CA Surrogate refuses birth parents' order to abort

[martian]

I wouldn't assume the bio-parents are rolling in the dough.  Maybe, maybe not.  Peruse any trying-to-conceive boards and you'll see plenty of people who have maxed their cards, re-mortgaged their houses, borrowed from family, even held fundraisers in pursuit of a baby.  I went through years of fertility treatments myself, and I've never dared total it, and will not venture even a guess here for fear of sounding like a lunatic.  And maybe I was in a way.  Your head can get in a weird space after a while.  Still, once they'd been turned down for a reduction - which I do not judge them for requesting if it was done in a timely fashion - I think the parents are  being  incredibly shortsighted if they really take this to court.  Secrets will out.  You've already got the understandable complications that come with explaining a surrogacy.  I cannot even imagine trying to pick my way through the emotional minefield that is "We wanted to abort you, but only for the best of reasons!"

The surrogate's body is her own, the decision is hers, but surrogacy contracts are not new, and I would be really surprised if there wasn't language in the contract laying out penalties for breaking the agreements.  Is that the real nitty gritty of the lawyering up going on?  Because I would be shocked if the surrogate isn't at risk of forfeiting her fees for the later stages of the pregnancy and, potentially much worse in a high risk pregnancy, coverge of medical bills and recovery for disability.

[EyeQueue]

Has it been stated in any of the articles why the parents had a surrogate in the first place? Was she not able to carry implanted embryos for whatever reason?

[ALM7]

On 12/18/2015 at 6:39 PM, Whoosh said:

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.

I think you summed up the answer to this dilemma. 

[MyMilkshake]

What a sad awful mess.

[mstee]

I had a friend who was a surrogate. Everything was planned with the parents beforehand- yet things did pop up throughout the pregnancy. I don't know what was discussed about multiples because she only carried one baby. But, at one point, the parents did have a slight freak out about if there were any genetic abnormalities and making sure she would abort if there were. This was something discussed prior to the actual pregnancy, but the parents asked her to extend the time period that she would abort. She already had agreed to a certain period, but they wanted it extended to 20 or 24 weeks (can't remember exactly), and they wanted a clause added that if they died, she'd abort.  My friend felt blindsided, and talked to her lawyer about what she was comfortable with and they then came to an agreement. But this was happening with her about 16 weeks pregnant. It was pretty crazy.  Just thought I'd share that story to show just how unregulated this all is and how many things can just pop up- on the parents' side or surrogate's. 

[Heathen525]

Shame on the clinic for implanting two embryos in a healthy 26-year old. Guidelines push for single embryo transfer.

[starfish]

I can't imagine any court enforcing this contract. The couple can refuse to pay her, but there's no real mechanism for a forced abortion.

I remember Mitt Rommney's adult children used a surrogate because they could not conceive. They had an abortion/selective reduction clause in their contract as well. Pro-lifers seemed fine with that.

 

[Jingerbread]

4 hours ago, starfish said:

I remember Mitt Rommney's adult children used a surrogate because they could not conceive. They had an abortion/selective reduction clause in their contract as well. Pro-lifers seemed fine with that.

 

The hypocrisy in that shocked me.  Woe on a woman who aborts a non-viable pregnancy, but the Romneys can abort at will.

[2xx1xy1JD]

On 2015-12-22 at 0:49 PM, Maggie Mae said:

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. 

I'd prefer to see it better regulated instead.

The technology already exists.  The genie is out of the bottle.  I don't want to criminalize people who simply want to be parents, but are unable to carry a child to term.  I have no desire to put any stigma on their children (a cousin has twins via a surrogate).

Put in reasonable guidelines to reduce the risk of exploitation, and encourage different jurisdiction to sign onto a common set of rules.

[Granwych]

The case involving surrogate Mary Beth Whitehead was heartbreaking.  I wonder how old the daughter is and how everyone's doing---

[Kailash]

1 hour ago, Granwych said:

The case involving surrogate Mary Beth Whitehead was heartbreaking.  I wonder how old the daughter is and how everyone's doing---

According to Wikipedia, the baby (Melissa Stern) will be 30 years old in March, and "After reaching the age of maturity in March 2004, Melissa Stern legally terminated Mary Beth's parental rights and formalized Elizabeth's maternity through adoption proceedings. "

[sisterwives]

Honestly cases like this is why I consider surrogacy to be extremely unethical. Maybe the fetus isn't technically a baby and they are not her embryos but that isn't the point. The point is that she's the one carrying the pregnancy and she sees this fetus as a baby and this impacts her decision. She's under contract but does that contract override her body autonomy? The commercialization of women's reproductive organs is disturbing and I'm inclined to side with the surrogate on this. She's the one carrying the stress of the pregnancy, the treatments, and the legal gymnastics. And not to mention the the risks that come along with selective reduction.

[SpoonfulOSugar]

An interesting update to this case (have continued to look):

http://www.people.com/article/surrogate-mom-sues-over-abortion?xid=IFT-Trending

The other mother of triplets (the one whose dilemma brought this story out) has filed suit, arguing for custody of at least one child.  Although the putative father has threatened suit, I don't find that he actually has.

 

[Grimalkin]

3 hours ago, SpoonfulOSugar said:

An interesting update to this case (have continued to look):

http://www.people.com/article/surrogate-mom-sues-over-abortion?xid=IFT-Trending

The other mother of triplets (the one whose dilemma brought this story out) has filed suit, arguing for custody of at least one child.  Although the putative father has threatened suit, I don't find that he actually has.

 

    Something about the man in this article makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I wonder if he really thought through what being a parent means. I get the feeling he believes children are blank slates where you can mold any personality you want into your child.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

20 hours ago, SpoonfulOSugar said:

An interesting update to this case (have continued to look):

http://www.people.com/article/surrogate-mom-sues-over-abortion?xid=IFT-Trending

The other mother of triplets (the one whose dilemma brought this story out) has filed suit, arguing for custody of at least one child.  Although the putative father has threatened suit, I don't find that he actually has.

 

That article broke my heart.  If this will continue in this country then we need legislation now to provide protection and guidelines to those involved - none more so than the innocent babies who are embroiled in a legal and emotional quagmire before they are even born.  

 

[Koala]

Wait a min.  Are you telling me this guy is 49 years old and lives with his parents???  Yeah, that sounds totally normal.    Seriously, this doesn't pass the sniff test for me.  Maybe I'm old fashioned...

[downtherabbithole]

1 hour ago, Koala said:

Wait a min.  Are you telling me this guy is 49 years old and lives with his parents???  Yeah, that sounds totally normal.    Seriously, this doesn't pass the sniff test for me.  Maybe I'm old fashioned...

I must be old fashioned as well 

[SpoonfulOSugar]

Here's a more in-depth article (love me some WaPo):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/07/i-am-not-having-an-abortion-a-surrogate-mothers-stand-against-reducing-her-triplets/

Of particular note (referring to the case in the OP of this thread)

Quote

Andrew Vorzimer, an attorney for the biological parents and a mediator in the case, said the situation has since been resolved. No lawsuit was ever filed in the case.

Vorzimer said that numerous physicians had recommended a reduction for the surrogate’s health and that “everyone agreed she would do it.” But when it came time, he said, “she felt uncomfortable.”

“She couldn’t do it,” he told The Post.

As for the suggestion to eliminate the female, Vorzimer said it would have been easier to do so because the males were in the same sac. The notion that the biological parents did not want a girl “could not be further from the truth,” he said.

 

[VelociRapture]

15 hours ago, SpoonfulOSugar said:

Here's a more in-depth article (love me some WaPo):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/07/i-am-not-having-an-abortion-a-surrogate-mothers-stand-against-reducing-her-triplets/

Of particular note (referring to the case in the OP of this thread)

 

Thanks for that! I thought there might be more to that case than we knew - it makes a bit more sense now. Glad to see they've apparently resolved things.

[morri]

surrogacy isnt allowed here for all those ethical reasons.

[Screamapillar]

Slate has an in-depth report about this case:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/02/custody_case_over_triplets_in_california_raises_questions_about_surrogacy.html

[adidas]

I've always had a uneasiness about surrogacy because of the what ifs. This case has brought some of those what ifs to light.

But if I was desperate to have a child and all else had failed, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would look into it as an option. If I decided to go with it I think I would be worried the whole time though, tbh.

[SpoonfulOSugar]

17 hours ago, Screamapillar said:

Slate has an in-depth report about this case:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/02/custody_case_over_triplets_in_california_raises_questions_about_surrogacy.html

That's a fascinating read.

Just want to clarify - it's about the second case we've discussed - Cook and the single adoptive father (who is 50 years old), not the OP of this thread.

The nuances in this particular case may drive some wholesale review of surrogacy.  

[Whoosh]

25 minutes ago, SpoonfulOSugar said:

That's a fascinating read.

Just want to clarify - it's about the second case we've discussed - Cook and the single adoptive father (who is 50 years old), not the OP of this thread.

The nuances in this particular case may drive some wholesale review of surrogacy.  

I totally agree and I really hope this does prompt some type of federal regulation for any states that do allow surrogacy (including screening of all parties involved).  I know individual opinions vary on the numerous issues that can arise in a surrogacy situation, so I am just spewing my strong feelings.  In this particular case, it seems that the agency should be held accountable for following the standard of care (i.e. not implanting numerous embryos when that is not the recommended practice).  However, since numerous embryos were implanted and the situation is what it is, I firmly believe it is her body, her choice when it comes to decisions on selective reduction (no matter what the contract says - a contract for illegal behavior is always invalid).  

The situation they are in now - I just don't know.  Obviously, no one is going to pull a King Solomon and order they split each baby.  I can strongly see arguments for holding the surrogate to her promise to give up all babies born out of this arrangement and with state or federal regulations that screen people before they can enter these types of arrangements, the many of the issues currently in dispute in this particular case would not be expected to happen if things were done appropriately.  That said, circumstances do change and new information does come to light and I can easily see a situation arising where I would feel strongly that a surrogate should not have to surrender a child to someone based on things that have changed or been discovered (assuming the screening process was adequate) about the planned parent or parent during the course of the pregnancy.  That is a tough one for me, though.  Thanks @screamapillar for sharing that update.  It will be interesting to see how this progresses.  Wishing the best possible outcome for all involved.

[sawasdee]

Here in Thailand in the last two years we have had two widely publicised surrogacies gone wrong, which has lead to a crackdown on all surrogacy births.

The first involved an Australian couple who rejected their child when he was found to have Downs syndrome. It was later discovered that the father was a convicted child sex offender, and he later tried to claim funds donated for the child and his surrogate mother - who comes from a poverty stricken background, but kept baby Gammy for several months before the story broke in the press, and she received donations.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/baby-gammy-australian-father-who-abandoned-down-syndrome-surrogate-child-now-tries-to-access-funds-10261916.html

The second case involves a gay married couple. When the Thai surrogate found that they were gay, she refused to sign the papers which would allow the parents to remove the child from Thailand. She has no genetic connection with the child, and does not have custody. The parents are basically held hostage in Thailand, as their child cannot leave the country.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/20/gay-parents-fight-to-leave-thailand-with-surrogate-baby-daughter

There was also a Japanese man who had at least 16 children by surrogate mothers in Thailand.

http://www.thenational.ae/world/southeast-asia/thai-surrogate-offers-clues-into-japanese-man-with-16-babies

Unsurprisingly, at the moment, there is a moratorium on surrogacy involving non Thai nationals. There are so many ethical and legal questions in any such arrangement that do not seem to be addressed under any law.

ETA  I think these three cases illustrate only too well the dangers of unregulated surrogacy. That all three, widely differing yet equally concerning, happened in a very short period of time (within one calendar year) in one country, makes me believe that the problems are much more widespread.