What are a Surrogate's Rights? Woman's Controversial Pregnancy in Spotlight

[Jazzy]

Crystal Kelley, a surrogate who entered into an agreement to have a Connecticut couple’s baby for them last year, found herself embroiled in a bitter battle when an ultrasound found fetal abnormalities, and the couple asked her to have an abortion, a CNN report revealed this week.



It all began in August of 2011, when Crystal, who has two children of her own, began working with a surrogacy agency; she agreed to work with a couple who wanted but could not have a fourth child. She would be a gestational carrier, meaning she would have no genetic connection to the baby, but would carry a baby formed by a frozen embryo the couple had left from a previous round of in-vitro, and the father’s sperm. Her fee would be $22,000.



Just ten days later Crystal, then 29, conceived. But everyone’s happiness turned to angst when a routine five-month ultrasound revealed many physical abnormalities, including a cleft palate and lip, a brain cyst and serious heart defects.



“Given the ultrasound findings, (the parents) feel that the interventions required to manage (the baby’s medical problems) are overwhelming for an infant, and that it is a more humane option to consider pregnancy termination,” members of the fetal medical staff at Hartford Hospital wrote to Kelley’s midwife, according to CNN. The parents had already gone through three previous premature births that left two of their children with medical problems.



But Kelley, they added, disagreed, and was “adamantly” opposed to aborting.



When Kelley would not agree to abort, according to CNN, she says the couple offered her $10,000 to reconsider. Kelley refused, instead asking for $15,000; the couple would not pay that much, and Kelley said she had changed her mind anyway.



The couple’s attorney reminded Kelley that her contract with them stipulated she would have an abortion in the case of “severe fetus abnormality.” But such an agreement is not legally binding, Ferrara told Shine. “She still has the constitutional right that any woman has, to make decisions about her own body.”



Eventually, Kelley learned she and her children could relocate to Michigan, a state where the birth mother, and not the genetic parents, is considered the legal guardian. She chose this option, and gave birth to the baby there. Baby S was born with a panoply of issues, including holoprosencephaly, which means the brain fails to completely divide into distinct hemispheres, and heterotaxy, which means many of her internal organs are in the wrong places. She also has a misshapen ear and many complex heart problems.

Source



Topic question:



Did this surrogate have the right to refuse to abort? Why or why not?

 

[Evil Eye]

It's a bit dubious but, if the surrogate mother returns their money and the biological parents don't get any legal responsibilities, I suppose the surrogate mother should be able to decide not to abort.

Still a rather questionable action though.

 

[DrLeftover]

Proof that the law is about twenty years behind the technology.

 

[Sk8]

She had the right to refuse the abortion, yes. Outside of that, debate strays away into other topic areas not directly associated with the mother's choice so much as her ethics.

 

[Jazzy]

When Kelley would not agree to abort, according to CNN, she says the couple offered her $10,000 to reconsider. Kelley refused, instead asking for $15,000; the couple would not pay that much, and Kelley said she had changed her mind anyway.

If she was so adamantly against abortion, why did she try to sucker these people out of $15k? The only thing that changed her mind was that this couple refused to pay her that sum.

 

[Evil Eye]

The only thing that changed her mind was that this couple refused to pay her that sum.

Nonetheless, $10k seems like a pretty good deal to just let slide.

 

[Jazzy]

Nonetheless, $10k seems like a pretty good deal to just let slide.

But she was greedy and would only abort for $15k.

 

[DrLeftover]

Funny how nobody is considering the child's rights through all of this.

 

[Jazzy]

Funny how nobody is considering the child's rights through all of this.

The adoptive parents are. You see, after all of this the surrogate couldn't handle all the medical problems this poor baby has. She didn't want this baby. She wanted more money.

 

[Sk8]

Funny how nobody is considering the child's rights through all of this.

And what rights is a child guaranteed? Under what broad category of child's rights' was this child guaranteed? These parents seem to have had several anomalies occur with previous attempts of pregnancy (my computer won't load the source, so I cannot read the direct source). Therefore, the inclusion of agreeing to an abortion if anomalies occurred makes sense; so, what medical benefits is this child receiving? And, if the woman did it solely for the money, why still carry through with the pregnancy? 10k is a good chunk of cash, but she still carried through with moving to a state where she could birth the child and basically hijack parenting rights to the child- a child born with multiple medical difficulties. If the person is only money-grubbing, why carry through with it? This woman is now bound to care for this child for the rest of her life, and, if she's done it for the wrong reasons, ruined this child's life they do have.



Children never ask to be born- they just are. Does this evaporate their right to existence once they are conceived? No because someone went through the effort of going through the process to bring them into the world, and now they are responsible for taking care of that child. The same can be said for parents who decide to terminate a pregnancy before going through in order to prevent the child a life of difficult, especially in cases where the child will never grow into a functioning individual (sever cases) or likely to die soon after birth.



So, again, what rights does a child have? In what application are the child's rights to be considered? The child has been born and there is no late-late term abortions now - someone has to care for this child.

 

[seasidemike]

Ireland just had a court ruling in a case involving surrogacy where the ruling was that the child’s DNA parents have the final right and will be regarded by law as the parent of the child.

That is to say, the donating parents have rights over the child more so than the surrogate’s.



It is making for interesting discussions here.

 

[Jazzy]

If the person is only money-grubbing, why carry through with it? This woman is now bound to care for this child for the rest of her life.

This surrogate did not keep this baby. This is a quote from the article:

Ultimately, though, Kelley, a single mother, realized she could not raise Baby S, and wound up finding her adoptive parents who had experience with high-needs babies.



Kelley, meanwhile, still wrestles with her decision to not keep the baby. “I know logically I did what was right.. and I know that nobody in the world would dare think that I gave up on Baby S after all the fighting I did for her, but the battle in my head is bigger and stronger than I really know how to handle,” she wrote on her personal blog in February. “I feel myself slipping down that slippery slope, and I am fighting so hard to stay afloat. I just hope I find a foothold soon.”