New York Post
Same-sex couple sues surrogate who refused to abort their 2-year-old son over a minor birth defect
By Chris Nesi
Published July 14, 2026, 12:39 p.m. ET
A Canadian same-sex couple is suing the woman who carried their now 2-year-old son because she refused their demand to abort the fetus because of a minor birth defect and a cleft lip.
According to the suit, filed in Ontario Superior Court in May and obtained by the National Post, the parents claim the surrogate didn’t adequately keep them informed about the baby’s health, put the child at risk, violated confidentiality and caused them emotional distress.
The exact dollar figure was not mentioned in the filing, but the mother, whom the outlet does not name, said the couple has indicated they’re seeking around $600,000.
“You know I’m a single mom, you know I have a daughter, and you’re basically suing me for my house. It seems very s—ty, it’s just awful,” she told the outlet.
“I just feel used … They didn’t get the perfect child they wanted and they threw me away.”
Unlike the US, where pay for surrogate mothers can exceed $100,000, Canadian surrogates are only reimbursed for receipted expenses they incur in bringing the pregnancy to term.
The woman shared that once she decided to become a surrogate and her profile was posted on Surrogacy in Canada Online’s website, she was inundated by dozens of prospective families, some of whom even sent her flowers.
She ultimately decided on the same-sex couple and had in-vitro fertilization using embryos from a donor egg and both of their sperm.
The relationship started off strong, but soured in June 2024 when she told the couple about an ultrasound revealing the baby had a cleft lip, possibly a cleft palate, and a minor heart defect.
She received a response from the couple asking that she terminate the pregnancy while she was in the Dominican Republic to officiate a wrestling tournament, leaving her “devastated.”
“Considering that medical tests indicate that the fetus has, or is likely to have, a genetic, chromosomal or other abnormality or defect, and in accordance with article 8.5 (a) of our surrogacy agreement … we want to inform you of our wish that the pregnancy be terminated,” the missive read.
“Although very difficult, this decision is free and informed.”
The surrogate said she would have agreed to an abortion if the child was unlikely to survive after birth, but would not abort a 22-week-old fetus for what she felt was a largely cosmetic birth defect.
The parents agreed to proceed with the pregnancy after doctors at Mount Sinai Hospital said the baby was generally healthy and had no major problems beyond the cleft lip.
But tensions flared again between the surrogate and the parents when she insisted on a home birth performed by midwives rather than in a hospital, as the parents requested due to the cleft lip.
The child had breathing difficulties during delivery but recovered when he was given oxygen, and that an ambulance was summoned to take him to the hospital, the report said.
After their child got treatment, the parents took the child home and ceased contact with the surrogate, who asked them to cover around $10,000 in outstanding expenses, lost wages, transportation costs and skipped contributions to her pension plan.
The parents ignored her, leading her to take them to small-claims court, where she learned her contract required arbitration to settle any such disputes. She was then slapped with the lawsuit.
Sally Rhoads-Heinrich, owner of Surrogacy in Canada Online, said the episode highlights why greater legal protections are needed for surrogate mothers in the country.
“What I find most difficult in this is they are suing the woman who brought their son to them,” she told the outlet. “How is their son going to feel some day if he learns that?”
Bioethics professor at the University of Calgary Juliet Guichon said the parents appeared to be punishing the woman, and that their demanding an abortion under the circumstances raises additional questions.
“Moreover, they earlier sought to end the fetus’s life for a medical condition that … can be completely overcome by surgery and therapy,” Guichon told the outlet.
“The question arises as to whether it is in the best interests of the child to be raised by these people.”
Update 08/13:
A column concerning a similar story from Alaska:
National Review
Commercial Surrogacy Turns Women into Machines, Babies into Products
By Wesley J. Smith
August 12, 2026 8:42 AM
An awful story has broken into the headlines illustrating the moral peril of commercial surrogacy. From the Texas Tribune story:
block quote
[McKenna] West, a nurse, entered a surrogacy agreement in Alaska, where she lives, with the intended parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, through Worldwide Surrogacy Specialists, LLC, a Connecticut-based surrogacy agency. Typically under gestational agreements like the one that West signed with Gilkar and Ahmed, the intended parents, not the surrogate, have the parental rights to make choices relating to the fetus.
The fetus West is carrying was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome at 20 weeks of pregnancy, and Gilkar and Ahmed allegedly asked her to undergo an abortion and they have said they will refuse to let the baby undergo treatment after he is born, according to Paxton’s Monday filing.
West has since traveled to Texas and has asked the Dallas court to recognize her parental right as the birth mother to intervene in medical treatment for the baby. . . .
block quote end
The Hill reported that Texas AG Paxton alleges the parents will refuse heart surgery that can save the baby’s life:
block quote
Paxton’s office said the unborn child was diagnosed with the condition at 20 weeks and is expected to be born “imminently with a serious but treatable heart condition.”
Baby Gabriel’s doctors recommended the Norwood procedure, which is the first of the three after-birth surgeries that are the standard treatment for the condition, according to a letter Paxton’s office sent to two hospitals in Dallas.
Paxton’s office also alleged that the intended parents refused to give consent for the procedures and may seek to transport baby Gabriel to California to prevent doctors from performing them.
block quote end
We have to remember that is an allegation. It may or may not be true.
Meanwhile, CBS reported that the court ruling will protect the child once born:
block quote
On Tuesday, the court ordered that life-saving medical care be provided upon baby Gabriel’s birth and not be delayed. The order prevents anyone from withholding or obstructing necessary treatment or removing, discharging, or transferring the child while the court considers the case.
block quote end
But not before birth:
block quote
The court’s order reads, in part: “The relief ordered below concerns the child’s care and protection only from the moment of the child’s live birth. Nothing in this Order adjudicates the rights of, or directs medical care for, an unborn child, and nothing in this Order limits the right of the woman who will give birth to the child to make decisions to safeguard her own health or the health of the pregnancy.”
block quote end
What can we discern about the essential dehumanizing nature of commercial surrogacy from this case?
Commercial surrogacy contracts can treat the (usually poor) women hired to be surrogates as mere baby-making machines, hence the term “gestational carrier” in reproductive industry parlance.
Commercial surrogacy — and some other reproductive technologies — essentially treat babies as so many products. So, they are tested genetically for eugenics purposes and may be selected for gestation based on desired sex, etc..
Products involve quality control and the right of return for those that are “defective.” The hiring parents in this case would appear to not want an unhealthy or disabled baby. Hence the command to abort and (alleged) intent to refuse consent to the surgery that can save the baby’s life once born.
Family formation via reproductive technologies has become a growth industry. Most customers want to deeply love the child that is born. But this is a form of baby buying, and a few customers have less altruistic motives.
What does this case tell us about our culture? On one hand, we will allow virtually anything to enable family formation. And, on the other, many states permit abortion through the ninth month. It’s enough to give one cultural whiplash.
How do we reconcile these two truths? It seems to me we are no longer governed by core moral principles so much as the great maws of “I want!” and “I don’t want!” Personal freedom includes the fulfillment of desires, of course. But should that be the most important factor of moral acceptability? I think not.
No comments:
Post a Comment