Surrogate McKenna West vows Supreme Court fight for baby she refused to abort, declaring “She is the mother” — a case with echoes for Georgia families
An Alaska nurse who served as a gestational surrogate and refused the biological parents’ request to abort a fetus diagnosed with a severe but treatable heart condition is vowing an all-out legal battle for parental rights after giving birth this week, her lawyer says.
The high-profile dispute spanning Alaska, California, and Texas raises questions that resonate in Georgia, where gestational surrogacy is practiced widely without a specific governing statute and abortion is tightly restricted.
McKenna West gave birth Wednesday in the Dallas area to a boy she calls Gabriel, about three weeks early. The infant was diagnosed around 20 weeks with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a congenital condition in which the left side of the heart is underdeveloped and typically requires a series of surgeries beginning shortly after birth for survival.
The Los Angeles-based intended parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, sought termination under a clause in their surrogacy contract allowing abortion for a fetal “anomaly.” West, a nurse and single mother of two, refused.
She has said she wanted the child to have a chance at life and treatment. After legal skirmishes in Alaska and California, she traveled to Texas—where abortion is largely banned—to give birth and seek care for the baby. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened, and a Dallas court ordered that the newborn receive medically indicated life-sustaining care and remain in the state pending further proceedings.
On Thursday, West’s attorney, Lincoln Wilson, told the New York Post that she intends to fight for legal parentage all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. “She is seeking parentage of the child because she gave birth in Texas, and in Texas, if you give birth to a child, it’s your child,” Wilson said. He argues a California parentage order favoring the intended parents is “void” and that once it is set aside, West is the mother under Texas law. “We are taking that challenge up through the California courts, and we’ll take it up to the US Supreme Court if we have to.”
Wilson has likened certain forced-abortion clauses in surrogacy contracts to “hitman contracts” that courts should not enforce, arguing that even under a broad view of abortion rights, the right to choose includes the right not to abort.
A temporary restraining order currently bars West from seeing or holding the baby, presenting herself as a parent, or making medical decisions; the intended parents have physical custody while the child receives care. The first of the planned surgeries (the Norwood procedure) was expected soon at a facility with a strong track record for the operation. The biological parents have said their focus is the baby’s health and that they are following medical advice; they have disputed aspects of West’s account of the pressure to terminate.
The case sits at the intersection of surrogacy contracts, parental rights, fetal anomaly diagnoses, and state abortion laws—issues familiar in Georgia. Gestational surrogacy (in which the carrier has no genetic link to the child) is practiced in the state and is not prohibited by statute. Georgia courts commonly issue pre-birth parentage orders establishing the intended parents as legal parents, though practices can vary by county and judge.
Compensated arrangements have been carried out for decades, and Atlanta-area fertility clinics (including programs affiliated with Reproductive Biology Associates, CCRM Atlanta, and others) support a regional industry that serves local and out-of-state intended parents.
Georgia’s abortion landscape is far more restrictive than California’s or Alaska’s. Under the state’s LIFE Act framework, most abortions are banned after roughly six weeks of pregnancy (when cardiac activity can be detected), with limited exceptions that include cases involving a lethal fetal anomaly, threats to the pregnant person’s life or physical health, and certain instances of rape or incest reported within specified timeframes.
A diagnosis such as HLHS—serious and requiring major intervention but not invariably classified as immediately lethal—could place intended parents and a surrogate in a similar contractual and ethical bind if a termination were sought later in pregnancy.
Legal observers note that well-drafted surrogacy agreements and independent counsel for both sides are standard practice in Georgia precisely to reduce the risk of the kind of multi-state conflict now playing out with West. Yet the absence of a comprehensive surrogacy statute means outcomes still depend heavily on judicial discretion and the specific terms of the contract. West’s refusal, her relocation for protective laws and specialized care, and the subsequent custody fight illustrate how quickly private arrangements can become public legal battles when medical findings, personal convictions, and state rules collide.
As baby Gabriel begins treatment in Texas and the competing claims of parentage move through the courts, the dispute underscores the unresolved tensions in American family law. For Georgia residents considering or involved in surrogacy—whether in Atlanta’s established fertility network or elsewhere in the state—the case serves as a high-stakes reminder that contracts, diagnoses, and differing state policies on abortion and parentage can produce outcomes no one fully anticipated.
West’s lawyers say she is prepared to press the issue as far as necessary; the biological parents maintain their parental rights and focus on the child’s care. Further hearings are expected in the coming weeks.
