Aug. 15, 2026
Surrogate Mom Refuses Abortion, Gives Birth, And Now Wants Custody
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed A battle for custody of a newborn baby boy, whose parents wanted to terminate after a serious medical diagnosis, is brewing in Texas. The baby was born this week after the surrogate carrying him, McKenna West, refused to get an abortion at the biological parents’ request when he was diagnosed en utero with a life threatening heart condition, and fled to Texas “for protection.” The baby is in the custody of his biological parents and currently being treated while the legal battle plays out in court.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:10
Speaker 1: Hey, folks, it is Saturday, August fifteenth, and a surrogate from Alaska traveled to Texas to have a baby for a couple that lives in California. Here's the thing. The couple in California did not want her to have the baby. Are you keeping up here? Because this has now set off a multi state maga mess And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Robes. I say, Maggie went with mess, But the fact of the matter is this is a family, personal, and even legal dispute that is turning into now a major political football. Even you could say.
00:00:55
Speaker 2: Without a doubt, without a doubt, this is now pitted anti abortion activists again pro abortion rights folks, you've got saragacy issues. All sorts of people have taken sides, including the Attorney General of the state of Texas, but courts are involved. And now this sarrogate, McKenna West, as you mentioned, from Alaska, wants custody of the baby boy she gave birth to, who, by all accounts, was never meant to be born in the first place.
00:01:27
Speaker 1: So let's go with that. Robes, coupland California. Let's start from the very basics. Coupland California, wants to have a baby. They find a Saraga. She's in Alaska, she is pregnant, she's carrying child, but twenty weeks into it, to have right robes, they found a severe birth defect, heart defect. The family decides, the couple decides, we would like to terminate this pregnancy. The saragate says, no, that sets off a legal mess. Robes in here we.
00:01:54
Speaker 2: Are exactly and so that's Sarahgate again. McKenna West decided to flee to Texas because she said she felt like she could get better protection there. Texas has some of the strictest abortion laws in the country, meaning if you have been raped in cases of rape and incest, you still have to have the baby. So that was the state she chose to flee to, and she did receive help from some anti abortion groups in choosing where she went and how she got there. But yeah, the parents found out that their baby was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. It's a life threatening condition. It requires I believe, three surgeries, and yes, it can be fatal. But basically the left side of this baby's heart didn't develop. It restricts blood flow, and unless you have open heart surgery and again two other surgeries, the baby will die.
00:02:48
Speaker 1: There is no guarantee this of this baby's survival and even if so, what life it'll have After that, wrote that that's the reality of the situation. The reality is, though, wrote this, no other way to say it. That is not her baby.
00:03:04
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:03:04
Speaker 1: She has no legal rights to that baby as of this moment.
00:03:08
Speaker 2: Correct, in fact, and she, by the way, the couple was able to obtain a temporary restraining order against the surrogate mother, so she has not been able to hold the baby. She has not even been able to see the baby, and certainly she has no rights to what happens to that baby. Now. However, the parents were restricted for some of their rights as well, because when she traveled from Alaska to Texas, the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton got involved. He had a court order to ensure that the unborn baby would receive life saving medical treatment over any objections from the biological parents.
00:03:48
Speaker 1: Okay, so you see the mess. Who has the rights to the child, Not the woman who just birthed it, not the parents, who's that's their DNA.
00:03:57
Speaker 2: Yes, the state of Texas. Yes, that is their DNA.
00:03:59
Speaker 1: So now the state of Texas is saying they have the right to make decisions about this child. Yes, Robes, this is a mess.
00:04:05
Speaker 2: Yes, and yes, Paxton said, baby Gabriel deserves a chance at life and I will not allow anyone to unlawfully deny him medically necessary care. And I say baby Gabriel because that is the name that Paxton gave this child. It's the name that this child is now being referred to by anti abortion Gabriel the angel.
00:04:28
Speaker 1: They just decided to name that, they decided.
00:04:30
Speaker 2: To name the baby that the biological family has now named the baby Roomy and says the baby's name is not Gabriel, it is Roomy. But literally, if you go look up the story, you will see the name interchanged in how folks are reporting on this story.
00:04:45
Speaker 1: What was Gabriel's What was Gabriel's thing with the what was Gabriel's backstory? The Angel I'm trying to remember it's not the fallen Angel though, right, who's the fallen Angel?
00:04:54
Speaker 2: Well, the fallen Angel was I'm so bad.
00:04:58
Speaker 1: Don't get me onto this, but Catholic up bringing here.
00:05:02
Speaker 2: You're putting me on the spot. Sorry, But the angel Gabriel is a heavenly messenger and his name means God is my strength or God's Hero. He appears in the Bible explaining visions to Daniel announcing the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus.
00:05:19
Speaker 1: So they have just decided to call the very Gabriel.
00:05:23
Speaker 2: He's the one who told the virgin Mary that she would give birth to Jesus. She's the that angel told Mary that she had just had an immaculate conception. So it is about a miracle baby, so to speak, the miracle baby being Jesus. Gabriel announced that the miracle of Jesus would actually exist, and so yes, they named this baby Gabriel.
00:05:44
Speaker 1: So just like now Gabriel setting off a whole mess of controversy, has Gabriel not and what are we saying? So, what wasn't Lucifer?
00:05:54
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I want to say, isn't that a devil? Yes Lucifer, Yes, Lucifer was an angel man.
00:06:01
Speaker 1: We got to get back to some.
00:06:03
Speaker 2: We're getting held a task now by so many people who just heard that and thought, y'all are crazy.
00:06:08
Speaker 1: I didn't remember Gabriel, but Lucifer obviously was the guy.
00:06:12
Speaker 2: Oh my goodness. Anyway, so here's what we know about baby. Let's call the baby Roomy. That is the child's actual name. Roomy is now under medical care at a Texas facility in Dallas, I believe, and he's being evaluated right now. And look, it's so interesting when you hear what the biological parents are saying now through their attorney. They are claiming that yes, they did want her to terminate the pregnancy, but then once she fled and once she went to Texas, they wanted to then have the baby born in California, and they agreed to have these life saving surgeries take place. So they backed off of this idea that the baby shouldn't be born certain point. It wasn't possible. I mean, this was found. This heart condition was found in twenty weeks. A baby is can survive outside of the uterus I believe around twenty four weeks unilatterally and generally speaking, so there wasn't a lot of time. But here is what they have said through their attorney. Our client's focus at this time is ensuring that their baby receives the medical care that he vitally needs and that they, as his parents, are able to spend every precious moment they can with him. Yes, they accuse the Attorney General and the surrogate of turning what they call a family tragedy into political theater. And look, I think it's important to point out August eleventh, or excuse me, August twelfth, is when the baby was born. But in July they actually filed court documents and acknowledged and accepted and wanted to provide medical treatment for their babies. So they weren't still pushing for terminating the child. So they said, after heartbreaking This is how they just ribe what happened. After heartbreaking consultations with medical providers and their own research about suffering and the quality of life these types of babies endure, they made the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy. It is undisputed that West initially agreed, and that she herself made the initial appointment. They're talking about an abortion. She then changed, you toilaterally changed her mind, cut off all contact with the birth parents, withdrew medical releases allowing the birth parents to have contact with all medical providers. So they were seeking to have West give birth to their son in California, not in Texas. But they did not They were not able to do that. That's kind of wild.
00:08:43
Speaker 1: Well, okay, she'd be charged with a crime. This is their child has been kidnapped and decisions are being made for their child that they have legal rights to by other people, including the State of Texas. They don't have a right to their child right now, well.
00:09:01
Speaker 2: They do right now. They are in custody physical custody of their child, you know.
00:09:05
Speaker 1: What I'm saying. But Texas had the right to say this and that what.
00:09:08
Speaker 2: But Texas has the right to make sure that that child is getting specific life saving surgery.
00:09:14
Speaker 1: Not whatever the family decides for the child. Are medical decisions being made for this child by the state of Texas and a Senate candidate in Ken.
00:09:23
Speaker 2: Paxton, Yes, initially. But here's the deal. The parents do want these same life saving surgeries now to take place. They just want them to take place in California. I mean, at this point, it's happening in Texas, but they're trying. There's we can get into some of the legal battles that are going on because there are multiple ones, not just on who has custody of the child, but also where this child can be taken to have these surgeries.
00:09:49
Speaker 1: Why is there a discussion there are parents, there are parents, oh boy, And so that's she probably knew she'd going to the right place for such a a hundred. And she's now in the hands of the right guy who needs help in a Cynate campaign exactly.
00:10:06
Speaker 2: And he knows his audience, he knows his voters. And in terms of the Sarah Gate, McKenna west right. Now, just for the record, she has been denied any contact with the child. She is trying to get custody of the child. That is going to be a massive uphill battle that she almost certainly will not win. But here's the deal. This is what her attorney said. We are working on challenging the orders of parentage because we think that Texas law makes a woman who gives birth to a child the mother of the child. That is doing their legal argument. And this woman has the help of so an anti abortion Christian organization called the Alliance Defending Freedom is helping her seek parental custody. So they are providing her the funds for her legal counsel to try and get custody of this child. And she also had another anti abortion group, Live Action, out of Virginia, pay for her and her other two children to travel from Alaska to Texas and to be set up in Texas. So she is being funded, She is being funded, she is being used. Yes, she's a pawn.
00:11:15
Speaker 1: She is wrote you said there's a Texas law. This is not what I've heard of before that if the person who ever gives birth to said child, So surrogacy is a non event in Texas.
00:11:24
Speaker 2: I don't think it's going to stand. This is what their interpretation of what parentage means in Texas was that Texas or the group that is this is great to her attorney. Her attorney is claiming.
00:11:35
Speaker 1: That, so Texas has a birthright motherhood if you will.
00:11:39
Speaker 2: Ain't that funny?
00:11:40
Speaker 1: Who of this up?
00:11:42
Speaker 2: It's But certainly this is obviously making massive headlines, Yes for the abortion rights aspect of it, but in terms of the parental rights aspect of it, and just your your right to determine how your child is treated, where they are treated, who treats them, what surgeries you'll allow, Like this is insane and this has so many implications. Sarrogacy is a huge industry in this country, and this situation, although rare, absolutely could set precedence so when we come back, we're going to tell you what is next in the legal battle and what's up with all of these sarrogacy laws, and welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. We are talking about this wild case. And I would normally say out of Texas, and I guess that's where it's happening right now. But you've got multiple states involved, Alaska, Texas, California, and all of them have varying sarrogacy laws. And that's part of the confusing part of this, just because sarrogacy laws vary from state to state.
00:12:57
Speaker 1: Now, is there any serrogacy law that gives rights to the baby to the surrogate?
00:13:02
Speaker 2: Yeah, almost every I would say almost. I have not seen one legal expert who believes that for one second this surrogate mom is going to have any legal rights to this child period. I can't imagine a scenario in which that would be possible. You've got parents whose biology their DNA, that is their physically biologically, that is their child. The question is have I don't know of a case where you've had parents they said, yes, it's happened. Obviously, parents have wanted or needed to terminate a pregnancy that is in a sarrogate's body, but there are usually they're almost in every case there are. They agree that both parties agree, they don't have a sarrogate going rogue and saying I want to keep the baby and then going across state lines.
00:13:54
Speaker 1: But it's also in the contract. These things are laid out. All decisions having to do with the medical decisions having to do with that child, and yes, having to do with that Saraha. It's body belong to the parents. This is plain as they and yes, I think specific language rooms has to address this. If the parents make that decision that the pregnancy needs to be terminated for whatever reason, if Saraha doesn't like that, then don't have to agree to that ahead of time. I'm saying in the contract, correct. But I don't see anywhere anybody suggesting that the parents did anything wrong or they were not well within their rights at every step here.
00:14:35
Speaker 2: But of course you have folks who are anti abortion, who believe that this child wouldn't even exist if the parents had their way, and because of that, they shouldn't have any right to this child because they didn't want the child in the first place.
00:14:49
Speaker 1: So you gave up the rights to the child when you decided you wanted the pregnancy to end. So if she was carrying that child, this is supposed to be the same thing. If that mom in California was pregnant out.
00:15:01
Speaker 2: She would have terminated her and she.
00:15:02
Speaker 1: Wanted to terminate by this same logic, then Robes could a state step in and say, no, you can't, We'll take the baby off your hands. That is what they're saying, Babe, Is that Okay, you don't want it, so we'll take it. Would you be saying that if the woman everybody at any abortion clinic is doing that and say, Okay, you don't want to have the baby, we'll we'll take them all. We'll take them. We'll take them, We'll take That's just it doesn't work that way. And I don't know why people are thinking it works that way this time, and it's just it's it's too bad. I would love those parents out in California. I mean, there was a reason they needed to go surrogacy. I mean, what their journey has been, who knows. Who wonders, But I think and I guess I understand Robes, But I don't think a lot of attention or sympathy has been has gone the way of the parents in this being deemed the monsters.
00:15:53
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and can you imagine what they are receiving in terms of reaction from folks in Texas and around the country who don't think that abortion should be legal for whatever reason. And so yeah, we're talking about Nashene Gilker and Omar Ahmed. So those are the parents out of California. And there is a hearing that is on the books. It is scheduled for August twenty fifth at one pm. And here's what this hearing is going to address whether the biological parents acted in the child's best interests when making medical decisions. And they're going to address whether the child is healthy enough to be transported to California, because that's what the parents want.
00:16:32
Speaker 1: What was the first question again, they're going to They're going.
00:16:34
Speaker 2: To address whether the biological parents acted in the child's best interest when they made medical decisions. So look, this is you know, it's being brought by the sarrogate who wants to be able to intervene and make medical decisions for the baby. She wants to be basically the baby's guardian, and she wants to make the medical decision.
00:16:54
Speaker 1: It's not your baby. Like go through every parent in the state of Texas. It's what we're talking about. Whatever decisions they're making, you don't like them, Okay, that sucks, say it all the time. I don't intervene. You don't have the right. Is that all we're talking about, Ropes. Yep. So if we don't like that's it sounds. It's simple when you say it that way. Every parent listening. If the State of Texas or some rando off the street decides that you're not giving the right type of care to your child, I know better, and I'm gonna take you to court over it is what we're talking about here. I guess Ropes. There's some different because she did carry the child, but it doesn't change law. It changed people look.
00:17:37
Speaker 2: At her as saving his life. That's how they look at her. And the other interesting thing too, is the just should be noted the parents are not trying to not give their son these surgeries. The parents are not saying let him die. I'm not going to give him a surgery to save his life. They are not saying that. They are absolutely wanting and trying to save his life now. So they're not at odds about that. They just want the care to happen in where the place where they live, which is Los Angeles.
00:18:10
Speaker 1: So you're saying, let us take our baby and go home. Yes, And that's the saying no, you can't and.
00:18:15
Speaker 2: Have doctors in our home state perform these surgeries.
00:18:20
Speaker 1: This is a mess of a story. And again, Sarahgacy is a very big deal, and it is meaningful to so many and necessary for so many people in this country. Robes. We have very close people to us who have done this for their own reasons, and it's just I hate if this turns people off from it, if this now changes the conversation around it. The trajectory of it is just an important tool, and this is an unfortunate situation. It's now being used in a political way. That's it should be private family matter.
00:18:50
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And I do think the silver lining here is that maybe people will get a little bit more careful in terms of the contract and just knowing ahead of time, having this commonversation ahead of time, after seeing what played out here and is playing out here Nashally, maybe this will have more meaningful conversations ahead of time so that there are clear lines about what can or should happen given a different set of circumstances, but yes, in most cases, and we know you pointed out friends of ours, Beautiful surrogacy stories bring tears to your eyes. Beautiful, amazing, generous, phenomenal women out there who are willing to house these children and grow these children so that families who can't do it on their own get blessed with children. I mean, it's almost always just stories of hope and inspiration, so it's tough to have an ugly one out here, but maybe it will provide clarity for folks going forward and without everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Roboch alongside TJ. Holmes. We'll talk soon.
00:20:00
Speaker 1: Two things
Speaker 1: Hey, folks, it is Saturday, August fifteenth, and a surrogate from Alaska traveled to Texas to have a baby for a couple that lives in California. Here's the thing. The couple in California did not want her to have the baby. Are you keeping up here? Because this has now set off a multi state maga mess And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Robes. I say, Maggie went with mess, But the fact of the matter is this is a family, personal, and even legal dispute that is turning into now a major political football. Even you could say.
00:00:55
Speaker 2: Without a doubt, without a doubt, this is now pitted anti abortion activists again pro abortion rights folks, you've got saragacy issues. All sorts of people have taken sides, including the Attorney General of the state of Texas, but courts are involved. And now this sarrogate, McKenna West, as you mentioned, from Alaska, wants custody of the baby boy she gave birth to, who, by all accounts, was never meant to be born in the first place.
00:01:27
Speaker 1: So let's go with that. Robes, coupland California. Let's start from the very basics. Coupland California, wants to have a baby. They find a Saraga. She's in Alaska, she is pregnant, she's carrying child, but twenty weeks into it, to have right robes, they found a severe birth defect, heart defect. The family decides, the couple decides, we would like to terminate this pregnancy. The saragate says, no, that sets off a legal mess. Robes in here we.
00:01:54
Speaker 2: Are exactly and so that's Sarahgate again. McKenna West decided to flee to Texas because she said she felt like she could get better protection there. Texas has some of the strictest abortion laws in the country, meaning if you have been raped in cases of rape and incest, you still have to have the baby. So that was the state she chose to flee to, and she did receive help from some anti abortion groups in choosing where she went and how she got there. But yeah, the parents found out that their baby was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. It's a life threatening condition. It requires I believe, three surgeries, and yes, it can be fatal. But basically the left side of this baby's heart didn't develop. It restricts blood flow, and unless you have open heart surgery and again two other surgeries, the baby will die.
00:02:48
Speaker 1: There is no guarantee this of this baby's survival and even if so, what life it'll have After that, wrote that that's the reality of the situation. The reality is, though, wrote this, no other way to say it. That is not her baby.
00:03:04
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:03:04
Speaker 1: She has no legal rights to that baby as of this moment.
00:03:08
Speaker 2: Correct, in fact, and she, by the way, the couple was able to obtain a temporary restraining order against the surrogate mother, so she has not been able to hold the baby. She has not even been able to see the baby, and certainly she has no rights to what happens to that baby. Now. However, the parents were restricted for some of their rights as well, because when she traveled from Alaska to Texas, the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton got involved. He had a court order to ensure that the unborn baby would receive life saving medical treatment over any objections from the biological parents.
00:03:48
Speaker 1: Okay, so you see the mess. Who has the rights to the child, Not the woman who just birthed it, not the parents, who's that's their DNA.
00:03:57
Speaker 2: Yes, the state of Texas. Yes, that is their DNA.
00:03:59
Speaker 1: So now the state of Texas is saying they have the right to make decisions about this child. Yes, Robes, this is a mess.
00:04:05
Speaker 2: Yes, and yes, Paxton said, baby Gabriel deserves a chance at life and I will not allow anyone to unlawfully deny him medically necessary care. And I say baby Gabriel because that is the name that Paxton gave this child. It's the name that this child is now being referred to by anti abortion Gabriel the angel.
00:04:28
Speaker 1: They just decided to name that, they decided.
00:04:30
Speaker 2: To name the baby that the biological family has now named the baby Roomy and says the baby's name is not Gabriel, it is Roomy. But literally, if you go look up the story, you will see the name interchanged in how folks are reporting on this story.
00:04:45
Speaker 1: What was Gabriel's What was Gabriel's thing with the what was Gabriel's backstory? The Angel I'm trying to remember it's not the fallen Angel though, right, who's the fallen Angel?
00:04:54
Speaker 2: Well, the fallen Angel was I'm so bad.
00:04:58
Speaker 1: Don't get me onto this, but Catholic up bringing here.
00:05:02
Speaker 2: You're putting me on the spot. Sorry, But the angel Gabriel is a heavenly messenger and his name means God is my strength or God's Hero. He appears in the Bible explaining visions to Daniel announcing the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus.
00:05:19
Speaker 1: So they have just decided to call the very Gabriel.
00:05:23
Speaker 2: He's the one who told the virgin Mary that she would give birth to Jesus. She's the that angel told Mary that she had just had an immaculate conception. So it is about a miracle baby, so to speak, the miracle baby being Jesus. Gabriel announced that the miracle of Jesus would actually exist, and so yes, they named this baby Gabriel.
00:05:44
Speaker 1: So just like now Gabriel setting off a whole mess of controversy, has Gabriel not and what are we saying? So, what wasn't Lucifer?
00:05:54
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I want to say, isn't that a devil? Yes Lucifer, Yes, Lucifer was an angel man.
00:06:01
Speaker 1: We got to get back to some.
00:06:03
Speaker 2: We're getting held a task now by so many people who just heard that and thought, y'all are crazy.
00:06:08
Speaker 1: I didn't remember Gabriel, but Lucifer obviously was the guy.
00:06:12
Speaker 2: Oh my goodness. Anyway, so here's what we know about baby. Let's call the baby Roomy. That is the child's actual name. Roomy is now under medical care at a Texas facility in Dallas, I believe, and he's being evaluated right now. And look, it's so interesting when you hear what the biological parents are saying now through their attorney. They are claiming that yes, they did want her to terminate the pregnancy, but then once she fled and once she went to Texas, they wanted to then have the baby born in California, and they agreed to have these life saving surgeries take place. So they backed off of this idea that the baby shouldn't be born certain point. It wasn't possible. I mean, this was found. This heart condition was found in twenty weeks. A baby is can survive outside of the uterus I believe around twenty four weeks unilatterally and generally speaking, so there wasn't a lot of time. But here is what they have said through their attorney. Our client's focus at this time is ensuring that their baby receives the medical care that he vitally needs and that they, as his parents, are able to spend every precious moment they can with him. Yes, they accuse the Attorney General and the surrogate of turning what they call a family tragedy into political theater. And look, I think it's important to point out August eleventh, or excuse me, August twelfth, is when the baby was born. But in July they actually filed court documents and acknowledged and accepted and wanted to provide medical treatment for their babies. So they weren't still pushing for terminating the child. So they said, after heartbreaking This is how they just ribe what happened. After heartbreaking consultations with medical providers and their own research about suffering and the quality of life these types of babies endure, they made the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy. It is undisputed that West initially agreed, and that she herself made the initial appointment. They're talking about an abortion. She then changed, you toilaterally changed her mind, cut off all contact with the birth parents, withdrew medical releases allowing the birth parents to have contact with all medical providers. So they were seeking to have West give birth to their son in California, not in Texas. But they did not They were not able to do that. That's kind of wild.
00:08:43
Speaker 1: Well, okay, she'd be charged with a crime. This is their child has been kidnapped and decisions are being made for their child that they have legal rights to by other people, including the State of Texas. They don't have a right to their child right now, well.
00:09:01
Speaker 2: They do right now. They are in custody physical custody of their child, you know.
00:09:05
Speaker 1: What I'm saying. But Texas had the right to say this and that what.
00:09:08
Speaker 2: But Texas has the right to make sure that that child is getting specific life saving surgery.
00:09:14
Speaker 1: Not whatever the family decides for the child. Are medical decisions being made for this child by the state of Texas and a Senate candidate in Ken.
00:09:23
Speaker 2: Paxton, Yes, initially. But here's the deal. The parents do want these same life saving surgeries now to take place. They just want them to take place in California. I mean, at this point, it's happening in Texas, but they're trying. There's we can get into some of the legal battles that are going on because there are multiple ones, not just on who has custody of the child, but also where this child can be taken to have these surgeries.
00:09:49
Speaker 1: Why is there a discussion there are parents, there are parents, oh boy, And so that's she probably knew she'd going to the right place for such a a hundred. And she's now in the hands of the right guy who needs help in a Cynate campaign exactly.
00:10:06
Speaker 2: And he knows his audience, he knows his voters. And in terms of the Sarah Gate, McKenna west right. Now, just for the record, she has been denied any contact with the child. She is trying to get custody of the child. That is going to be a massive uphill battle that she almost certainly will not win. But here's the deal. This is what her attorney said. We are working on challenging the orders of parentage because we think that Texas law makes a woman who gives birth to a child the mother of the child. That is doing their legal argument. And this woman has the help of so an anti abortion Christian organization called the Alliance Defending Freedom is helping her seek parental custody. So they are providing her the funds for her legal counsel to try and get custody of this child. And she also had another anti abortion group, Live Action, out of Virginia, pay for her and her other two children to travel from Alaska to Texas and to be set up in Texas. So she is being funded, She is being funded, she is being used. Yes, she's a pawn.
00:11:15
Speaker 1: She is wrote you said there's a Texas law. This is not what I've heard of before that if the person who ever gives birth to said child, So surrogacy is a non event in Texas.
00:11:24
Speaker 2: I don't think it's going to stand. This is what their interpretation of what parentage means in Texas was that Texas or the group that is this is great to her attorney. Her attorney is claiming.
00:11:35
Speaker 1: That, so Texas has a birthright motherhood if you will.
00:11:39
Speaker 2: Ain't that funny?
00:11:40
Speaker 1: Who of this up?
00:11:42
Speaker 2: It's But certainly this is obviously making massive headlines, Yes for the abortion rights aspect of it, but in terms of the parental rights aspect of it, and just your your right to determine how your child is treated, where they are treated, who treats them, what surgeries you'll allow, Like this is insane and this has so many implications. Sarrogacy is a huge industry in this country, and this situation, although rare, absolutely could set precedence so when we come back, we're going to tell you what is next in the legal battle and what's up with all of these sarrogacy laws, and welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. We are talking about this wild case. And I would normally say out of Texas, and I guess that's where it's happening right now. But you've got multiple states involved, Alaska, Texas, California, and all of them have varying sarrogacy laws. And that's part of the confusing part of this, just because sarrogacy laws vary from state to state.
00:12:57
Speaker 1: Now, is there any serrogacy law that gives rights to the baby to the surrogate?
00:13:02
Speaker 2: Yeah, almost every I would say almost. I have not seen one legal expert who believes that for one second this surrogate mom is going to have any legal rights to this child period. I can't imagine a scenario in which that would be possible. You've got parents whose biology their DNA, that is their physically biologically, that is their child. The question is have I don't know of a case where you've had parents they said, yes, it's happened. Obviously, parents have wanted or needed to terminate a pregnancy that is in a sarrogate's body, but there are usually they're almost in every case there are. They agree that both parties agree, they don't have a sarrogate going rogue and saying I want to keep the baby and then going across state lines.
00:13:54
Speaker 1: But it's also in the contract. These things are laid out. All decisions having to do with the medical decisions having to do with that child, and yes, having to do with that Saraha. It's body belong to the parents. This is plain as they and yes, I think specific language rooms has to address this. If the parents make that decision that the pregnancy needs to be terminated for whatever reason, if Saraha doesn't like that, then don't have to agree to that ahead of time. I'm saying in the contract, correct. But I don't see anywhere anybody suggesting that the parents did anything wrong or they were not well within their rights at every step here.
00:14:35
Speaker 2: But of course you have folks who are anti abortion, who believe that this child wouldn't even exist if the parents had their way, and because of that, they shouldn't have any right to this child because they didn't want the child in the first place.
00:14:49
Speaker 1: So you gave up the rights to the child when you decided you wanted the pregnancy to end. So if she was carrying that child, this is supposed to be the same thing. If that mom in California was pregnant out.
00:15:01
Speaker 2: She would have terminated her and she.
00:15:02
Speaker 1: Wanted to terminate by this same logic, then Robes could a state step in and say, no, you can't, We'll take the baby off your hands. That is what they're saying, Babe, Is that Okay, you don't want it, so we'll take it. Would you be saying that if the woman everybody at any abortion clinic is doing that and say, Okay, you don't want to have the baby, we'll we'll take them all. We'll take them. We'll take them, We'll take That's just it doesn't work that way. And I don't know why people are thinking it works that way this time, and it's just it's it's too bad. I would love those parents out in California. I mean, there was a reason they needed to go surrogacy. I mean, what their journey has been, who knows. Who wonders, But I think and I guess I understand Robes, But I don't think a lot of attention or sympathy has been has gone the way of the parents in this being deemed the monsters.
00:15:53
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and can you imagine what they are receiving in terms of reaction from folks in Texas and around the country who don't think that abortion should be legal for whatever reason. And so yeah, we're talking about Nashene Gilker and Omar Ahmed. So those are the parents out of California. And there is a hearing that is on the books. It is scheduled for August twenty fifth at one pm. And here's what this hearing is going to address whether the biological parents acted in the child's best interests when making medical decisions. And they're going to address whether the child is healthy enough to be transported to California, because that's what the parents want.
00:16:32
Speaker 1: What was the first question again, they're going to They're going.
00:16:34
Speaker 2: To address whether the biological parents acted in the child's best interest when they made medical decisions. So look, this is you know, it's being brought by the sarrogate who wants to be able to intervene and make medical decisions for the baby. She wants to be basically the baby's guardian, and she wants to make the medical decision.
00:16:54
Speaker 1: It's not your baby. Like go through every parent in the state of Texas. It's what we're talking about. Whatever decisions they're making, you don't like them, Okay, that sucks, say it all the time. I don't intervene. You don't have the right. Is that all we're talking about, Ropes. Yep. So if we don't like that's it sounds. It's simple when you say it that way. Every parent listening. If the State of Texas or some rando off the street decides that you're not giving the right type of care to your child, I know better, and I'm gonna take you to court over it is what we're talking about here. I guess Ropes. There's some different because she did carry the child, but it doesn't change law. It changed people look.
00:17:37
Speaker 2: At her as saving his life. That's how they look at her. And the other interesting thing too, is the just should be noted the parents are not trying to not give their son these surgeries. The parents are not saying let him die. I'm not going to give him a surgery to save his life. They are not saying that. They are absolutely wanting and trying to save his life now. So they're not at odds about that. They just want the care to happen in where the place where they live, which is Los Angeles.
00:18:10
Speaker 1: So you're saying, let us take our baby and go home. Yes, And that's the saying no, you can't and.
00:18:15
Speaker 2: Have doctors in our home state perform these surgeries.
00:18:20
Speaker 1: This is a mess of a story. And again, Sarahgacy is a very big deal, and it is meaningful to so many and necessary for so many people in this country. Robes. We have very close people to us who have done this for their own reasons, and it's just I hate if this turns people off from it, if this now changes the conversation around it. The trajectory of it is just an important tool, and this is an unfortunate situation. It's now being used in a political way. That's it should be private family matter.
00:18:50
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And I do think the silver lining here is that maybe people will get a little bit more careful in terms of the contract and just knowing ahead of time, having this commonversation ahead of time, after seeing what played out here and is playing out here Nashally, maybe this will have more meaningful conversations ahead of time so that there are clear lines about what can or should happen given a different set of circumstances, but yes, in most cases, and we know you pointed out friends of ours, Beautiful surrogacy stories bring tears to your eyes. Beautiful, amazing, generous, phenomenal women out there who are willing to house these children and grow these children so that families who can't do it on their own get blessed with children. I mean, it's almost always just stories of hope and inspiration, so it's tough to have an ugly one out here, but maybe it will provide clarity for folks going forward and without everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Roboch alongside TJ. Holmes. We'll talk soon.
00:20:00
Speaker 1: Two things