OMM Redaksiyası
The US Supreme Court has declined to intervene in a custody dispute involving a surrogate who refused an abortion requested by the parents who hired her.
Justice Elena Kagan rejected an emergency appeal by McKenna West, who had asked the court to suspend an earlier ruling granting parental rights to the California couple, according to the BBC.
The decision leaves in place the order granting custody to Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar. The couple had asked West to terminate the pregnancy after a 20-week scan found that the foetus had a severe heart defect.
Surrogate travelled to Texas
West instead travelled to Texas, where nearly all abortions are illegal, and gave birth to the child last month. The baby was born with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a condition in which the left side of the heart cannot pump enough blood to the body.
The condition often requires multiple surgeries and is not curable. Infants with the disorder may face lifelong complications, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
West has sought custody of the child, saying she learned about possible treatments and wanted to keep “this precious baby”, according to documents filed with the Supreme Court.
Dispute over medical care
West, who has received support from several Republican officials, argued that the biological parents should not have custody because she feared they would not provide the medical care the child needs after seeking an abortion.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened in the case and obtained an emergency court order requiring the boy to receive medical care in the state. The child underwent surgery shortly after birth.
Ahmed and Gilkar have said the baby, whom they named Rumi, is “our child” and “the love of our lives”, according to the Associated Press. They said West travelled to Texas without informing them and prevented them from accessing medical information.
A California court previously granted parental rights to Ahmed and Gilkar, while a Texas court issued a restraining order preventing West from seeing the baby. Last month, an attorney for the couple said the child was in critical condition and appeared to be “suffering from potential complications”.
West said that without Supreme Court intervention she would lose access to information about the child’s medical condition. Her lawyers suggested in court filings that the couple might place the child in hospice care.
The BBC said it had contacted lawyers for both sides for comment.
