Published 3 days ago • loading... • Updated 2 days ago
When Abortion and Surrogacy Law Collide, Contracts Can’t Answer the Hardest Questions
Court fights over surrogacy contracts are testing whether intended parents can demand abortion or custody when fetal abnormalities are diagnosed.
On August 25, 2026, surrogate McKenna West appeared in a Dallas court against Intended Parents Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar, who sought to enforce a contract clause requiring pregnancy termination after a fetal heart defect diagnosis.
Since the Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision, surrogacy contracts have faced new scrutiny as states determine abortion laws, with shifting legal theories around fetal personhood now complicating their enforceability.
In a 2012 case, Crystal Kelley faced pressure to terminate a pregnancy due to fetal abnormalities; the 1988 Baby M case saw The New Jersey Supreme Court void a contract because the surrogate could not relinquish parental rights before birth.
Texas courts upheld the Intended Parents' rights, and the Supreme Court declined to intervene; consequently, West lost parental rights to the child she carried for 37 weeks.
Florida officials recently argued that surrogacy contracts violate the 13th Amendment's ban on slavery, and as conservative groups challenge the legitimacy of surrogacy, states embracing fetal personhood may render such contracts and even IVF legally unavailable.