When abortion and surrogacy law collide, contracts can’t answer the hardest questions
A custody battle over a newborn with a heart condition raised a question courts have rarely faced: Can anyone be forced to end a pregnancy?
The complexities of surrogacy contracts and abortion laws collided in a 2026 case involving surrogate McKenna West and her intended parents, Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar. The contract stipulated that the pregnancy could be terminated if the intended parents requested it due to a fetal abnormality. However, when the fetus was diagnosed with a severe heart condition, West refused the request, leading to a legal battle.
The intended parents sought a court order to become the legal parents once the baby was born, while West moved to Texas, where she had family support and believed the baby could receive necessary care. However, Texas bans abortion in almost all circumstances. The Texas attorney general obtained an order ensuring the baby received lifesaving surgery, as the intended parents had refused to agree to it.
West, who lived in Alaska, refused to comply with the intended parents' demands for an abortion, leading to a conflict over her bodily autonomy versus their wishes. The Texas courts upheld the intended parents' rights, leaving West without any rights to the baby. The case highlights the conflicts that can arise when rapidly changing abortion laws, reproductive technology, and family law create situations that surrogacy contracts cannot always anticipate.
Written by urgent.news from The Conversation's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
