McKenna West, a single mother and Alaska nurse serving as a gestational surrogate, gave birth to Baby Gabriel in Texas after refusing demands from his biological parents that she terminate the pregnancy due to a congenital heart defect. The child was born with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a serious but treatable condition typically requiring three staged surgeries. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton successfully petitioned a district court to order life-saving medical care for the infant upon birth.
West told Live Action News she applied to become a surrogate in February 2025, describing her match with California couple Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed as initially being "a perfect match." That changed when an ultrasound at 20 weeks revealed Gabriel's diagnosis. According to reports, the biological parents then demanded West travel to California for an abortion.
"I was full of fear and stress of what they were going to choose," West said in an interview with Lila Rose, president of Live Action. "I was feeling pretty confident that they were going to choose termination, and how could I possibly live with myself going through that?"
West fled to Dallas, where she sought legal protection and access to medical providers experienced in treating HLHS. She told Live Action the potential financial liability from the dispute could reach $200,000—costs she said she was willing to absorb.
What the Left Is Saying
Reproductive rights advocates point to broader concerns about gestational carrier autonomy and the contractual frameworks governing surrogacy arrangements. The majority of surrogacy contracts include provisions giving intended parents authority over decisions regarding pregnancy continuation, including termination. Surrogate.com notes that while surrogates cannot be physically forced to undergo abortions, refusing to comply with contractual terms can carry financial and legal consequences.
Some advocates argue the case illustrates gaps in legal protections for women serving as gestational carriers. Questions remain about how courts should balance parental rights, surrogate autonomy, and the state's interest in protecting unborn life when these interests conflict within existing contract law.
West's decision to bear the potential financial burden rather than terminate highlights the complex position surrogates occupy—carrying biological ties without the legal recognition afforded to genetic parents. The case may prompt renewed debate over whether current surrogacy frameworks adequately protect gestational carriers who hold differing views from intended parents on medical decisions affecting a pregnancy.
What the Right Is Saying
Texas officials and anti-abortion advocates have framed Paxton's intervention as a victory for unborn children with treatable conditions. "Every child in our state deserves to be cared for and protected," Paxton said following the court order. His office argued that the biological parents had refused to commit to authorizing life-saving surgery upon birth and might attempt to transport the infant out of Texas to prevent treatment.
Pro-life advocates have praised West's refusal as a stand for the right to life when medical conditions present difficult choices. "His life doesn't have a price tag on it," West told Live Action. "There's nothing that they could try to come after me for that would be worth his life."
Religious and family advocacy organizations supporting the intervention argue the case demonstrates why states must have legal mechanisms to protect children when biological parents pursue termination of pregnancies affected by survivable conditions. The Texas law recognizing gestational mothers as legal mothers provided the basis for Paxton's authority to petition the court, a framework these advocates want strengthened.
What the Numbers Show
According to NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital data cited in reporting on the case, children diagnosed with HLHS who undergo treatment have approximately a 72% chance of surviving to age 5. Those who reach their first birthday have roughly a 90% chance of living to age 18. The condition requires multiple surgeries, typically performed at specialized pediatric cardiac centers.
The case involves potential financial exposure exceeding $200,000 for West based on contractual obligations and medical costs, though the exact liability remains disputed in ongoing litigation. A temporary restraining order currently prevents West from seeing the infant pending resolution of parentage questions that will likely be decided in California courts—the jurisdiction where the surrogacy contract was executed.
A fundraiser established to help cover West's legal and potential financial costs has raised tens of thousands of dollars, according to Live Action reporting on the case.
The Bottom Line
The dispute now shifts to custody proceedings, with Texas courts asserting jurisdiction over Gabriel's immediate medical care while parentage questions remain pending in California. Paxton's office notified UT Southwestern Medical Center and Children's Medical Center of Dallas of their independent legal obligations to provide life-saving treatment regardless of how the parentage case resolves.
Lawyers for Gilkar and Ahmed have not publicly commented on the surrogate's legal victory or the court order requiring infant care. The case sets a potential precedent for state intervention in surrogacy disputes involving medical decisions about unborn children and may influence future legislation regarding gestational carrier rights and parental obligations when contracts and birth circumstances conflict.