Surrogate Offered $10,000 for Abortion

[theCR]

I have no idea what I would do in her shoes, its a tough one.

What I really want to know is since the baby wasn't hers at all, would it be considering kidnapping since she left the state with the baby?

[Guest Anonymous]

I have no idea what I would do in her shoes, its a tough one.

What I really want to know is since the baby wasn't hers at all, would it be considering kidnapping since she left the state with the baby?

She left the state while pregnant. Foetus-napping is not a thing.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I have no idea what I would do in her shoes, its a tough one.

What I really want to know is since the baby wasn't hers at all, would it be considering kidnapping since she left the state with the baby?

No, she left the state with a FETUS. Big difference. If you call it kidnapping, then you are saying that pregnant women don't have mobility rights.

Part of the problem here is that different states have different laws. Once she was in Michigan, the fact that Conn. law says that the genetic parents are the legal parents was irrelevant, because in Michigan the birth parent is the legal parent.

[valsa]

Part of the problem here is that different states have different laws. Once she was in Michigan, the fact that Conn. law says that the genetic parents are the legal parents was irrelevant, because in Michigan the birth parent is the legal parent.

I don't think it's a coincidence that she chose MI, as that state has the harshest laws against paid surrogacy (iirc, they're the only state that actually criminalizes it)

I have a sneaking suspicion this chick never planned to go through with the surrogacy contract. I'd bet good money that, had the baby been healthy, she'd still be in MI, with custody of the baby, and suing the biological father for child support. She's only interested in money.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I don't think it's a coincidence that she chose MI, as that state has the harshest laws against paid surrogacy (iirc, they're the only state that actually criminalizes it)

I have a sneaking suspicion this chick never planned to go through with the surrogacy contract. I'd bet good money that, had the baby been healthy, she'd still be in MI, with custody of the baby, and suing the biological father for child support. She's only interested in money.

I don't see any basis for that suspicion.

She uprooted her life to go to Michigan, and her lawyer specifically advised her to go there. She wouldn't have gone to that lawyer if everything had gone as hoped. Even as a surrogate, it's a bit unusual to know the laws in all 50 states re surrogacy and custody laws.

As well, the father would likely have fought her for custody if the baby was healthy. He and his wife were stable, they were already parenting 3 children and they may have had a real shot at it.

[valsa]

I don't see any basis for that suspicion.

She uprooted her life to go to Michigan, and her lawyer specifically advised her to go there. She wouldn't have gone to that lawyer if everything had gone as hoped. Even as a surrogate, it's a bit unusual to know the laws in all 50 states re surrogacy and custody laws.

As well, the father would likely have fought her for custody if the baby was healthy. He and his wife were stable, they were already parenting 3 children and they may have had a real shot at it.

She uprooted her life to move to another state because the parents wouldn't cough up another $5000 to meet her price to get an abortion. Let's not pretend money isn't her overriding goal in all of this.

Also, you don't need to know the laws of every state to know that some states do have laws where she'll be considered the legal mother and be entitled to, at the least, 50% custody.

[skeptifem]

But she sold her body to this couple. They were paying her 20k for it.

This reminds me so much of the contracts signed by women in pornography. A lot of them get coerced into things they didn't want to do because they signed on the dotted line and didn't want to deal with the legal consequences of refusing certain sex acts.

Seems like surrogacy (for money) has the same ethical problems as sex for money.

[BravaAmica]

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.

I thought they were idiots for telling her that. The moment they tipped their hand, they lost what little remaining control over the situation they had. I also think they were idiots for not paying for the further testing, if only to placate the surrogate mother. The surrogate mother was always going to go full term with the baby. The bio parents' arrogance did them in, though.

[Turtle]

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).

Just curious, why does everyone on the forum you mentioned feel that doing for money is wrong or not the right reason?

I don't care if I find a woman distasteful or unethical, her body = her choice. Details from both sides sound tacky, extra money for an abortion or not paying for diagnostic tests, but I think those details distract from that key issue.

Also, anytime an argument veers toward implying that money has been paid for a woman's body so someone other than the woman can make decisions about her body without her consent, I get squeamish.

[thekate]

My read on the situation is this: It was always about the money.

1. If the surrogate were opposed to abortion, she should have spoken up before it was written into the contract.* She probably would have lost the surrogacy agreement, but she wanted the $22K.

2. She offered to abort for $15K instead of $10K. She was trying to run out the clock and call the hiring couples' bluff, but time ran out for legal abortion.

3. Once time ran out, she probably thought she could make some money/support by being a pro-life spokesperson, so she consulted with a lawyer about where to go so that she had more rights to determine what happened to the baby/control the story/look more sympathetic. The running to MI was bullshit. Adoptive parents also could have been found in CT. Giving the child up to the state is making the child available for adoption. It was about playing the martyr.

*Not that that clause is or should be enforceable; no woman should be forced into abortion against her wishes, even if she previously agreed.

Question: how could the baby be adopted in MI without the consent of the legal father? This assumes the CT father is legal as well as bio father in MI law. Did he consent? Or is pressure to abort/stated desire to give up to the state considered abandonment?

[2xx1xy1JD]

My read on the situation is this: It was always about the money.

1. If the surrogate were opposed to abortion, she should have spoken up before it was written into the contract.* She probably would have lost the surrogacy agreement, but she wanted the $22K.

2. She offered to abort for $15K instead of $10K. She was trying to run out the clock and call the hiring couples' bluff, but time ran out for legal abortion.

3. Once time ran out, she probably thought she could make some money/support by being a pro-life spokesperson, so she consulted with a lawyer about where to go so that she had more rights to determine what happened to the baby/control the story/look more sympathetic. The running to MI was bullshit. Adoptive parents also could have been found in CT. Giving the child up to the state is making the child available for adoption. It was about playing the martyr.

*Not that that clause is or should be enforceable; no woman should be forced into abortion against her wishes, even if she previously agreed.

Question: how could the baby be adopted in MI without the consent of the legal father? This assumes the CT father is legal as well as bio father in MI law. Did he consent? Or is pressure to abort/stated desire to give up to the state considered abandonment?

I can't imagine the state refusing to waive his consent for the adoption if his only parenting plan was to obtain custody and immediately give up the child for adoption in another state.

The agency should have done a better job of screening and matching up surrogates and parents on the basis of similar views on prenatal testing and aborting for medical reasons. I also think that it's only ethical to let everyone know that it is impossible to force a surrogate to either carry to term or to terminate - the only thing that can be stated are everyone's intentions, and financial consequences. I also thought it was bizarre for the parents to say that they would not be the legal parents in the pregnancy was carried to term. They didn't have the legal right to do that - as the genetic parents, they would be deemed to be the legal parents in their state.

[Katiebug]

Just curious, why does everyone on the forum you mentioned feel that doing for money is wrong or not the right reason?

It seemed to be mainly about the speed with which she entered into the agreement, that in the CNN story she indicates she was desperate for money and had no job, and the fact that she offered to terminate if they paid her more. Her blogging and online forum postings at the time also seemed to affect the surrogates' opinion of her. The fact that the surrogacy broker is a well known scam artist also didn't help matters; the prevailing attitude seemed to be that the surrogate should have researched the broker in more detail before proceeding. Most of them said that there is blame to be shared with the intended parents as well.

They all get paid, or at least have their expenses covered. I got the impression that their issue wasn't so much that surrogacy is a paid arrangement but that this particular surrogate appeared to be primarily motivated by the money. This group of surrogates all seemed to feel that they're doing this to help infertile or same sex couples achieve families they would not otherwise have and the compensation is a nice side benefit. I really don't know if that's an accurate reflection of the motivations of surrogates, just the opinions stated by the women posting on the forum.

Reading further on the forum, there are cases where prospective intended parents can go overboard on contract language - say, attempting to stipulate that the surrogate can only eat organic food during the pregnancy - and if the surrogate and intended parents can't come to a mutually agreeable solution, they simply won't proceed past the initial discussions. These women seemed to take a lot of umbrage to the idea of being a "rent-a-womb" who is subject to every wish of the intended parents, and I have to say I agree with that.

[Bethella]

My read on the situation is this: It was always about the money.

1. If the surrogate were opposed to abortion, she should have spoken up before it was written into the contract.* She probably would have lost the surrogacy agreement, but she wanted the $22K.

2. She offered to abort for $15K instead of $10K. She was trying to run out the clock and call the hiring couples' bluff, but time ran out for legal abortion.

3. Once time ran out, she probably thought she could make some money/support by being a pro-life spokesperson, so she consulted with a lawyer about where to go so that she had more rights to determine what happened to the baby/control the story/look more sympathetic. The running to MI was bullshit. Adoptive parents also could have been found in CT. Giving the child up to the state is making the child available for adoption. It was about playing the martyr.

*Not that that clause is or should be enforceable; no woman should be forced into abortion against her wishes, even if she previously agreed.

Question: how could the baby be adopted in MI without the consent of the legal father? This assumes the CT father is legal as well as bio father in MI law. Did he consent? Or is pressure to abort/stated desire to give up to the state considered abandonment?

My understanding was that the surrogate didn't list a father on the birth certificate, it was left blank. So the biological father would have had to go to court to prove paternity before being able to fight for custody and since he indicated that they didn't want to parent the child anyways he probably didn't bother establishing paternity or contesting the adoption.

[valsa]

Just curious, why does everyone on the forum you mentioned feel that doing for money is wrong or not the right reason?

I don't have a problem with doing surrogacy for money (it's something I've actually thought about doing but most reputable agencies require the surrogate already have at least one child) but I do think trying to scam people for money is wrong, which is what this woman did.

If she'd done the surrogacy for money and either terminated the pregnancy when problems were found (which she previous agreed she'd do) or carried a healthy pregnancy to term and given the child to its parents, I obviously wouldn't have a problem with her. Hell, even if she refused to abort, but had given all the parents' money back to them and not tried to blackmail more money out of them in exchange for an abortion, I'd have less of a problem with her (for all those who are saying the parents suck for holding an "abort or we'll put our child in foster care" axe over the surrogate's head, I think "give me an extra $5000 or I'll give birth to your child and doom it to a short, painful, mockery of a real life" is much more horrible) But instead she chose to outright lie on her contract for money (they probably wouldn't have picked her if she'd refused that clause in the contract), take the surrogacy money, try to get an extra $5000 out of the parents to abort, and is probably trying to sell this story to the media or the rabid prolife crowd to cash in some more.

I also wonder if she got any birth mother expenses paid for by the adoptive parents of the child once she got to Michigan.

[duplessis3]

". Once time ran out, she probably thought she could make some money/support by being a pro-life spokesperson, so she consulted with a lawyer about where to go so that she had more rights to determine what happened to the baby/control the story/look more sympathetic. The running to MI was bullshit. Adoptive parents also could have been found in CT. Giving the child up to the state is making the child available for adoption. It was about playing the martyr."

This. She is looking for cash and sympathy from the prolife crowd now. I also have big suspicions about the alleged lack of further testing. The docs can't be publicly saying anything. I sincerely doubt the bio father and his wife are talking either (hey, they have 3 kids already - why would they put those kids at risk?) So I really doubt that the bio father and wife flat out refused - they were probably running into a time wall. She probably also wanted the full 22k for the complete pregnancy, not 10 k for however long she was pregnant for.

I doubt their contract is a matter of public record but all of this could have been planned for and in the contract.

And I see nothing wrong with the bio father relinquishing his rights rather than having to take a court battle to another state etc.

[greek_chorus]

There is just so much wrong with this surrogate, I hardly no where to begin. I read the cnn article.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health/su ... index.html

This section really stuck out to me. It's from the second ultrasound when the parents were present. I'm not sure how much additional diagnostic testing (ultrasound is a diagnostic test) was needed when it was already apparent that the baby had so many other issues beyond the cleft palate and was already given such low odds for a "normal life."

With the parents standing behind her, the ultrasound technician at the hospital put the wand on Kelley's stomach. The test confirmed her worst fears: It showed the baby did have a cleft lip and palate, a cyst in the brain, and a complex heart abnormality.

The doctors explained the baby would need several heart surgeries after she was born. She would likely survive the pregnancy, but had only about a 25% chance of having a "normal life," Kelley remembers the doctors saying.

The other thing that really bothered me was that the parents who adopted the baby actually helped the surrogate pack up and move to Michigan. The surrogate met the adoptive mother on an online message board for parents of children with special needs. This just doesn't pass the smell test. I'm with Valsa, I think the surrogate was looking to extort as much money as possible from the parents and when that didn't work sought out alternative sources of income. I wouldn't be surprised if the adoptive mom and dad also offered her financial assistance of some sort, since she was going to let them adopt. I've seen this episode of Law & Order a few too many times already.

Kelley struggled, and finally decided she wasn't the right person to raise the child. But she knew who was: in her online research, she'd met other mothers of children with special needs. One of them had been particularly helpful, putting her in touch with support groups and sharing stories and photos of her own children -- both biological and adopted -- with medical problems.

The woman and her husband helped Kelley pack up to move to Michigan, and gave her emotional support as well.

[merrily]

Huh. This might just be the new Law and Order SVU episode.

[Megan]

[...]

They all get paid, or at least have their expenses covered. I got the impression that their issue wasn't so much that surrogacy is a paid arrangement but that this particular surrogate appeared to be primarily motivated by the money. This group of surrogates all seemed to feel that they're doing this to help infertile or same sex couples achieve families they would not otherwise have and the compensation is a nice side benefit. I really don't know if that's an accurate reflection of the motivations of surrogates, just the opinions stated by the women posting on the forum.

[...]

I've read some research on this before - respectable agencies usually make potential surrogates go through a lot of paperwork and interviews to determine their motivations for surrogacy. They generally weed out people who are doing it for the "wrong" (read: financial) reasons. I think the opinions on forums reflect that: surrogates are supposed to be generous, compassionate, etc. I think it's an accurate representation of people who successfully apply to be surrogates at "good" agencies.

[Ramona]

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.

You're not the only people in this thread who has spoken of the child in this sort of way; I'm just hanging my post from this because I'll bugger it all up if I try to multiquote and that doesn't matter because I just had this to say....

It's making me very sad, as a mother of a child with severe disabilities (who has, yes, been through multiple surgeries and will always require 1-1 care) to keep seeing people refer to this child as someone who (essentially) has a horrible life ahead of them.

[August]

I'm so glad my uterus works.

If I were the biological parents, I would be pissed. I don't think this was Crystal Kelley's decision to make.

It is her body. But, that's why lying when signing an agreement that you'd terminate for severe abnormalities is so morally outrageous.

[skeptifem]

I'm so glad my uterus works.

It is her body. But, that's why lying when signing an agreement that you'd terminate for severe abnormalities is so morally outrageous.

she might have meant it and then changed her mind. lots of people feel differently than they thought they would when facing such a choice.

[valsa]

she might have meant it and then changed her mind. lots of people feel differently than they thought they would when facing such a choice.

If she had an doubts, she never should have become a surrogate. However, from what she's written, it doesn't sound like she meant it even at the time she signed the contract.

[valsa]

It's making me very sad, as a mother of a child with severe disabilities (who has, yes, been through multiple surgeries and will always require 1-1 care) to keep seeing people refer to this child as someone who (essentially) has a horrible life ahead of them.

I can understand why you'd feel this way. However, personally, I would not want to live the life this little girl or boy has, I would not want my own child to live the life this child has, and most importantly- this child's parents didn't want him or her to live the life he or she has now. The pain and lack of quality of life for this child was entirely avoidable in this case and that makes me sad.

[Alice_Fraggle]

You're not the only people in this thread who has spoken of the child in this sort of way; I'm just hanging my post from this because I'll bugger it all up if I try to multiquote and that doesn't matter because I just had this to say....

It's making me very sad, as a mother of a child with severe disabilities (who has, yes, been through multiple surgeries and will always require 1-1 care) to keep seeing people refer to this child as someone who (essentially) has a horrible life ahead of them.

I can see where you're coming from - but there are some of us who just cannot imagine having a child with so many struggles ahead that has such a small chance of having a "normal" life. Personally, I would feel like I'm doing my child a disservice to not think about how hard their life would be and if they could enjoy it. If not, I'd chose to abort. All they had to go on was what the doctor said - which made it sound like the child's life would be full of pain, surgery, hospital visits and unpleasantness - I don't think it's fair to say that others should feel differently. You chose to see the good in your child's life - some of us couldn't see past the pain, and surgeries, and slim chance of a "normal" life in order to bring that child into this cruel world.

[Turtle]

I've read some research on this before - respectable agencies usually make potential surrogates go through a lot of paperwork and interviews to determine their motivations for surrogacy. They generally weed out people who are doing it for the "wrong" (read: financial) reasons. I think the opinions on forums reflect that: surrogates are supposed to be generous, compassionate, etc. I think it's an accurate representation of people who successfully apply to be surrogates at "good" agencies.

I find it strange that women who choose surrogacy are doing for "the wrong reasons" if they are doing it for money.

In this situation, I think the woman saw she could get attention (and probably more money) from the pro-life crowd and took advantage of it, which I find tacky as hell. But, that aside, it seems that there was not enough specifics in their contract. Two people can agree that they'd abort if there were disabilities, but when it comes down to specifics they might disagree. Which is fine, it just needs to be explicitly spelled out. Every possibility should be agreed on and the bio parents have to accept the surrogates legal right to her body. That might suck, but that's reality.