CA Surrogate refuses birth parents' order to abort

[Geechee Girl]

I heard this blurb about a local woman on NPR this morning. Birth parents want their 17wks pregnant surrogate to abort 1 fetus after learning the 2 eggs implanted have become triplets. Apparently, this isn't the first case of birth parents wanting their surrogate to selectively terminate. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3359941/Surrogate-mom-carrying-triplets-refuses-demands-birth-parents-abort-one-fetuses.html

Quote

Torres reportedly decided to come out with her story after learning about surrogate Melissa Cook last month, who is also carrying triplets and refused a demand to abort one of the fetuses.

In both their cases, the birth parents 'claimed that a provision in their contract gave them the right to order an abortion, and have suspended some payments to the surrogates for breaching it,' according to the Post. 

Under California law, fetuses cannot be aborted once they reach a 'viable' condition which is between 24 and 26 weeks - when they are capable of surviving outside the womb with medical intervention.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3359941/Surrogate-mom-carrying-triplets-refuses-demands-birth-parents-abort-one-fetuses.html#ixzz3uWtpFtCB 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I find this case troubling because it seems to me these surrogates have given up some agency in these contracts. What gives the birth parents the right to make these type of demands?

[Petrel]

Triplets are at risk for health problems from low birth weight and prematurity.  Twins have better outcomes.  They have a say because it is their future children's welfare at risk.  Some may not be able to afford the expense of three children.

[Catey]

What a mess.

Why would they not go over all the possibilities prior to the insemination? No matter how unlikely things are they should set people up only with other people that have the same feelings about these type of issues.

Her body her choice comes to mind 1st. However is it at the legitimate risk of the other two children? If so then it makes it an even more difficult choice.

Regardless for me that is the deal you get when you enter into these types of arrangements, I guess if the woman you pick to carry your children has different view points on selective reduction than at the end of the day until those children are born they would still be the surrogates right to refuse what other people want to do her body.

[2manyKidzzz]

The surrogate might not have realized, even, her attitude to a reduction until she was pregnant and the embryoes divided. She might have then felt differently. And, it is indeed her body, I don't see how someone can legally force her to undergo a medical procedure. Wow,  what a mess. 

[Maggie Mae]

It's her body, but the fetuses aren't hers. She has no right to refuse the procedure. 

[notfundy]

Such a sad situation, and even more tragic now that it is all going to be debated in the court of public opinion.  

I echo the comment above re: making damn sure IN ADVANCE that the surrgogate and the parents have the same views re: selective reduction.  

Just awful all the way around.    I honestly cannot imagine what I would do in this situation, even without the complications of surrogacy.  Well, I guess I sort of can imagine what I might do... assuming access to really good medical care (which the surrogate has) I would probably carry the triplets and hope for the best outcome(s) possible.   But again - whose decision is it?   Just as I believe one cannot force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, neither can we force her to abort a fetus if she does not choose to do so.  

Contract law has not kept up with these bioethical dilemmas, and this provides even more fodder for the anti-choice folks -  the soundbite is awful "Forced to kill one of the babies" - and to make things even more difficult, the third fetus is female.  

[Maggie Mae]

It's not "forced to kill one of the babies." It's NOT A BABY. It's not even her fetus. She has no claim or rights to what happens to the fetuses. She should be sued for breach of contract and kidnapping if she runs.  They paid her to use her uterus and as such, she relinquished rights to it. If you aren't OK with selective reduction: Don't be a surrogate. 

 

[BackseatMom]

Everybody really loses in a case like this. If she's forced to have an abortion, then that is a terrible invasion of her body. She refuses, and all three fetuses are at increased risk. And what are the alternatives if she doesn't do it and all three fetuses survive? If the parents only want/can support 2, do they make them take all three? Put one up for adoption? Let the surrogate keep one (if she wants it)? They begrudgingly keep all three and all of their quality of life suffers?

[MarthaMarcyMayMarlen]

Maggie Mae, It IS A BABY!  What is wrong with you?!

[2manyKidzzz]

So, they can take her in handcuffs to have an abortion? That would be different. 

[Maggie Mae]

18 minutes ago, MarthaMarcyMayMarlen said:

Maggie Mae, It IS A BABY!  What is wrong with you?!

It's a fetus. Not a baby. It's a prenatal potential human being that is between embryonic stage and birth. There is no guarantee that it will survive long enough to go through the birth process. There is no guarantee that all three fetuses will be born at all. Furthermore, it's not the surrogate's call to make, as the fetuses do not belong to her. 

i do think the entire situation sucks and the only remedy if she refuses the procedure would have to be financial. 

[socalrules]

No court is going to force her to have an invasive medical procedure she does not want, regardless of a surrogate contract. She may have agreed to carry the babies but she controls the body while she is pregnant. Legally she cannot be forced to undergo an invasive surgery such as an abortion, that she does not want. Never going to happen. Forcing an adult in their right mind to undergo a medical procedure they do not want is nearly impossible. I am pro-choice but I have a real problem forcing an abortion on someone. It stops being pro-choice when forced on someone. Abortion is an emotional procedure that should not be forced on anyone that doesn't want it. Realistically, the parents took the risk of multiples when they implanted in someone else. 

[Catey]

I agree that at 17 weeks along there is no way that I can see that she can be forced to abort. Even if this were taken to court a few appeals would drag this out longer than another 6 weeks.

 

It is a rotten situation all round, but I can not see forcing anyone to abort. They may be their embryos however they are firmly lodged in her uterus. 

[sparkles]

There are no easy answers and no positive outcomes in a situation like this. Whatever happens, someone loses, especially the children born under such an arrangement. And that's why I am 100% opposed to commercial surrogacy. Women's bodies should never be up for sale.

[Rtuesday]

I read that they can't physically force her to have an abortion, but they can hurt her in other ways. They can refuse to pay her for breach of contract, and they can sue her for a lot of money for pain and anguish.  They can basically destroy her life financially.  

[notfundy]

3 hours ago, notfundy said:

Such a sad situation, and even more tragic now that it is all going to be debated in the court of public opinion.  

I echo the comment above re: making damn sure IN ADVANCE that the surrgogate and the parents have the same views re: selective reduction.  

Just awful all the way around.    I honestly cannot imagine what I would do in this situation, even without the complications of surrogacy.  Well, I guess I sort of can imagine what I might do... assuming access to really good medical care (which the surrogate has) I would probably carry the triplets and hope for the best outcome(s) possible.   But again - whose decision is it?   Just as I believe one cannot force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, neither can we force her to abort a fetus if she does not choose to do so.  

Contract law has not kept up with these bioethical dilemmas, and this provides even more fodder for the anti-choice folks -  the soundbite is awful "Forced to kill one of the babies" - and to make things even more difficult, the third fetus is female.  

I just want to clarify:  I personally did not call the fetus a baby.  I said the SOUNDBITE will be awful "FORCED TO KILL ONE OF THE BABIES".     The reason it's important to me is that (personally) I do not believe that an embryo/ fetus equals a "baby".  I know people disagree - strongly - about this, even to the choice of words.  

[umsami]

She rented out her uterus to the other couple.  They implanted their fertilized eggs in them.  I believe the call should be the parents of the future children.  

Of course, there's no way this will be decided in time, so most likely she'll have triplets.  Had she actually aborted one at around 12 weeks, when asked, it would have been a far easier, less risky procedure, too.

[PregnantPornStar]

First, I am very pro-choice, but that choice ultimately lies with the woman who is pregnant. Her body, her choice. Her uterus is not owned by anyone other than her.

Baby/fetus, it doesn't matter. It is her body. Multiples happen. Not everyone can plan for it.

As for risks, the babies are apparently healthy and will likely survive and be fine. I personally know THREE sets of triplets who have been born in the last 5 years. All sets are healthy and while risks increase with multiples, medical science is pretty equipped to deal with triplets.

Her opinion could have changed the second she found out she was carrying triplets and that is that. She shouldn't be forced to selectively reduce anymore than she should be forced to continue a pregnancy if her life is at risk. Her uterus is her own. Saying she "rented it out" is bizarre.

Honestly, would you suggest a man can force a woman he got pregnant to abort?

What a mess and the couple a jerks. How dare they not respect the woman and the body of the woman who is carrying their children.

[Mercer]

No woman should ever be forced to have an abortion.

I'm strongly pro-choice... meaning that I believe in choice. Her body ultimately still belongs to her, and signing a surrogacy contract doesn't change that.

[Jingerbread]

8 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

It's her body, but the fetuses aren't hers. She has no right to refuse the procedure. 

Using this as a defense gets into dangerous territory.  What if a single embryo split into four, and the risks to her health were very high, and the genetic parents said not to abort?  What if they decide they want her to have an elective c-section so a baby's head doesn't get squished in birth?   What if they decide they want only a vegan diet for the fetus?

When you use a surrogate, you have to accept that the woman still retains rights.  It's still her body, and her rights come first.  She's not just a vessel to be ordered around by someone else just because she's pregnant.  When a woman is pregnant with her partner's child, does he get legal half-say because the fetus is both of theirs?

[Jingerbread]

5 hours ago, umsami said:

She rented out her uterus to the other couple.  They implanted their fertilized eggs in them.  I believe the call should be the parents of the future children.  

Let's say I rent a house from you.  Because I'm paying you, should I get to do whatever I want with it?  Of course not, no matter how much I'm paying you to use your house.  Your house is still your house.  A woman's body is still her body.  It's incredibly disgusting that anyone can think a woman loses the right to her own body for being pregnant.

[Fundie Bunny]

I am sadly on the side of the parents on this. They shouldn't force her to have selective reduction, if she doesn't want to. It is her body, it is her choice. But also, theese are not her children and she should be listening to the pleads of their parents.

I wtill don't undestand why people don't talk about every singlepossibility before agreeing to be a surrogate

[Pixiedust1960]

Her body, her choice

[polecat]

Her body, her choice. 

Period. 

Doesn't matter whose fetus is in there. 

[Petrel]

I don't think she can be forced to have an abortion against her will, but I think the parents should be able to sue for breach of contract.  It could be financially devastating, but the parents could also be financially devastated by suddenly needing to care for a third child through the next 18+ years.  Daycare is outrageous enough for one infant.

As for health outcomes, yes, the majority of triplets will survive.  But would you rather have your baby be born at term and discharged days later, or born two months early and spend a month in the hospital, possibly some of that being hooked up to a ventilator? And who is going to pay those medical costs?  (Triplets are frequently premature and often have to be admitted to NICU.)