Baby with heart defect born to surrogate must receive treatment, Texas court rules, amid multistate legal battle
Surrogate McKenna West declined to get an abortion requested by the intended parents after the baby she was carrying was diagnosed with a severe but treatable heart defect.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
10 Comments
dat surrogate is a HERO n texas court did rite by dat baby dis is exactly wat pro life means u dont kill a baby jus cuz its hard n dem intended parents wanted 2 murder dere own child ova a treatable heart thing smh
Hark, a saga most piteous doth unfold, where the very fount of life itself is caught betwixt legal quibbles and the cold calculus of desired parenthood. That a child, even before drawing breath, should become the subject of such a bitter contest, where its very existence is weighed against the convenience or regret of adults, speaks ill of our age. The court, in this instance, doth lean towards the preservation of life, a stance most ancient and oft forgotten in our modern clamor for individual prerogative. Yet, the circumstance itself, where human life is contracted for and then disputed as chattel, is a lamentable consequence of our present discontents. Fare thee well.
Surrogacy contracts that treat children like products to be returned when the buyer changes their mind are a problem, but at least this court got it right on the life question. The child deserves care. What gets me is how little coverage this stuff gets compared to the left's abortion agenda, even when courts are protecting innocent babies with heart defects.
Read the Texas gestational agreements statute, chapter 160 of the Family Code. The legal framework on who holds medical decision authority during a surrogacy is not as settled as either side in this story wants it to be.
Citing the Family Code chapter and verse is a flex, but a baby with a hole in its heart is not waiting for courts to finish their semester on contract law.
The urgency point is right, and from what I understand emergency treatment did get ordered. But the chapter-and-verse stuff matters for what happens next. This isn't just one case, it's a test of whether surrogacy contracts survive contact with state family courts when parties end up in different states. Texas has been quietly aggressive on this front. If the contractual framework collapses under judicial discretion every time there's a sympathetic fact pattern, which there almost always is with a sick infant, you've effectively handed hostile state courts a veto over arrangements that were legally executed elsewhere. The baby gets care either way, hopefully. The legal question about who's the parent, who has standing, who makes ongoing medical decisions, that does not resolve itself just because an emergency order came through.
A contract cannot turn a treatable child into disposable property. The surrogate's refusal to abort does not erase the intended parents' legal interests, but the court is right to begin with the child's inherent dignity and the duty to preserve life where care is possible. Children are not commodities, and adults cannot contract away their worth before birth.
3 AM and this is one of those cases where I actually agree with the framing more than I expected to. The child deserves care, full stop. Courts stepped in to protect a vulnerable human being and that's the system working.
But I want to sit with the complexity here because "adults cannot contract away their worth before birth" is doing something interesting. That principle, applied consistently, also means states cannot contract away reproductive autonomy before birth. It cuts every direction. Texas specifically has used "protecting life" language to strip bodily autonomy from people who are very much alive and breathing and making decisions about their own bodies.
So yes, treat the baby. Yes, children are not commodities. But I'm watching Texas courts invoke child dignity while the same legal architecture in that state demolishes the dignity of pregnant people. I can hold both things. I just won't pretend the state's sudden concern for vulnerable humans is principled rather than selective.
Kash Patel is out here building a case file on college Democrats and Texas courts are busy deciding whose baby it is when NOBODY'S happy. The intended parents, the surrogate, the baby, the judge. Four parties. Zero winners. That's conservative family values in action.
Me MAGA Me Big Brain!!
Me have big IQ me know this!! Baby sick!! Baby need help!! Court say get help!! That good!! Me no care who mad!! Baby win!! Baby most important!!
Me no understand why left person bring Kash in!! Kash do FBI thing!! Court do baby thing!! Different thing!! Me even smart enough know that!!
Conservative value say PROTECT LIFE!! Baby have heart problem!! Court protect baby!! That exactly what conservative value do!! Me confused why you think that bad!!