The intended parents of Baby Gabriel, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, are claiming more than 100,000 dollars from McKenna West, the woman who carried the child through a surrogacy agreement and refused to abort him when a severe congenital heart defect was diagnosed during pregnancy. The couple maintains that West breached the contract, which included a clause allowing them to request termination of the pregnancy in case of fetal anomalies.
West, a cardiology-specialized nurse from Alaska, gave birth on August 12 in Dallas, Texas (United States). She named the child Gabriel during the pregnancy; Gilkar and Ahmed call him Rumi. The baby suffers from hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a serious heart malformation whose treatment requires several surgical interventions.
More than 100,000 dollars for breaching the contract
The condition was diagnosed during pregnancy, around week 20. Gilkar and Ahmed then requested that West abort the child, but the surrogate refused and decided to continue with the pregnancy.
The couple now maintains that this decision constituted a breach of the surrogacy agreement and is claiming more than 100,000 dollars in damages, in addition to an unspecified additional compensation. The contract contemplated the possibility of requesting an abortion if certain fetal anomalies were detected.
After West’s refusal, the intended parents stopped paying, according to the surrogate’s account, the expenses related to the pregnancy.
«As a cardiology-specialized nurse, I knew this little one had great chances of survival if given the opportunity to receive the necessary treatment,» West explained.
The woman eventually moved to Texas to give birth and seek legal protection for the child. She chose the Children’s Medical Center Dallas for its results in the procedure Gabriel needed shortly after birth.
The parents later authorized the operation
The conflict took a turn after the birth. A court order obtained following the intervention of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton required providing the newborn with the necessary treatment to keep him alive and prevented him from being transferred out of the state while the legal proceedings continued.
Gilkar and Ahmed, who during the pregnancy had requested the abortion, later authorized the first of the three planned heart surgeries. Gabriel was operated on August 17 and remained hospitalized while beginning his recovery.
The authorization of the surgery has not ended the litigation. The lawsuit against West for refusing to terminate the pregnancy continues. A hearing on parentage and other pending matters in the case is scheduled for August 25 in Dallas County.
West: «Every child deserves a chance to live»
In an article published on August 20 in the New York Post, West recounted that after the birth she was only able to remain with the newborn for about 60 seconds before the intended parents assumed physical custody. Current court orders prevent her from maintaining contact with him.
The surrogate also rejected that her actions were intended to turn the case into a political battle.
«No woman should be forced to kill the baby she is carrying. And most importantly, every child deserves a chance to live,» she wrote.
West stated that she does not intend to keep Gabriel and that what she is asking is that those who have custody ensure the necessary treatment to keep him alive. «That’s all it would take to end this,» she stated.
Lee Budner, attorney for Gilkar and Ahmed, has offered a different version. In statements reported by TMZ, he maintained that the couple is «devastated» because West and Paxton allegedly turned the birth and the child’s medical problems into a «political spectacle.»
The attorney also stated that his clients are following the recommendations of the baby’s medical team «as any loving parent would» and continue to prioritize «the health and well-being of their baby.»
«A textbook example of everything that is wrong with surrogacy»
The case has sparked new criticism of surrogacy contracts and, in particular, of clauses that allow those commissioning the pregnancy to demand an abortion when the child has a disease or disability.
Irene Alexander, associate professor of Moral Theology at the University of Dallas, told EWTN News that aborting a child for having a treatable condition reflects «almost an Amazon mentality»: «If I don’t get exactly what I ordered, I want to return it.»
Alexander described surrogacy as a «dissociation of all aspects of human sexuality,» in which «love, parenthood, and the good of the child are fragmented into parts.»
Joe Zalot, a bioethics specialist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, described the case as «a textbook example of everything that is wrong with surrogacy.» In his view, it shows both the degradation of the surrogate mother, reduced to a subordinate position relative to those who hired her, and that of the unborn child when the contract contemplates that he be eliminated after a prenatal diagnosis.
Christina Bennett, correspondent for Live Action, emphasized the same aspect: «Women are not simply wombs that can be rented and children are not simply goods that can be sold through contracts.»
The Church’s condemnation of surrogacy
The Catholic Church has expressly rejected surrogacy, considering that it violates the dignity of both the child and the woman.
The declaration Dignitas infinita, published in 2024 by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, warns that through this practice «the child, immensely dignified, becomes a mere object» and recalls that «a child is always a gift and never the object of a contract».
The document also states that the legitimate desire to have a child cannot be transformed into a «right to a child» that ignores his dignity as the recipient of the free gift of life.
Baby Gabriel’s litigation takes this contractual reality to one of its most extreme consequences: the child was born after the woman who carried him refused to comply with the request to abort him; his intended parents eventually authorized the operation necessary to keep him alive and, at the same time, maintain a claim against West for more than 100,000 dollars for having continued with the pregnancy.