CA Surrogate refuses birth parents' order to abort

[HarryPotterFan]

3 hours ago, Jingerbread said:

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.

That's just such an awful way to fuck up a child's self-worth. How could a child in that situation feel loved? People need to pull their head out of their asses and think about the kids.

[Maggie Mae]

8 minutes ago, HarryPotterFan said:

That's just such an awful way to fuck up a child's self-worth. How could a child in that situation feel loved? People need to pull their head out of their asses and think about the kids.

In the cases I've read about regarding "wrongful birth" the children are loved. But they have medical conditions that were hidden from the parents. If the parents had been given the information as per the law, they might have made a different choice in regards to abortion. It's possible to love someone and also realize that you might have made a different choice. Wrongful birth give compensation for parents who are stuck in unfortunate situations that could have been prevented. 

[Jingerbread]

It doesn't matter if a child is loved after the fact.  The fact still is that the parents are suing because they would have aborted a pregnancy.  "I love you, Kid, but I wish I could have aborted you."

[hilee]

She signed the contract that included reduction, it almost seems like it's about money she got more money for twins. 

I've unfortunately seen a few triplet situations that none survived. 

[Jingerbread]

8 hours ago, hilee said:

She signed the contract that included reduction, it almost seems like it's about money she got more money for twins. 

I've unfortunately seen a few triplet situations that none survived. 

Contracts agreeing to medical procedures in the future aren't enforceable unless a judge signs off agreeing to terminate a person's rights.   This is to protect the person and make sure they aren't being coerced or anything, and there has to be a very good reason for a judge to allow it.  I could sign a piece of paper telling an affair partner that I'll get an abortion if I get pregnant, but that wouldn't be enforceable if I got pregnant and changed my mind.  He wouldn't be entitled to monetary damages just because the pregnant woman changed her mind.  In a surrogacy case, the intended mother is demoted to having the same rights as a man.  If she was the pregnant one and her husband wanted a reduction she said no to, he wouldn't have the say, no matter what they agreed to ahead of time.  When there's a surrogate, both of them are in the father role regarding rights, and the pregnant woman still has her rights.  If they don't like that, then they need to do the equivalent of telling a man to wrap his penis.  They need to pull out and come up with a different way to get what they want.

[PregnantPornStar]

When I read this and see that there are women suggesting this woman be forced to have an abortion I am a bit disturbe. I would even suggest that you cannot call yourselves pro-choice, but rather "pro-abortion"  I have never met anyone in real life who is "pro-abortion"  I know plenty of people who support choice, but not anyone who would suggest a woman be forced to do anything with her body she doesn't want to, contract or not. 

Wasnt that part of the issue with fifty shades of grey? That signing a contract doesn't mean said woman can change her mind and decide something isn't okay with her...

12 hours ago, hilee said:

She signed the contract that included reduction, it almost seems like it's about money she got more money for twins. 

I've unfortunately seen a few triplet situations that none survived. 

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

20 minutes ago, PregnantPornStar said:

When I read this and see that there are women suggesting this woman be forced to have an abortion I am a bit disturbe. I would even suggest that you cannot call yourselves pro-choice, but rather "pro-abortion"  I have never met anyone in real life who is "pro-abortion"  I know plenty of people who support choice, but not anyone who would suggest a woman be forced to do anything with her body she doesn't want to, contract or not. 

Wasnt that part of the issue with fifty shades of grey? That signing a contract doesn't mean said woman can change her mind and decide something isn't okay with her...

 

Assuming you meant 'can't' change her mind I agree with this.

Marriage is a contract too and I can't imagine any reasonable person believing one spouse has the legal right to demand sex from the other just because they are married...so why would a business contract allow another party the right to enforce an invasive medical procedure?  Doesn't make sense to me.

You can't contractually give up your autonomy.  

That said depending on the terms  they could have a case for breach of contract.  Legal remedies for that are financial just like in any other service contract.

if you hired me to clean your house and paid me in advance and I didn't show up courts would make me refund your money, they wouldn't force me to clean for you.  Of course stakes are way higher in this case and certainly you'd be hard pressed to find a more emotionally charged scenario...but that doesn't change the law which governs service contracts.  And this is a service cintract.

[Whoosh]

What some of this debate is really about is when should a court order specific performance in a contract dispute.  Frequently, a court can order a party to specifically perform whatever they agreed to in the contract.  So for a really dumb example, I recently ordered groceries online.  They had some frozen fish things that usually sell for $6.99 on sale for $0.79.  I am pretty sure they were discontinuing the product (either the manufacturer or the store was no longer carrying it).  Being the wise spender that I am, I ordered 20.  When my groceries were delivered, they had included 16 boxes of fish with a note saying that they were out of the product and had refunded my account for the other $3 and change.  I was a bit annoyed (not really much, but a bit) because in the rules or in the contract or whatever, it says that if you order something and they run out they will fulfill that part of the order with a comparable product unless you opt out.  So, being the laid back, easy going kind of woman that I am (and realizing full well there was no more room in my freezer), I looked the item up online.  It not only said that it was sold out, but when I checked to see what the alternate product was supposed to be there was nothing listed.  When I read back through the rules, it says they will substitute IF A SUBSTITUTION IS LISTED.  If not, you get a refund.  So, I think that if the policy had just been that they would substitute "some" comparable product, I could get a court to force them to give me an equal number of ounces of similar fish for that $3 and change (not saying I would, but I could).  However, they really crossed their Is and dotted their Ts when setting up the rules or "contract for sale".

Often in a contract dispute, a party won't want specific performance.  Say I commissioned someone to paint me a portrait.  If they didn't want to for whatever reason, I really would have no interest in the court forcing specific performance.  When someone does ask for specific performance, the court has guidelines or rules to determine what decision to make.  Off the top of my head, I can't think of a comprehensive list of things - so I stole this from Wiki (bolding added).

Quote

An order of specific performance is generally not granted if any of the following is true:

Specific performance would cause severe hardship to the defendant.

The contract was unconscionable.

The claimant has misbehaved (unclean hands).

Specific performance is impossible.

Performance consists of a personal service.

The contract is too vague to be enforced.

The contract was terminable at will (meaning either party can renege without notice).

Note that consumer protection laws may disallow terms that allow a company to terminate a consumer contract at will (e.g. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999[1])

The contract required constant supervision.

Mutuality was lacking in the initial agreement of the contract.

The contract was made for no consideration.

So, I am not sure how the court would view each and every little aspect of things, but I am pretty sure that asking the court to require specific performance in this situation is just a huge, huge loser of a case.  

In terms of suing for damages due to breach of contract, I am pretty sure that again it would be a huge loser of a case.  I think I feel strongly about this because I think that control over our bodies is a fundamental right which can not be contracted away.  SO, a contract that attempts to take that right away would be seen as a contract for illegal activity and therefore would not be enforceable in any way, shape, or form including damages for breach of contract.  I could be way off base on that, but my strong gut feeling and vague sense of intellectual rightness of what I know of the law says this is how it would go down in a court of law.

[notfundy]

@Whoosh   Thanks for this explanation - it is so very thorough.

I've been trying to remember what I could from my business law courses re: contracts, specific performance, etc. and your example really brought it all back and in a much clearer way than my professors all those years ago.....  (And wow - the terms and conditions for the online grocery service was well written.)  

I agree with you that control over our bodies is a fundamental right which can not be contracted away.  I can't imagine the courts would order an abortion (or any other medical procedure in a competent adult), so that's the way this would/will probably end up.

It does seem clear  (one of  @HerNameIsBuffy 's points), that this is a service contract so financial remedies - not specific performance - may apply if the courts want to apply them.   

Again, a very sad & complicated situation all the way around.   

[Whoosh]

Again, I really don't think the couple will get monetary damagers here.  If I contracted with someone to be their slave for 10 years, I could decide not to be their slave at any time and they could not sue for damages as slavery is illegal and you can't contract for an illegal activity - that portion of the contract would be null and void.

I realize that abortion is legal, but it is only legal by choice.  If a woman signed a contract in her marriage ceremony saying she would terminate all pregnancies, would people think the husband could then sue for damages for breach of contract if she refused an abortion?

If I lived in Nevada and worked for a brothel and the employment contract stated that I would terminate any and all pregnancies for the duration of my employment, would people think the brothel owner could sue for damages for breach of contract if I refused to have an abortion and therefore she lost money she would have made off my body for a period of time?

I get that abortion is legal - I don't think forced, coercive or involuntary abortion is legal.  If it is not legal, you CAN NOT form a legal contract with that as a clause.  If there is no legal clause in the contract that says an abortion must be had, you can't sue for damages because someone broke an invalid clause of the contract. 

[Whoosh]

OK - I just realized I am ignoring the part about the money that has already been paid to the surrogate.  For that part, I would need to see the specific contract, but it seems that she should get paid for any parts of the contract that have already been completed and all parts of the contract that will be completed.  So, say this woman had had a miscarriage - would she have had to return any money?  It seems to me like surrogates are paid for completing stages of a pregnancy. We can't always guarantee outcomes in life.  It is quite possible that this surrogate will actually complete all portions of the contract other than the mandatory reduction clause.  If she doesn't, I am not sure anyone could prove definitively that any problems that arise are the result of her refusal to undergo the reduction abortion procedure.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

8 hours ago, Whoosh said:

OK - I just realized I am ignoring the part about the money that has already been paid to the surrogate.  For that part, I would need to see the specific contract, but it seems that she should get paid for any parts of the contract that have already been completed and all parts of the contract that will be completed.  So, say this woman had had a miscarriage - would she have had to return any money?  It seems to me like surrogates are paid for completing stages of a pregnancy. We can't always guarantee outcomes in life.  It is quite possible that this surrogate will actually complete all portions of the contract other than the mandatory reduction clause.  If she doesn't, I am not sure anyone could prove definitively that any problems that arise are the result of her refusal to undergo the reduction abortion procedure.

I don't know anything about surrogate contracts in general, but I think if they sued for breach of contract whether or not she would have to return any of the money would depend on the terms of the contract.  First figure out if what she contractually agreed to do regarding this scenario was legal, if yes, than lawyers figure out how to put a dollar figure on the particular damages (because she didn't breach the entire contract.). 

If anything this case should be a lesson for others going forward to cover specifics - you can't preemtively cover every unforeseen scenario but selective reduction is something that should be covered.

[Jingerbread]

14 hours ago, PregnantPornStar said:

I have never met anyone in real life who is "pro-abortion"  I know plenty of people who support choice, but not anyone who would suggest a woman be forced to do anything with her body she doesn't want to, contract or not. 

You probably do know people who support mandating abortions for disabled babies or the babies of people who are poor, and they don't say anything.  I know a few, who I've banished from my life now, who are somehow both tea partiers and in favor of forcing abortions because those babies are abominations.  The rise of Trump has given them the balls to come out.  Thank god that didn't go over well.

[Grimalkin]

On December 18, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Shadoewolf said:

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.

I was thinking baloney with the financial part too. Diapers, wipes, and formula can become expensive but if they can afford aka IVF this should not be crippling. Babies are cheap, it's when they get older........and there is no guarantee their situation won't change either for the better or the worse.

       People divorce, or get layed off, promoted, left inheritances, get sick..........so you can't really worry that far ahead. Ideally we all have a bit of savings for those just in case moments.

13 hours ago, Whoosh said:

Again, I really don't think the couple will get monetary damagers here.  If I contracted with someone to be their slave for 10 years, I could decide not to be their slave at any time and they could not sue for damages as slavery is illegal and you can't contract for an illegal activity - that portion of the contract would be null and void.

I realize that abortion is legal, but it is only legal by choice.  If a woman signed a contract in her marriage ceremony saying she would terminate all pregnancies, would people think the husband could then sue for damages for breach of contract if she refused an abortion?

If I lived in Nevada and worked for a brothel and the employment contract stated that I would terminate any and all pregnancies for the duration of my employment, would people think the brothel owner could sue for damages for breach of contract if I refused to have an abortion and therefore she lost money she would have made off my body for a period of time?

I get that abortion is legal - I don't think forced, coercive or involuntary abortion is legal.  If it is not legal, you CAN NOT form a legal contract with that as a clause.  If there is no legal clause in the contract that says an abortion must be had, you can't sue for damages because someone broke an invalid clause of the contract. 

     They may be able to get monetary damages, but this is where karma can be a patient bitch. People will talk, and one day when they least expect it some kid at school will say something. Maybe they think it will be worth it, maybe because they are using a surrogate they don't feel connected or bonded, and they never imagined they would feel this way or not feel a certain way to the fetuses. Does this woman live with them?

[FrumperSeamstress]

I'm having a hard time making up my mind on this. (Not that it really matters because I'm not one of the involved parties, nor do I have any legal power.) 

I'm firmly pro-choice. No one should be forced to selectively reduce/abort. It's her body, these fetuses are inside her uterus. But the fetuses aren't hers. They belong to the parents, and she is being paid to carry and give birth to them. 

So basically idek. 

[Grimalkin]

13 hours ago, Whoosh said:

Again, I really don't think the couple will get monetary damagers here.  If I contracted with someone to be their slave for 10 years, I could decide not to be their slave at any time and they could not sue for damages as slavery is illegal and you can't contract for an illegal activity - that portion of the contract would be null and void.

I realize that abortion is legal, but it is only legal by choice.  If a woman signed a contract in her marriage ceremony saying she would terminate all pregnancies, would people think the husband could then sue for damages for breach of contract if she refused an abortion?

If I lived in Nevada and worked for a brothel and the employment contract stated that I would terminate any and all pregnancies for the duration of my employment, would people think the brothel owner could sue for damages for breach of contract if I refused to have an abortion and therefore she lost money she would have made off my body for a period of time?

I get that abortion is legal - I don't think forced, coercive or involuntary abortion is legal.  If it is not legal, you CAN NOT form a legal contract with that as a clause.  If there is no legal clause in the contract that says an abortion must be had, you can't sue for damages because someone broke an invalid clause of the contract. 

     They may be able to get monetary damages, but this is where karma can be a patient bitch. People will talk, and one day when they least expect it some kid at school will say something. Maybe they think it will be worth it, maybe because they are using a surrogate they don't feel connected or bonded, and they never imagined they would feel this way or not feel a certain way to the fetuses. Does this woman live with them?

 

so it seems there are two surrogate woman with triplets facing this. I googled the story I think there is a Georgia man only wanting one baby......

[roddma]

I understand someone wanting a child as i have been there, but I would have never considered a surrogate even if I had the money. The 'Anything for a baby no matter the cost or consequence' mentality has for certain crossed ethical lines in some cases(Octomom cough cough), and as medical advancements improve it will only get worse. There were times when people just accepted they wouldn't have children. I honestly don't know what the solution is here, but no one should be forced to go through an unwanted medical procedure and surrogacy limited to ONE fetus.

[What the fux say]

I don't know the ins and outs of the actual procedure in selective reduction but I can guaran-damn-tee that it is not risk free for the woman.  Therefore, like someone stated earlier, no way on earth can this can be forced on her, at least here in the US.  We can't force schizophrenics to take their meds, we can't force someone to take chemo for a very treatable cancer, we can't force a diabetic to take their insulin, hell we can't even force a pregnant woman to not drink (and I would be surprised if the parents could even force the surrogate to not drink if she chose to do so).  Just because she signed a contract to be a surrogate doesn't mean they own her body.

This is such an unfortunate situation.  It's hard enough to make these types of decisions when a surrogate isn't even involved... adding that third party just makes it all so much more complicated and emotional.  If they end up trying to sue her, ugh, that is just gross.

[Shadoewolf]

The bio donors are saying that by carrying all 3, it puts the babies at higher risk for problems....
And the reduction, at this late in the game, could cause the surrogate to lose all 3 too. Cutting into the uterus, while its done more and more by specialists, is risky in itself and premature labor,  lie of the placenta's, really any complication at this point would kill all 3. I guess I don't get it, risk health problems, or risking all 3 of them dying?

[AmazonGrace]

On 17.12.2015 at 4:08 PM, 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.

 

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.

 

If the male twins are in the same amniotic sac, the female could have been chosen for selective abortion simply because  it's easier to abort the baby who has her own sac.

[Eternalbluepearl]

On 12/17/2015 at 8:16 PM, socalrules said:

 Realistically, the parents took the risk of multiples when they implanted in someone else. 

Exactly. I feel for both sides and this is complex, but I do believe this is the risk that the parents took. 

[sparkles]

35 minutes ago, Eternalbluepearl said:

Quote

 

 Realistically, the parents took the risk of multiples when they implanted in someone else. 

 

Exactly. I feel for both sides and this is complex, but I do believe this is the risk that the parents took. 

And you could turn this right around and say this is the risk the surrogate took when she agreed to be implanted with another couples' embryos. 

Again, there are no easy answers, no outcomes that will be agreeable to both parties and that's why I think commercial surrogacy—and maybe even surrogacy in general—should be outlawed. 

[Maggie Mae]

6 minutes ago, sparkles said:

And you could turn this right around and say this is the risk the surrogate took when she agreed to be implanted with another couples' embryos. 

Again, there are no easy answers, no outcomes that will be agreeable to both parties and that's why I think commercial surrogacy—and maybe even surrogacy in general—should be outlawed. 

Yeah, I'm leaning more and more toward paid surrogacy being illegal. Or maybe just a blanket ban. Everyone was so excited to find out we could do this amazingly cool medical procedure that no one stopped to question if we should. 

[JMO]

I honestly don't have anything else to add but I'm interested in how this pans out. 

[manda b]

The bio parents should have known there was a chance that the eggs could spilt.