An Alaska woman acting as a surrogate for a California couple gave birth Wednesday in Texas, where she is seeking legal protections after claiming the couple tried to force her to have an abortion.
The fetus that Anchorage nurse McKenna West was carrying had been diagnosed with a rare and difficult-to treat heart condition. West sued in Alaska to end the surrogacy agreement, then traveled to Texas, where she asked a court to give her parental rights.
The California couple denies asking West to get an abortion.
Texas Tribune reporter Terri Langford has been following the case and says, despite Texas's attorney general intervening this week, a judge ruled that West does not have a say in the child's medical treatment and appointed it a guardian for the legal proceedings.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Terri Langford: And that person will be responsible to just represent the interests of the child in court, and so that's where we are at this point. It's a very unusual case. I mean, we have seen surrogacy contracts, disagreements before, but this one has gone through three states. It's quite unusual.
Casey Grove: Yeah, and complicated, and it's probably worth mentioning that Ken Paxton, the attorney general in Texas, is also running for U.S. Senate, right? As the Republican nominee there.
TL: That is correct, and it's gotten a lot of attention, and I'm sure put a lot more focus on him as a candidate.
CG: Yeah. What are you hearing from folks there in Texas as you've been reporting about this?
TL: I mean, people just want to know what exactly happened. We've heard a lot of sort of conservative radio pontificating about this case and sort of giving their takes, if you will, on the matter. But I still feel like we don't have a good sense of what exactly transpired, how their relationship deteriorated, what exactly happened. Was there a push to terminate or not?
From what we can see in the Alaska court records and in Dallas, the biological parents have insisted that they want to see this pregnancy through, that they want to care for the child, that they have consulted with several different experts, both in Dallas and Los Angeles, for the care of this child, who will require at least three surgeries to correct this defect.
CG: And I've seen people mentioning millions of dollars, potentially, in medical bills and perhaps an unlikely outcome that the child would even live for very long.
TL: Well, that's a thing that we're all trying to figure out, too. Now, is palliative care on the table, you know, or what's going on right now in that hospital room? I couldn't tell you right now. But we now have the attorney general of the state of Texas involved, and so we're at least going to get some sort of update by (Aug. 25) of what's going on with this child. But it's anyone's guess right now. We don't know.
CG: And as your story notes in the Texas Tribune, basically none of the parties have been willing to comment on this outside of court, right? I mean, none of the lawyers.
TL: No, we got a statement from the biological parents (Wednesday), and they accuse the attorney general of creating political theater. But that is all we've heard. We've put in requests to talk to the family. I think the lawyers are advising their clients not to do that right now, as this is so high profile, and they don't want to make a wrong move, you know, before they meet again with a judge here in Dallas.
CG: So, am I understanding this correctly, that the question in court is not so much about the custody of the child, it's more about what medical care will be done and where it'll be done?
TL: Yeah, I think the state of Texas and their interest is to make sure that the child has the medical care it needs, and they are there for the care of the child. But from what we can see from the filings so far ... I mean, while Texas does recognize a child's mother is the one who gives birth in Texas, the temporary restraining order against McKenna West that was granted this week pretty much says that it's the biological parents' role, not McKenna. McKenna has no right to advise on medical care for the child.
So I think, without explicitly saying it, I think the court has already determined that this is the biological child of these parents, and they can make that decision. What we don't understand at this point is at what point the parents are able to make a choice without the state involved? I think that's the biggest question that we have right now.
