CA Surrogate refuses birth parents' order to abort

[jaelh]

@sawasdee - I recall all of those stories. 

It would not surprise me much if international surrogacy practice ended up something like international adoption, where the practice is (close to stopped) because of concerns about abuse.    Or at least enormous legislative barriers to taking children internationally are put in place to reduce the practice.  We are argue all we want about the autonomy of Indian (or Thai or Cambodian) women bearing babies for rich people, but I think the Thai response to Baby Gammy is representative of how other states will response to similar stories.  

[Kjaerringa]

Multiples are one of the risks fertility patients accept during these procedures. The surrogate retains rights to her own body. She agreed to gestate and to relinquish the children after birth.  If there was a clause in her contract spelling out reasons for termination, it would be different, IMHO. I'm assuming that was not the case, here. Usually fertility docs get this sort of thing in writing now, in a post Gosselin /Octomom world, to protect themselves from lawsuits,  as well as their patients' health. Even back in the early 90's, the topic of selective reduction was the first conversation we had with our specialist. If you refused selective reduction, they would not implant more embryos than the woman could carry safely......even if that meant only using one. Basically, you decided whether you wanted a greater chance of success,  or lower risk in case of success. Her body, her choice. There are very real risks involved for any woman giving birth.....or having an abortion.  That trumps anything else.  If it doesn't, then  parents of minors, or baby daddies could be given the same reproductive control.....to have the child, or to terminate.

[jaelh]

4 hours ago, Kjaerringa said:

Multiples are one of the risks fertility patients accept during these procedures. The surrogate retains rights to her own body. She agreed to gestate and to relinquish the children after birth.  If there was a clause in her contract spelling out reasons for termination, it would be different, IMHO. I'm assuming that was not the case, here. Usually fertility docs get this sort of thing in writing now, in a post Gosselin /Octomom world, to protect themselves from lawsuits,  as well as their patients' health. Even back in the early 90's, the topic of selective reduction was the first conversation we had with our specialist. If you refused selective reduction, they would not implant more embryos than the woman could carry safely......even if that meant only using one. Basically, you decided whether you wanted a greater chance of success,  or lower risk in case of success. Her body, her choice. There are very real risks involved for any woman giving birth.....or having an abortion.  That trumps anything else.  If it doesn't, then  parents of minors, or baby daddies could be given the same reproductive control.....to have the child, or to terminate.

Actually, there WAS a clause in the contract that said they may "request" a termination if there were multiples, as per the Slate article.  

But, the surrogate said she "skimmed" the contract, and didn't realise it contained this contract. Now, under CA law, surrogates have to have legal representation. As her legal rep at the time she was taking this court was paid for by the surrogacy agency - the agency that wrote the contract and was representing the father - dude.  That's some s h o d d y lawyering going on there. If this was the first conversation you guys had in the 90s (were you the bio parents, or the surrogate?) then your agency/support was far, far superior to what it sounds like this woman had. 

Now, Court's are loathe to require specific performance (i.e.: making someone do what they contract to do) in certain circumstances.  This would absolutely be one of those circumstances.  You can breach the contract - anyone can breach a contract, you or I can end our phone contract early - but you're liable for financial penalties.  

Which is why she was counter-suing the bio father, so that he couldn't impose financial penalties on her if she didn't terminate.  So basically; he couldn't charge her for the cost of raising  a third (though she wanted custody of the child that he wanted terminated anyway), or for any disabilities any of the children suffered (though causation is going to be really, really, really hard to establish - actually, maybe that could be pursued under tort as well as contract?  anyway).  

The rest of the article too - the $*%& up with the cost of medical care, the bio dad running out of money, no prior serious contact or counselling for any parties, all of it - this was a fuck up of an arrangement on so many levels. 

I would hope the clause - if it were understood to require a termination - to be illegal.  If it was only to "request" a termination - well, that's a whole 'nother can of worms.  I think the bi-parents, with their prima-facie parental rights, just have to lump it. Rather like a man cannot "require" his pregnant partner to have a termination, although he can request it. Roll of the dice, not a commodity you're purchasing to order. 

Damn this has to be better regulated (and I'm not sure I have problem with banning commercial surrogacy outright). And I hope the Global South drops a brick wall right into the  the new frontier of baby exportation. 

[Kjaerringa]

Thanks for the clarification! I skimmed the slate article, myself. We were the bio parents, and it was my own possible pregnancy we discussed. My doctor was terrific, not only for his determination to understand exactly where we stood on this issue, but in so many other ways.....among them, acting more like a doula/ midwife than a traditional OB. It was not until after the birth of our firstborn, and hearing other birth stories, that I realized most docs did not meet you at the hospital when labor began, hang out with you in the room, suggesting positions for laboring, calming a nervous first time grandfather, or stepping in as labor coach when I sent my husband and SiL to get themselves  something to eat during a very long labor.

[SpoonfulOSugar]

The triplets in the Cook case (NOT the OP in this thread, but the other triplets - single postal worker dad in Georgia) have been born and were immediately seized from the surrogate.

By my math, they were at 33 weeks gestation.  Because the surrogate's lawyer is the one reaching out to the media, no report on their condition.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/02/24/california-triplets-at-center-thorny-surrogacy-case-pro-life-debate.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3463055/Triplets-center-major-surrogacy-case-father-wanted-one-aborted-pro-life-mother-refused-born-seven-weeks-prematurely.html

[happy atheist]

I hope all three are in good shape, and I hope the dad can care for them adequately. I have my doubts, though.

[Koala]

This whole thing smells to the high heavens if you ask me.