CA Surrogate refuses birth parents' order to abort

[SpoonfulOSugar]

I have been looking for additional sources of information on this, but every single article I have found leads back to one source:  the New York Post.

IF the Post's facts are correct, I note the following:

1)  The contract paid an additional $5,000 for "two or more" babies, which implies that triplets were considered and considered acceptable;

2)  The agreed reason for "selective reduction" was for medical purposes, but the woman's physicians have indicated there are no such medical concerns;

3)  If, as stated, the request was specifically to abort the female fetus, then the use of "medical concerns" doesn't meet the smell test.

4)  Since the surrogate has offered to keep the third infant, concerns about the long-term financial consequences to the putative parents are moot.

5)  Selective reduction has its own risks.  I do not blame the surrogate for being unwilling to undergo an invasive procedure which her physicians have indicated is not medically necessary.

*shrugs*  If I were the surrogate, I'd countersue for breach of contract.  Contracting to carry a baby for someone does not abrogate a woman's rights.

[2xx1xy1JD]

13 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

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. 

 

The surrogate, however, is a person.  She doesn't lose her basic human rights even with a contract.  The ability to consent or refuse medical procedures is part of her basic human rights.

From what I read, the only thing that the contract can stipulate is the financial consequences of not following the genetic parents' wishes.

[elliha]

I can't see that this could be anyone's choice but the woman who is pregnant but ideally this should have been better dealt with before it happened. If there are truly no medical reasons I have zero compassion for the parents also. 

I am pro-choice because it protects both women who wants to have an abortion and those who does not want to. More people will have their rights protected by this position than one that forbids abortion. 

[violynn]

6 minutes ago, elliha said:

I am pro-choice because it protects both women who wants to have an abortion and those who does not want to. More people will have their rights protected by this position than one that forbids abortion. 

I LOVE the way you expressed this!  I would only added "and respected"after your words "rights protected".

I hope I'm expressing this clearly.  I am just stuck by how much that paragraph resonated with me.  

[Petrel]

They may specify the female fetus because the positioning of the fetuses in the uterus may make it safest and easiest to abort that particular fetus.  It may have nothing to do with the sex at all.

The surrogate's claim her doctors said at 12 weeks the fetuses were healthy does not invalidate the parents' concerns about developmental problems.  The problems with triplet pregnancies arise later in gestation when the placenta is unable to nourish them all, resulting in lower birth weight and premature birth, which can cause life-long problems like cerebral palsy.

[Rajah061014]

36 minutes ago, SpoonfulOSugar said:

I have been looking for additional sources of information on this, but every single article I have found leads back to one source:  the New York Post.

IF the Post's facts are correct, I note the following:

1)  The contract paid an additional $5,000 for "two or more" babies, which implies that triplets were considered and considered acceptable;

2)  The agreed reason for "selective reduction" was for medical purposes, but the woman's physicians have indicated there are no such medical concerns;

3)  If, as stated, the request was specifically to abort the female fetus, then the use of "medical concerns" doesn't meet the smell test.

4)  Since the surrogate has offered to keep the third infant, concerns about the long-term financial consequences to the putative parents are moot.

5)  Selective reduction has its own risks.  I do not blame the surrogate for being unwilling to undergo an invasive procedure which her physicians have indicated is not medically necessary.

*shrugs*  If I were the surrogate, I'd countersue for breach of contract.  Contracting to carry a baby for someone does not abrogate a woman's rights.

Regarding the bolded, the surrogate's physicians have only said that the fetuses are currently healthy with no detectable abnormalities. But it's too early to pick up most abnormalities and that does not take into account the vastly increased risks associated with triplets. Most triplets are born very premature and require weeks if not months in the NICU. Reducing the pregnancy to twins would greatly increase the odds of a term delivery, thus decreasing the morbidity and mortality to the babies after birth.

Regarding the italicized, they most likely did not request the female fetus to be aborted because it's a female. It sounds like the female fetus is the singleton. The male fetuses are probably connected in some way via their placenta, which makes selective reduction of either of them riskier. The female fetus was in all likelihood selected because she is the singleton, not because she is female.

[thebestusername]

I really hate the idea of a court messing around with people's lives like this but I geuss there's no other choice

[formergothardite]

This is such a difficult situation, but in the end I don't think a woman should be forced to undergo an abortion. 

[SpoonfulOSugar]

2 hours ago, Rajah061014 said:

Regarding the bolded, the surrogate's physicians have only said that the fetuses are currently healthy with no detectable abnormalities. But it's too early to pick up most abnormalities and that does not take into account the vastly increased risks associated with triplets. Most triplets are born very premature and require weeks if not months in the NICU. Reducing the pregnancy to twins would greatly increase the odds of a term delivery, thus decreasing the morbidity and mortality to the babies after birth.

Regarding the italicized, they most likely did not request the female fetus to be aborted because it's a female. It sounds like the female fetus is the singleton. The male fetuses are probably connected in some way via their placenta, which makes selective reduction of either of them riskier. The female fetus was in all likelihood selected because she is the singleton, not because she is female.

In re: paragraph one - I'm not an expert and certainly no medical professional, but my reading indicates that those chances would be even greater if they reduced to one.  If multiples were really that big of a concern, they should have used a single embryo and/or agreed up front in the contract to a reduction.  

In any case, my belief is that the whole thing was rendered moot by the use of "two or more" in the payment clause - again IF that's being reported accurately.

Further, it appears that selective reduction is generally done from weeks 9 - 12, which means the request was made, at best, at the last possible point and at worst, too late.

As regards the female versus the singleton, that's exactly why I look for multiple sources.  We don't have enough information to know what precisely this was about - and that's why I added the caveats I did.  As reported, it has the appearance of gender selection.

[2manyKidzzz]

Those parents should be damn grateful the woman agreed to carry a baby(ies) for them. If aborting a baby she now knows she is carrying, and may have seen on a sonogram is against her wishes, I think that makes sense. 

Life is not always perfect. They are lucky to be having children at all it would seem. 

[TXGirlInAMaterialWorld]

Is it normal to implant 3 (or possibly more?) fertilized eggs when using a surrogate?  If the parents were absolutely sure they didn't want triplets- then why wouldn't they make sure that was never a possibility? Did their fertility specialists not go over all the possible outcomes with them? 

 

[ADoyle90815]

26 minutes ago, TXGirlInAMaterialWorld said:

Is it normal to implant 3 (or possibly more?) fertilized eggs when using a surrogate?  If the parents were absolutely sure they didn't want triplets- then why wouldn't they make sure that was never a possibility? Did their fertility specialists not go over all the possible outcomes with them? 

 

I think if the parents didn't want triplets while using a surrogate, they should only have had 2 embryos implanted in my opinion. Either way, when someone is pregnant, it's her body, her choice.

[SpoonfulOSugar]

5 minutes ago, ADoyle90815 said:

I think if the parents didn't want triplets while using a surrogate, they should only have had 2 embryos implanted in my opinion. Either way, when someone is pregnant, it's her body, her choice.

They did use only two embryos, but one of them split.

[Jingerbread]

12 hours ago, Fundie Bunny said:

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

Couples and a surrogate can be on the same page to start.  It's different sometimes when you actually are pregnant.  Just like a lot of pro-lifers realize their errors when they're faced with an unwanted pregnancy and abort, so to do many women say they'd have no problem aborting, until they do.

8 hours ago, Petrel said:

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.)

There are no health guarantees, even for singletons.  This is a risk to assume when you decide to ask another woman to carry a pregnancy for you.  She is going to retain her rights, and this may mean she makes decisions for the body that is still hers that you may not like.

[blessalessi]

Do we know what the law says in her state? If surrogacy is legal, then surely there would be a contract which would include all of the terms of the agreement and the responsibilities and financial penalities for breaking the terms?

I find surrogacy very troubling for all sorts of ethical and psychological reasons relating to the produced children (as well as the surrogates and potential parents, but I would have thought that in a state where it is legal then the terms should have been considered in advance (even though all of the potential emotional consequences cannot?)

[Grimalkin]

     I suppose they could sue and destroy her financially. I hope they consider the publicity they would get and the fact that the kids would learn about them wanting to abort one of them. There are risks in any pregnancy and delivery. Babies tie unexpectedly, children get cancer, some die. There are all sorts of diseases they can have that are not screened for. There is also learning disabilities, autism, mental illnesses............parenting is not for the weak.

     It may only be a fetus but it's a human fetus. When most people are pregnant they call it a baby. They talk about it being a baby, and look at baby clothes and think about names. They contemplate the future and possibilities.I am sure the bio parents talk to her about 'the babies.' Then suddenly it's just a fetus. It does not work that way. When there is a human life growing in your body it is not a black and white matter. That is why I find it hard to judge a person either way. This is impossible to really plan before pregnancy.

[Whoosh]

It is interesting and bizarre to me to read some of the comments about this case (here and elsewhere).  Obviously, I am no expert here, but here are my random thoughts...

1. My understanding of both pro-choice ideology and Roe v. Wade would leave the decision of what to do entirely up to the pregnant woman.  As others have said, pro-choice is about the right to choose, not the right to abort.  Further, the legality of abortion in this country still hangs on the Roe v. Wade decision.  The decision in that case really doesn't even have much to do with abortion - the decision was made because the Court found a woman has the right to privacy in her relationship and communications with her doctor.  As far as I know, laws that place restrictions or limitations on abortion don't actually constrain the behavior of the woman really - they prohibit medical professionals from preforming various procedures under various situations.  I believe the woman's right to privacy in her relationship and communications with her doctor is still entirely protected.  

2. With regard to contract law - a contract for illegal activity is not enforceable and I am pretty sure you can't sue for breach of contract either.  Sale of bodies or body parts is also highly illegal.  Granted, this couple has in a sense rented the use of this woman's uterus (and therefore really her whole body), but they have not and legally can not buy her body or body parts.  All that said, even if there was a very clear provision in the contract stipulating a reduction in this exact situation, I don't think the couple has a legal leg to stand on either in terms of requiring her to carry out the procedure or in terms of suing for breach of contract, etc.

3. I also don't agree that the couple has much if any more of a say morally or ethically than bio fathers should/do have.  As an example, imagine a situation where a wealthy man from the east coast has hired a sugar baby for his 12 month assignment in California.  Knowing these types of situations can open a person up to all kinds of problems, the wealthy man and his sugar baby entered into a prenup type contract which states that her body will be his to enjoy for 12 months and if a pregnancy should occur, his sugar baby or high priced call girl will terminate the pregnancy.  She agreed to that provision and the contract is signed and notarized by both parties.  She gets pregnant.  The fetus is 50% genetically his.  Would people really say he should be able to either force her to undergo the procedure or sue her for breach of contract?  While there are obvious differences, I see the position of each member of the couple here as fairly similar to the position of the wealthy man in this hypothetical. Maybe I am just nutters.  

Basically, I have always pretty much felt that it is grossly unfair that a man has no say when his actions result in a pregnancy, but that's just life.  There is no solution that would make the situation more fair for all parties.  Maybe I am just missing something, but I see this couple as in very similar shoes.  

[CyborgKin]

Since others have already said plenty about rights and laws, I'll say something completely different.  It seems kinda unfair to the singleton to choose to remove it because the other embryo split.  Also, from a genetic diversity standpoint, terminating the unique one seems to be the inferior option.

Also, if the parents got their way, I wonder how they would explain the decision to their twins when they inevitably found out years later.

Anyhow, all this trading of wombs and fetuses like commodities seems rather tasteless to me.  But plenty of people treat their children (post birth, I mean) like commodities, so I guess this isn't any different.  I don't think it's good though.  Just nothing new.

[Whoosh]

2 hours ago, blessalessi said:

Do we know what the law says in her state? If surrogacy is legal, then surely there would be a contract which would include all of the terms of the agreement and the responsibilities and financial penalities for breaking the terms?

I find surrogacy very troubling for all sorts of ethical and psychological reasons relating to the produced children (as well as the surrogates and potential parents, but I would have thought that in a state where it is legal then the terms should have been considered in advance (even though all of the potential emotional consequences cannot?)

This is a good question.  I agree that surrogacy brings up all kinds of potentially troubling issues.  It seems fairly obvious that the best way to deal with this (if any type of surrogacy is going to be legal) would be to have a clear and comprehensive body of law regulating the entire process.  Unfortunately, the laws in the USA are somewhat of a mess.  This case is in California.  California has the most permissive (sometimes called progressive) surrogacy laws in the USA - earning it the dubious title of a "surrogacy destination" location on the "fertility tourism" circuit.  I would personally love to see a federal law passed requiring that IF surrogacy is going to be legal in a state, here are the requirements under the law.

[Shouldabeenacowboy]

23 hours ago, socalrules said:

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. 

^^^This. 

Times a million. 

[HarryPotterFan]

21 minutes ago, CyborgKin said:

Since others have already said plenty about rights and laws, I'll say something completely different.  It seems kinda unfair to the singleton to choose to remove it because the other embryo split.  Also, from a genetic diversity standpoint, terminating the unique one seems to be the inferior option.

Also, if the parents got their way, I wonder how they would explain the decision to their twins when they inevitably found out years later.

Anyhow, all this trading of wombs and fetuses like commodities seems rather tasteless to me.  But plenty of people treat their children (post birth, I mean) like commodities, so I guess this isn't any different.  I don't think it's good though.  Just nothing new.

How will this be explained to the singleton? It seems likely that all 3 will be carried to term at this point. What will happen to her? According to the NY Post article the biological parents don't want to let the surrogate adopt her, so that makes me wonder if they will opt to keep her or place her for adoption with someone else. How could you explain to a child, "your have brothers and your mommy and daddy decided to keep them and not you" or "mommy and daddy love you, but they really wanted to abort you and even sued because you weren't aborted. But don't worry, they love you just as much as your brothers." This whole ordeal is going to be terrible for her once she finds out.

[umsami]

2 hours ago, HarryPotterFan said:

How will this be explained to the singleton? It seems likely that all 3 will be carried to term at this point. What will happen to her? According to the NY Post article the biological parents don't want to let the surrogate adopt her, so that makes me wonder if they will opt to keep her or place her for adoption with someone else. How could you explain to a child, "your have brothers and your mommy and daddy decided to keep them and not you" or "mommy and daddy love you, but they really wanted to abort you and even sued because you weren't aborted. But don't worry, they love you just as much as your brothers." This whole ordeal is going to be terrible for her once she finds out.

I'm going to assume that the parents will raise all three.  The NYPost isn't the best source of news, and I[m assuming that some important facts are being omitted.

I wonder if the parents will pursue this and try and get surrogate Mom to pay for expenses or partial child support or some weird thing for one of the kids because she didn't selectively reduce.  I would think that the risk of their children learning about it would outweigh any financial benefit/changes in case law.

[Mercer]

11 hours ago, TXGirlInAMaterialWorld said:

Is it normal to implant 3 (or possibly more?) fertilized eggs when using a surrogate?  If the parents were absolutely sure they didn't want triplets- then why wouldn't they make sure that was never a possibility? Did their fertility specialists not go over all the possible outcomes with them? 

My understanding is that only two embryos were transferred and one split.

That said, unintended multiple births are a pretty well-established possibility in assisted reproduction. It's not like this situation totally came out of the blue and they had no way to prepare for it. Even basic research should have led them to realize this could happen, and they were at a higher likelihood than pregnancies where no reproductive assistance was used.

If having triplets was a dealbreaker, they really should have rethought their fertility options or insisted on transferring only one embryo. With one embryo it wouldn't be impossible but it would be far less likely.

[Shadoewolf]

Her body her choice.   I'm not buying the "financial" argument for the parents.  If you're paying for multiple IVF cycles and what this surrogate is due to make, I doubt finances are an issue. I disagree with breach of contract.  She agreed to carry the babies, she's doing that. Now if the surrogate wanted to selective reduce, and the bio donors didn't....THEN it would be breach of contract.

Its been reported that the surrogate spoke to her medical team, at this time all 3 babies are doing fine and the risk of complications has been deemed minimal.  Also, its been reported the split egg resulted in boys, the singleton is a girl.   So here's where it gets dicey.  What if a surrogate agrees to carry an embryo, but no parameters for the baby's sex are determined.  Surrogate at 14-16 weeks goes for the biophysical ultrasound and its learned the baby is a girl, but the bio donors decide they now only want a boy and want to abort. That's their choice?   Then I think if they're that selfish then maybe its some sort of Divine intervention that they have fertility issues. 

Aside from the rest of this.....the surrogate offered to adopt the 3rd baby, the genetic donors said no.

[Jingerbread]

On 12/18/2015 at 5:04 PM, HarryPotterFan said:

How will this be explained to the singleton? It seems likely that all 3 will be carried to term at this point. What will happen to her? According to the NY Post article the biological parents don't want to let the surrogate adopt her, so that makes me wonder if they will opt to keep her or place her for adoption with someone else. How could you explain to a child, "your have brothers and your mommy and daddy decided to keep them and not you" or "mommy and daddy love you, but they really wanted to abort you and even sued because you weren't aborted. But don't worry, they love you just as much as your brothers." This whole ordeal is going to be terrible for her once she finds out.

Parents have sued for all kinds of awful things, like their child being biracial, or being born at all.  There's something called "wrongful life," and I think people are better off walking away so these children can be raised by people who actually want them rather than be the subject of lawsuits because they're being raised by people who don't.