An Alaskan surrogate mother, McKenna West, was recently involved in a court case with a California couple who attempted to force her to undergo a late-term abortion after the unborn child was diagnosed with a serious heart condition. The couple, who appear as A.B. and C.D. in the legal briefs, had initially sought to invoke an abortion-upon-demand clause in the Surrogacy Agreement.

Background of the Case

The unborn baby, referred to as Baby Gabriel, was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a serious but treatable condition. Despite this, the California couple decided they did not want the baby to live and demanded that McKenna undergo a late-term, high-risk abortion in Seattle, Washington. No Alaskan doctor would perform the abortion, which would have been an invasive, two-day long surgical procedure to end the life of the unborn child.

McKenna refused to undergo the abortion, stating that she could not abort the unborn child who had become a part of her. She offered to cut ties with the couple and relieve them of any financial responsibility, but they were discontent with allowing the baby to live and instead threatened to sue McKenna for over $250,000 for breaching the Surrogacy Agreement.

Court Ruling

The Alaska Superior Court recently ruled that a California court may dictate the place where McKenna gives birth and the medical team to treat her, despite the Surrogacy Agreement’s explicit clause providing that the laws of the State of Alaska shall govern the agreement. The court’s decision ignored the Alaska Department of Law’s Statement of Interest, which argued that the surrogate mother’s constitutional right to privacy trumps the surrogacy contract.

McKenna had relocated to Texas to give birth to the baby at a leading pediatric hospital specializing in Baby Gabriel’s heart condition. The California couple had tried to order her to return to California to receive prenatal care and labor and delivery care from doctors of their choosing.

The State of Alaska issued a Statement of Interest, arguing that the Alaska Constitution protects the right of a surrogate mother to make deeply personal medical decisions, including whether to continue her pregnancy, where she will receive prenatal care, and who will treat her as she labors and delivers the baby. However, the Alaska Superior Court refused to act in the best interest of the child and instead shifted jurisdiction to California.

Original reporting: Must Read Alaska (Anchorage) — read the source article.