Surrogate Offered $10,000 for Abortion

[Ellimenopy]

I really disliked the whole asking for $15000 to get an abortion... but disregarding that, I wouldn't have had a problem with her keeping the baby had she actually kept it instead of giving it up for adoption, as long as she made sure the biological parents were free of any and all responsibility related to the pregnancy and baby from that point on. Obviously there should have been a lot more legal counsel given prior to this agreement.

Yes, this. I would not have felt at all uncomfortable if she'd wanted to raise the child herself. It is curl, though, to both the genetic parents and the child to make the decision that the child should be born but then not fulfill that responsibility.

[veron1que]

While I don't think anyone can be forced to get an abortion, my personal take on the case is as follows:

1. If she chose to void the contract by not opting for an abortion then the couple should be able to sue for the money paid to her. She elected to sign a contract agreeing to abortion, and while yes she cannot be forced to have an abortion, this clause of the contract was made in good faith and her electing not to honor it should void their obligation to pay her

2. I don't think one should be able to hop states to circumvent a surrogate arrangement, I also don't agree with states that don't recognize surrogate contracts.

3. I don't understand why she couldn't work with the parents to find an adoptive family where they were, if the family wanted to put the child up for adoption, why couldn't she honor that and look for an adoptive family to introduce the couple to? Clearly the family wishes to know the child is being cared.

4. She's lost any ounce of respect from me when she tried to get another $5,000 out of the family, I call bs on her moral superiority, claiming to protect the child.

5. I personally don't believe she acted in the best interest of the child. The disfigured fetus was a clear indication of what would be a short life full of surgeries and forever hindered by a dependency on caregivers. Now, all parents have the right to make this choice for themselves, and I would never suggest they don't have that right, but I disagree with her choice to not abort and find it irresponsible for all involved.

[yetanothermeg]

Seconded.

I would be absolutely horrified if I used a surrogate due to infertility and they backed out of our contract either by keeping the baby for herself, aborting in an unagreed-upon situation, or refusing to abort in an agreed-upon situation, especially if the end result is my child being raised by someone else and living an inhumane life.

Ultimately, in the United States, a woman has the right to choose, no matter what kind of contract she signs. You cannot force a woman to terminate a pregnancy against her will. Most women who enter into a surrogacy agreement for the first time don't really know how they will actually feel until a situation occurs. . In this case the surrogate decided she could not terminate a pregnancy and that is her absolute right as a woman.

If intended parents seek the services of a surrogate they need to realize that she is a human being with her own mind and the right to change it. She's not just a rent-a-womb.

[valsa]

Ultimately, in the United States, a woman has the right to choose, no matter what kind of contract she signs. You cannot force a woman to terminate a pregnancy against her will. Most women who enter into a surrogacy agreement for the first time don't really know how they will actually feel until a situation occurs. . In this case the surrogate decided she could not terminate a pregnancy and that is her absolute right as a woman.

If intended parents seek the services of a surrogate they need to realize that she is a human being with her own mind and the right to change it. She's not just a rent-a-womb.

Would you like to kindly point out exactly where I said she should or could be forced to have an abortion? You might want to stand up for this one...

[yetanothermeg]

Would you like to kindly point out exactly where I said she should or could be forced to have an abortion? You might want to stand up for this one...

I wasn't saying you personally would force a woman to abort when I wrote "you cannot force a woman to terminate a pregnancy." I meant, no one can force a woman to terminate a pregnancy. I was speaking to the situation. I apologize if I wasn't clear.

[Patsy]

I heard an interview with the surrogate today on NPR. The article doesn't give the whole story.

The abnormalities were detected on an ultrasound. At that point the intended parents wanted to terminate. The surrogate wanted further testing done, such as an amniocentisis, to determine the extent of the fetus's abnormalities. The contract said the surrogate agreed to terminate only after amnio and other more sophisticated tests, however the intended parents refused to pay for these tests for the uninsured surrogate. The surrogate said she could not afford to pay for the tests herself, but she didn't feel she could terminate on the basis of the ultrasound alone. That's when the intended parents offered her 10k to abort. I wonder how much the further testing would have cost. More than 10k? Anyway the surrogate said she asked, how about 15k, but it was a heat of the moment thing and she said ultimately she could not terminate for money. So really, it was the intended parents who were not abiding by the contract. And even with the the clause in the contract, no one can legally force a woman to undergo an abortion anyway.

Also, they used the sperm from the father and a donor egg and didn't tell the surrogate it was a donor egg. Not sure that is relevant in any way, but the surrogate said she was surprised when she found that out because they had led her to believe it was the intended mother's egg.

I'm wondering, as the surrogate is the one who went to the media, why they didn't run with the story they had and knew. It's not as if some third party had a vested interest and presented things without access to these facts -- if all this is true, she knew it. But I guess it doesn't suit the pro-life story that she agreed to go through with a potential abortion beforehand, said she'd be willing to waive her pro-life values at the crunch if an extra $5000 was handed over, and wasn't totally opposed to aborting, just waiting for an amnio.

... 3. I don't understand why she couldn't work with the parents to find an adoptive family where they were, if the family wanted to put the child up for adoption, why couldn't she honor that and look for an adoptive family to introduce the couple to? Clearly the family wishes to know the child is being cared.

Yeah, story has a lot of strange gaps, for sure...

As I said above, I do have sympathy for surrogates who find, at the crunch, that they just can't go through with a previously-agreed-to abortion, but the way the story is currently presented (and who knows how much is true?), she was super pro-life from the start and had no business entering into this agreement and relationship.

[sugarloaf]

As I said above, I do have sympathy for surrogates who find, at the crunch, that they just can't go through with a previously-agreed-to abortion, but the way the story is currently presented (and who knows how much is true?), she was super pro-life from the start and had no business entering into this agreement and relationship.

I wonder whether there are some pro-life women out there who get into surrogacy and kind of hope this will happen. I don't know that much about how surrogacy works (or whether there are higher odds of circumstances like this arising), but it's definitely a way to take control away from those who would choose to abort multiples or those with birth defects.

Maybe I just read devious political plots into too many things.

[lilwriter85]

The thing is, even it there were an agreement, if the surrogate doesn't want an abortion, forcing her to abort seems wrong. People have the right to their own bodies. It's just so tricky. I'm not sure what the answer is.

I sort of feel the same way about this story. I read about this yesterday and it has been hard for me to form an opinion about this.

[valsa]

Maybe I just read devious political plots into too many things.

Well, seeing as you really can't be a surrogate and not at least think about the need for abortion beforehand, I don't think devious plots are too far of a stretch. She obviously, at the very least, didn't commit to her contract in good faith.

For those who say "Well, you can never be sure until you're in that position"- if she had even the tiniest little bit of doubt that she could have an abortion, she never should have agreed to be a surrogate in the first place.

[valsa]

I sort of feel the same way about this story. I read about this yesterday and it has been hard for me to form an opinion about this.

My personal feelings are that while she can't (and shouldn't) be compelled to have an abortion, the parents should be able to sue the shit out of her. Just like if I had a contract to, say, water my neighbors garden while they were on vacation- if I decide to break that contract, they can't force me to water their garden but they can seek restitution.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Also I forgot to add, when the surrogate said she would not terminate, the intended parents planned to surrender the child to the state at birth to be placed in foster care. The surrogate didn't want the child in a foster care situation, where she felt it would be subject to abuse. That is when she moved to Michigan, so she could make the decision about what would happen to the baby after birth. She felt the baby should be with a loving family and that is what she agreed to have a baby for, a family. She said after moving to Michigan she was able to find an adoptive family for the baby. In the interview it was never mentioned if she ever intended to care for the baby herself.

Those are pretty important facts. She moved so she could find a good adoptive home instead of foster care.

The 5000 thing makes her completely unlikable. But no one should be forced to have an abortion for any reason. That is the bottom line, case closed.

Personally I don't find the bio parents that likable either since they were going to surrender their child to foster care. I'm assuming the child was wanted and the abortion was not ideal so it was all heartbreaking for them, I guess it just rubs me the wrong way. Hopefully the baby is really loved by her new parents.

[rezski44]

This case was complicated even further by the fact that the real bio mom was an egg donor. The husband is the bio father. That was in the original story that I read.

[veron1que]

Even if a surrogate fully plans to abort and then realizes she can't, she still acted in a shady way. She left state borders to rob the parents of their parental rights! Not only was she claiming her own rights to her body (and rightfully so) she was also claiming parental rights over the child, which I don't think she had.

[veron1que]

This case was complicated even further by the fact that the real bio mom was an egg donor. The husband is the bio father. That was in the original story that I read.

I don't understand why this complicates things. If two married gay men hired a surrogate to have a child, I don't see how using a donated egg lessens their legal claim to the child. The only situation in which I understand a true dilemma is when the surrogate is also the egg donor, which is why this is rarely practiced unless in the case of a sister or close friend becoming the surrogate for a couple.

[DarkAnts]

Those are pretty important facts. She moved so she could find a good adoptive home instead of foster care.

The 5000 thing makes her completely unlikable. But no one should be forced to have an abortion for any reason. That is the bottom line, case closed.

Personally I don't find the bio parents that likable either since they were going to surrender their child to foster care. I'm assuming the child was wanted and the abortion was not ideal so it was all heartbreaking for them, I guess it just rubs me the wrong way. Hopefully the baby is really loved by her new parents.

They may have felt this was in the best interest of the child. The child could have received the proper medical care if in state custody. They were not in a position to be able to afford long term care for the child. Thats why they wanted the abortion. When that went off the table, they decided to give the child to the state because the state could provide the child with the medical care it needed.

[sugarloaf]

Even if a surrogate fully plans to abort and then realizes she can't, she still acted in a shady way. She left state borders to rob the parents of their parental rights! Not only was she claiming her own rights to her body (and rightfully so) she was also claiming parental rights over the child, which I don't think she had.

This is what I was having trouble putting into words. She was legally within her rights at every turn- and I do not begrudge her the decision not to abort, that is her right and that right is, to me, sacrosanct. But the fact that she took every step possible to take this out of the parents' hands makes this all morally iffy to me.

[mlady]

I don't understand why this complicates things. If two married gay men hired a surrogate to have a child, I don't see how using a donated egg lessens their legal claim to the child. The only situation in which I understand a true dilemma is when the surrogate is also the egg donor, which is why this is rarely practiced unless in the case of a sister or close friend becoming the surrogate for a couple.

It didn't complicate the situation surrounding the contract but it sure complicated life for everyone...in that we are able to do this sort of stuff in the first place. In a "all natural" world that baby never would have been conceived but medical science made it happen and I'm not sure how I feel about that.

I agree with the other poster that they could have worked together to find a home for this little girl once it became clear that neither party would be interested in taking responsibility for her once she was born. The running off to another state (and instantly needing public services to support herself and her two kids) also rubs me wrong. So does the idea that she made the decision to be a surrogate solely on the fact that she needed money. There are red flags all over the place with this one, too bad the end result was so tragic.

[Chibi Author]

One of the articles I saw about this earlier today included a link to the surrogate's blog: surrogateinsanity.blogspot.com/

I haven't read much of it, but I saw this post: surrogateinsanity.blogspot.com/2012/08/people-have-asked-me-whats-point-of-all.html

and a quote -

I have lost a child at 19 weeks, I have lost a child at 8 weeks. I have been there, and I've known the pain that comes with losing a child that is inside of your body and does not become your flesh and blood growing before you. That I cannot do again. I sure as hell won't do it voluntarily.

Honestly, I felt really bad for her with that. But if she did have issues with abortion, why did she sign a contract - agreeing to possibly abort - when she knew that two of the three kids the parents already have were born with medical issues? Wouldn't that just increase the possibility that the fetus would have issues?

I really don't know what to think about the entire situation. I mean, normally I can look at situations and think about how I might have reacted, but I just have no clue with this one. It's such a huge grey area.

Even if a surrogate fully plans to abort and then realizes she can't, she still acted in a shady way. She left state borders to rob the parents of their parental rights! Not only was she claiming her own rights to her body (and rightfully so) she was also claiming parental rights over the child, which I don't think she had.

YES! The parental rights thing is the one major issue I have with all of this.

[Sola]

My thoughts on this are that first off, the surrogate has the rights to choose what happens to her body. That to me is set in stone and she should not be forced to abort as that will involve a proceedure being performed on her body. She has the right to veto that. End of.

Second is the baby. Once born the chlild is not hers. She has rights over her body but not anyone elses. The father should have been asked to claim custody at birth and the surrogate should have had no say in that. If the father wanted to surrender to the state, that is his right, or should be his right.

The issues over money and crossing state lines are separate imo. Asking for more money to abort makes the surrogate a hypocrit. Fleeing the state makes her a douche. The father could have gone to the new state and claimed his rights, but didn't. That makes him an idiot iin my book.

[Guest Anonymous]

My thoughts on this are that first off, the surrogate has the rights to choose what happens to her body. That to me is set in stone and she should not be forced to abort as that will involve a proceedure being performed on her body. She has the right to veto that. End of.

Second is the baby. Once born the chlild is not hers. She has rights over her body but not anyone elses. The father should have been asked to claim custody at birth and the surrogate should have had no say in that. If the father wanted to surrender to the state, that is his right, or should be his right.

The issues over money and crossing state lines are separate imo. Asking for more money to abort makes the surrogate a hypocrit. Fleeing the state makes her a douche. The father could have gone to the new state and claimed his rights, but didn't. That makes him an idiot iin my book.

It's more complex than that though, in law. Legally, in the UK, the baby does belong to the surrogate and if she is married to a man, he automatically becomes the legal father, if he knew and consented to the surrogacy. The parental rights can only be transferred after birth, via parental order or adoption. Whether or not the egg and sperm belonged to someone else is irrelevant, according to current law.

Obviously the law may be different in the states, but it seems to have been clear cut in this case and it strikes me that the lawyers and the agency are the ones that have utterly fucked up here in not having advised their clients of potential issues on both sides.

All moral issues aside, surrogacy, like adoption, is inevitably a massively risky business. Surrogacy possibly more so because it can involve putting a part of you inside another person's body and relying massively on trust that you will get the outcome you want. I don't see any other way of looking at it than knowing that you will need a damn good lawyer, and ultimately that there will still be immense risk.

[sugarloaf]

and a quote -

Honestly, I felt really bad for her with that. But if she did have issues with abortion, why did she sign a contract - agreeing to possibly abort - when she knew that two of the three kids the parents already have were born with medical issues? Wouldn't that just increase the possibility that the fetus would have issues?

I really don't know what to think about the entire situation. I mean, normally I can look at situations and think about how I might have reacted, but I just have no clue with this one. It's such a huge grey area.

IMO, someone who knows that they're unwilling to abort has absolutely no business being a surrogate. It's her body and she can do what she likes with it, but she shouldn't be bringing other people into that, especially when it's not her child (even if it would become her child if the parents give up rights to it or she takes it away from them).

The more I look at it, the less sympathy I feel for the surrogate. She was legally within her rights, but on so many levels she was just an arse about it all, and, it seems, she went into it not willing to do what might be needed.

[LeatherCouch]

I think the surrogate sucks for the many reasons outlined above, but I also think the biological parents do too. I only read the CNN article, so maybe I read something into it that wasn't intended, but it sounds like they threatened the surrogate with abandoning the child to the state if she wouldn't abort. If I had found myself unwilling to abort a baby who would languish in a hospital with no parents, nobody to visit and only a social worker to make medical decisions...well I would have found an adoptive home too.

They could have possibly convinced the surrogate to abort if they had done further testing, but they wouldn't do it. It's just a huge mess. I am glad that the bio parents have an open adoption, and that the baby has someone to nurture her, but she suffers so much. I'm not sure the surrogate did the kindest thing for her, but I think she made the decision that was easiest for herself. In the end none of the 3 adults who were involved in this handled the situation very well.

[mypsychoticself]

I heard an interview with the surrogate today on NPR. The article doesn't give the whole story.

The abnormalities were detected on an ultrasound. At that point the intended parents wanted to terminate. The surrogate wanted further testing done, such as an amniocentisis, to determine the extent of the fetus's abnormalities. The contract said the surrogate agreed to terminate only after amnio and other more sophisticated tests, however the intended parents refused to pay for these tests for the uninsured surrogate. The surrogate said she could not afford to pay for the tests herself, but she didn't feel she could terminate on the basis of the ultrasound alone. That's when the intended parents offered her 10k to abort. I wonder how much the further testing would have cost. More than 10k? Anyway the surrogate said she asked, how about 15k, but it was a heat of the moment thing and she said ultimately she could not terminate for money. So really, it was the intended parents who were not abiding by the contract. And even with the the clause in the contract, no one can legally force a woman to undergo an abortion anyway.

Also, they used the sperm from the father and a donor egg and didn't tell the surrogate it was a donor egg. Not sure that is relevant in any way, but the surrogate said she was surprised when she found that out because they had led her to believe it was the intended mother's egg.

I was under the impression that the parents had refused further testing because they didn't feel it would change their ultimate decision. The article I read said that the contract required the surrogate to get an abortion in the case of fetal abnormality, but didn't give more specific guidelines. This is the article I read. Did I miss something? Because otherwise it seems like Kelley is the one who wasn't abiding by the contract.

[Katiebug]

The surrogate claims that the contract said diagnostic testing needed to be done prior to terminating for severe defects and the MFM doctor and genetic counselor both said that an amnio could have provided more information about the baby's issues. Her argument was that an ultrasound alone is not considered "diagnostic". The intended parents, who had the funds to pay for a donor egg, IVF, and surrogacy, refused to shell out for a relatively cheap amnio because they wanted to terminate regardless. I can't help but think that if they'd done it, it might have made the extent of the baby's issues clear to the surrogate and she may have followed the contract she agreed to.

I read on a surrogate moms' forum a discussion about this incident. Their disgust is pretty squarely with the surrogate for being motivated primarily by money. She had no job and was desperate to pay the rent, so in their opinion she was doing this for the wrong reasons. The fact that she counter-offered to terminate for $15K is evidence of that. However apparently the surrogate broker is a very well known scammer in the surrogacy world. She has a reputation for trying to rush surrogates into hasty "matches" with intended parents without any of the psychological and physical screening that reputable surrogacy brokers require. Also, the surrogates felt that a gestational surrogate should be aware of the source of the baby's genetic material (i.e. if donors are involved) before the pregnancy is even initiated; it's on the intended parents to be open about that and several posters there felt that this was indicative of a rushed match between the parties. And the relationship and contract language should be such that if termination for fetal defects is a possibility, all parties are aware of what sort of testing and diagnostics would be required in that event.

There are surrogates out there who refuse to terminate a surrogate pregnancy for any reason; sensibly, they will only match with intended parents who are like-minded. There are plenty of surrogates who are willing to terminate for specific reasons. Intended parents are usually pretty cognizant that while they'd be making a heartbreaking decision, it's another woman who would physically be going through a 2nd trimester abortion, potentially close to viability. It's not exactly a cakewalk for the surrogate. As long as like-minded folks are matching with like-minded surrogates and their contracts reflect that then I have no problem with a surrogate choosing either philosophy.

Apparently during the surrogate's pregnancy she was blogging at great length and on a lot of pregnancy forums - she originally made it out to be a case of intended parents wanting to abort for just a cleft palate, which (IMO) would rightly horrify many people. She left a LOT out and is now changing her tune for some reason (movie of the week, perhaps?). She got a lot of sympathy, people offering money and bottles and clothes, etc. until she decided not to keep the baby herself after birth and the details of the baby's issues came out online. And now she's the one who has gone to the media making a name for herself.

Incidentally, I saw the maternal-fetal medicine specialist named in the story for a fairly routine ultrasound during my current pregnancy. I found her to be a very nice person with a good bedside manner, as were all of the MFM doctors in that group (two of whom I saw during my first pregnancy).

[Mama Mia]

Really complicated situation. I could see how you would have to be very, very precise in the wording of every single detail.

If it is true that the parents were basing the decision to abort on just an ultrasound I can see why the surrogate would want more extensive testing.

You really would need to spell out clearly what was the meaning of a "severe" defect, what tests are required to prove it - how many tests, do you get a second or third opinion and on and on.

It reminds me of end of life care instructions. A family member of mine had what seemed to be a very, very detailed and well thought out end of life plan - but when the time came there was still disagreement among family member regarding what was meant in practical terms.