In which the Romneys contract for a convenient abortion

[Gil]

"Mitt Romney's son, Tagg Romney, has been discovered to have engaged in a contract with a surrogate mother with the stipulations that if the child being carried was not up to the Romney's specifications, that the Romney family would have the final say if the child would be aborted or not.

In other words the Romney family used their money to buy the power to end a human life, something that Mitt Romney has spoken out against vehemently in the past.

Apparently money changes everything.

According to TMZ.com the leaked documents include a contract, known as a 'Gestational Carrier Agreement', which was signed between Tagg Romney, and an unnamed surrogate mother on July 28, 2011.

The section of the contract which gave the Romney's abortion power over the child reads as follows:

In the event the child is determined to be physiologically, genetically or chromosomally abnormal, the decision to abort or not to abort is to be made by the intended parents. In such a case the surrogate agrees to abort, or not to abort, in accordance with the intended parents' decision.

The Romney campaign, naturally, has an explanation for this. It seems the family used this same surrogate in 2009, and in the previous contract the Romney family specifically wanted that part of the contract removed, and it was. This time however, Attorney Bill Handel, an expert on surrogacy law, said it was a simple oversight that the clause was left in the contract."

link

[gustava]

Disgusting. Give me a perfect child or abort.

[Witsec7]

Attorney Bill Handel, an expert on surrogacy law, said it was a simple oversight that the clause was left in the contract.

Yea right, it was an accident the clause was left in the contract. They spent thousands of dollars for this kid and hired an atny that forgot to remove a clause from the contract? That never thought to amend the contract when the omission was discovered? To quote Judge Judy, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining outside.

[MarthaMarcyMayMarlen]

I agree. Sounds like they are lying through their teeth.

[Kitty]

So not only are the Romneys hypocrites, they're willing to abort a child that's isn't perfect. How very pro-life.

[PennySycamore]

Seems like Tagg's morality doesn't fall far from Mitten's tree.

I saw a program in the wee hours this morning on PBS(think it was Frontline, but not sure) which talked about Mitt's sudden change from being pro-choice when he was governor of Massachusetts to being "pro-life" when he was running for president. It was clear to me that Mitt's morals were based solely on what was good for Mitt. He changed his position on social issues because he could not run for President as a Republican unless he did. I don't think Mitt believes a damn thing other than "I got mine. Screw you if you don't."

[Hane]

Seems like Tagg's morality doesn't fall far from Mitten's tree.

I saw a program in the wee hours this morning on PBS(think it was Frontline, but not sure) which talked about Mitt's sudden change from being pro-choice when he was governor of Massachusetts to being "pro-life" when he was running for president. It was clear to me that Mitt's morals were based solely on what was good for Mitt. He changed his position on social issues because he could not run for President as a Republican unless he did. I don't think Mitt believes a damn thing other than "I got mine. Screw you if you don't."

Ohhhhhhh, don't get me started on this one.

Mitt's conservative personal convictions didn't get in the way of what was politically expedient for him when he was governor of Massachusetts (for the most part). If that weren't the case, his mind would explode from the double think of Romneycare=Good for Massachusetts/Obamacare (aka Romneycare USA)=Bad for the USA.

[Guest Anonymous]

Since Mitt's now claiming he's been pro-life longer than 2009, if it was intended to be removed this time around, then that still means it was used intentionally in another contract. He's a hypocrite.

[Arete]

My, my, I wonder how all the good evangelical Republican soldiers are going to reconcile this. Josh Duggar anyone?

I do believe Mitt may have lost himself a little more of the traditional Republican base. Stay Home and Pray on Election Day.:dance:

[BlueberryBird]

Don't hold your breath. The response of (fairly moderate) people in my house is just that he used a standard contract. No big deal. They are just picking on him.

I would imagine this will be a typical interpretation.

[Katydid]

That's actually fairly standard legal language when one contracts with a surrogate. I'm in a few infertility groups, and this is discussed a lot. A friend of mine happens to be a lawyer who works specifically on topics surrounding infertility, and does these all the time. It's to protect everyone's ass.

[lilith]

It could be read either way - Romney Jr could also veto an abortion if the surrogate mother became aware of abnormalities and wanted to terminate the pregnancy.

Either way, he is limiting the choices a woman can make about her own body.

[Gil]

It could be read either way - Romney Jr could also veto an abortion if the surrogate mother became aware of abnormalities and wanted to terminate the pregnancy.

Either way, he is limiting the choices a woman can make about her own body.

This.

His party says no abortion whatsoever and he backs that -- unless, of course, his grandkid might not be a perfect, healthy baby. Then abortion is just fine for the Romneys.

[slickcat79]

It could be read either way - Romney Jr could also veto an abortion if the surrogate mother became aware of abnormalities and wanted to terminate the pregnancy.

Either way, he is limiting the choices a woman can make about her own body.

I was thinking along the same lines about the justification they could use for the clause. Of course, you would think that the Romneys would only choose a surrogate who is 100% pro-life regardless of fetal abnormalities.

It makes sense from a legal perspective that they include that clause. I just wonder why they would leave it out one time, then include it the next :?

[Austin]

Don't hold your breath. The response of (fairly moderate) people in my house is just that he used a standard contract. No big deal. They are just picking on him.

I would imagine this will be a typical interpretation.

That's what the repubs are claiming. Because such severely "pro-life" people would ever accidentally leave that clause in a contract. :roll:

[Mela99]

They deserve it if they were stupid enough to sign it WITHOUT READING IT. Contracts 101, son of Shitt. Secondly, I'm not entirely sure how common it is to have 'standard boilerplate' for situations like this. Most couples want everything pounded out to the letter, to their specifications.

/lawschool

[ladybug]

Hmmm... this brings up an interesting question about what happens when the surrogate mother wants an abortion. For example, if the surrogate mother feels her health is in danger, but the intended parents feel that the risk is not great enough to justify ending the pregnancy. Could the intended parents bar her from having an abortion? Could lead to some sticky legal situations if she is barred from aborting and dies or ends us permanently disabled.

[rock_girl]

It could be read either way - Romney Jr could also veto an abortion if the surrogate mother became aware of abnormalities and wanted to terminate the pregnancy.

Either way, he is limiting the choices a woman can make about her own body.

I think surrogacy is one instance where there's nothing wrong with making decisions about what the woman does with her body (barring a decision that could harm her health, of course).

That said, what a crock of lies they're telling about the contract. The family would have had good lawyers, and would no doubt have retained a lawyer specialising in surrogate births. The contract would have been checked and rechecked several times over to ensure that everything was above board. They knew that passage was in there and were (in my opinion) right to insert it.

Romney is pathetic because he can't stand up for anything, nor can he come out and say "hey, this is my son, and while I don't necessarily agree with the contract, I assume the decision to include the clause was made because neither my son nor his wife feel capable of handling a child with special needs". That's all he needed to say about the subject but instead he lies terribly and makes this a far bigger deal than it should be.

[Kitty]

They deserve it if they were stupid enough to sign it WITHOUT READING IT. Contracts 101, son of Shitt. Secondly, I'm not entirely sure how common it is to have 'standard boilerplate' for situations like this. Most couples want everything pounded out to the letter, to their specifications.

/lawschool

I have a hard time believing that that was an oversight on anyone's part. He had an attorney ffs! Even if he didn't catch it the attorney should have. Maybe they were all "oh, well, we wouldn't do that anyway." Or would only abort in extreme cases, like for a chromosomal abnormality that meant the child would not survive birth or for very long afterward. I don't know, its fishy to me.

OT, but what kind of name is Tagg? Were Mittens and Palin in some kind of contest to come up with the most ridiculous names for their kids? Please tell me its a nickname, at least :?

[kb2]

That's actually fairly standard legal language when one contracts with a surrogate. I'm in a few infertility groups, and this is discussed a lot. A friend of mine happens to be a lawyer who works specifically on topics surrounding infertility, and does these all the time. It's to protect everyone's ass.

I wonder if legally it's advisable to pick one of the parties to be in charge of that decision, or else you could have chaos with wrongful birth/breech of contract suits in which the future parents/surrogate would blame each other for the decision. (Although maybe just naming the decision makers in the contract doesn't really prevent that?) And it kind of makes sense that the default would be the future parents since they would be the ones to take care of the child in the long term in the case of a disability, but it also makes it a little skeezy to take it out of the hands of the surrogate. Could there be another part of the contract that states the surrogate could make a decision to abort if she felt her life/health/well-being were in danger separate from the clause about whether or not the fetus is "abnormal"? Although I could think of cases where an abnormality in the child--like anencephaly--could make surrogacy harder in that the surrogate mother could consider bringing a child with fatal anomalies to term too emotionally distressing, in which case ick, would the decision really be legally taken away from her?

/IANAL

[BlueberryBird]

It could be read either way - Romney Jr could also veto an abortion if the surrogate mother became aware of abnormalities and wanted to terminate the pregnancy.

Either way, he is limiting the choices a woman can make about her own body.

I wouldn't go that far. In this case, the woman chose to sign the contract and enter the surrogacy agreement. We have no reason to think she didn't do so of her own free will. That is a form of exercising control over her body and choices.

[lilith]

I wouldn't go that far. In this case, the woman chose to sign the contract and enter the surrogacy agreement. We have no reason to think she didn't do so of her own free will. That is a form of exercising control over her body and choices.

If you believe that the rights of the human woman carrying a pregnancy always trump the rights of a potential human in utero then the choice should remain with the woman up until the point that the foetus has a viable chance of life outside the womb. The process by which the foetus was conceived and the genetic material that created the foetus should not alter that. While it is dependent on the woman for continued existence, that continuation is her call.

I would compare it to withdrawing consent for sex midway through the act. It's a more complex proposition than refusing consent to begin with, but it's still a right that can't be contracted away.

Saying surrogates shouldn't be able to choose to terminate a pregnancy is like saying prostitutes shouldn't be able to withdraw consent.

[BlueberryBird]

If you believe that the rights of the human woman carrying a pregnancy always trump the rights of a potential human in utero then the choice should remain with the woman up until the point that the foetus has a viable chance of life outside the womb. The process by which the foetus was conceived and the genetic material that created the foetus should not alter that. While it is dependent on the woman for continued existence, that continuation is her call.

I would compare it to withdrawing consent for sex midway through the act. It's a more complex proposition than refusing consent to begin with, but it's still a right that can't be contracted away.

Saying surrogates shouldn't be able to choose to terminate a pregnancy is like saying prostitutes shouldn't be able to withdraw consent.

I don't disagree, but if you sign a contract agreeing to give up those rights, you are presumably cool with giving up that control. A potential surrogate is not a powerless position to be in. There are always other couples if you don't feel comfortable with the expectations.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not defending this contract. I just don't equate this with the mile high list of ways people are trying to limit female autonomy.

[linnea27]

If you believe that the rights of the human woman carrying a pregnancy always trump the rights of a potential human in utero then the choice should remain with the woman up until the point that the foetus has a viable chance of life outside the womb. The process by which the foetus was conceived and the genetic material that created the foetus should not alter that. While it is dependent on the woman for continued existence, that continuation is her call.

I would compare it to withdrawing consent for sex midway through the act. It's a more complex proposition than refusing consent to begin with, but it's still a right that can't be contracted away.

Saying surrogates shouldn't be able to choose to terminate a pregnancy is like saying prostitutes shouldn't be able to withdraw consent.

An interesting comparison. I'm inclined to think that surrogates shouldn't have that right, but just because if I was that biological parent I'd be pretty fucking pissed off if the surrogate changed her mind and aborted my baby. But of course, that's an opinion based on emotion and not on her rights as a woman.

I suppose it could also go the other way, couldn't it? A biological parent who wanted to abort the baby and the surrogate didn't want to go through with it. According to the contract quoted in the OP, the biological parents apparently have the legal right to force her into it? How would that even work?

Surrogacy gets so messy, for me anyway, in my head. I used to think it was something I would like to do for someone. Not anymore. But you've given me good food for thought as I lie in bed tonight.

[formergothardite]

I wonder how that would play out in court. If the biological parents could actually force an abortion or prevent one.