Baby Gabriel, after his biological parents demanded she abort him at 24 weeks due to a congenital heart condition.
Premature babyKristina Bessolova/Shutterstock
(LifeSiteNews) — A surrogate mother who refused to abort a baby after the child’s biological parents requested that she do so is now imploring the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to halt a ruling declaring that she has no rights to the child.
As previously covered by LifeSiteNews, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed unsuccessfully sued Alaska nurse and single mother McKenna West to prevent the birth of their son, Baby Gabriel, upon the prenatal discovery of hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a serious but treatable congenital heart defect in which the left side of the heart cannot properly pump blood.
They demanded she abort on the basis of a clause in their contract stating “there shall be a termination of the pregnancy for a fetal abnormality as determined by a physician designated by the Intended Parents if the Intended Parents request a termination of the pregnancy.”
No physicians in Alaska were willing to perpetrate a late-term abortion at that stage (22 weeks). The couple then scheduled an abortion in Seattle for late April (when Baby Gabriel was 23 weeks), which was delayed to a 24-week abortion in May.
West decided she could not go through with it, so with the help of podcaster Ellen Fisher and Live Action founder and president Lila Rose, she flew to Texas for treatment. On August 12, the baby – named Gabriel by West, Rumi by the “official” parents – was born around three weeks early in the Dallas area and moved to NICU for stabilizing care in preparation for heart surgery. The baby was promptly taken away from West, and custody was transferred to the parents who wanted him killed.
On Wednesday, West filed an emergency application asking SCOTUS to stay a California court order recognizing Ahmed and Gilkar as the child’s legal parents.
The application notes:
Ordinarily, [West] would have been deemed Baby G.’s mother under Texas law by virtue of giving birth to him. But because of the unlawful California judgment, she has been dismissed with prejudice from the Texas proceedings and denied any information about or control over the medically fragile child.
As the application notes, a Texas court “granted full faith and credit to the California judgment,” prompting West to turn to the Supreme Court.
West’s attorneys have said that the Los Angeles court decision has caused “irreparable harm” because Baby Gabriel/Rumi’s parents may seek a court overturn of an order requiring that the baby receive life-saving surgeries to treat HLHS.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had obtained a court order mandating that Baby Gabriel receive “medically indicated stabilizing and life-sustaining care” upon his birth. The order also prevented the baby from being discharged or transferred “pending further order” of the court. However, Gilkar and Ahmed then obtained a temporary restraining order that gave them custody of the baby and prevented West from contact with the baby.
Gilkar and Ahmed have since sued West for $100,000 for her refusal to abort Baby Gabriel/Rumi.
“Supreme Court case law has long recognized that the right to care for one’s child is a fundamental right under the Constitution. It also recognizes that a birth mother is presumptively the legal mother of a child, and the government cannot take away the birth mother’s fundamental right without procedural due process,” Carolyn McDonnell, counsel at the pro-life advocacy group Americans United for Life (AUL), told The Christian Post.
On Friday, the pro-life group filed an amicus brief in support of West’s emergency application for a stay in the case. McDonnell criticized the California decision for ending West’s parental rights “without following procedural safeguards required by the Constitution.”
“Americans United for Life commends [West’s] courage in declining to comply with the couple’s request for a barbaric late-term abortion after learning of their baby’s medical condition and believes it is in Baby G’s best interests for [West] to be brought into the Texas case to advocate for continued life-saving care,” Sarah Zagorski, AUL’s senior director of public relations and communications, told The Christian Post.
Now that West has been denied access to Baby Gabriel/Rumi, her attorneys have warned in their emergency appeal that “the baby could be removed from the Texas hospital and taken to California for hospice — despite his treatable condition — around September 17, if not sooner.”
West has said she would give up her custody claim if Gilkar and Ahmed would commit to “life-saving care for baby Gabriel, according to multiple filings. West’s attorney says the couple has repeatedly “refused” to do so.
The fight highlights the morass of ethical and legal problems that arise with the surrogacy industry’s effective transformation of human life and reproduction into a commodity that can be purchased, contracted – and reneged upon in the case of a “defective product.”
