An Alaskan surrogate is continuing her legal battle for custody of a baby she carried, after filing a lawsuit for medical care on the infant’s behalf. The baby, named Rumi by his biological parents but referred to as Gabriel by the surrogate, is currently in critical condition following heart surgery at a hospital in the Dallas area.
As of Monday, attorney Lee Budner, representing the biological parents, confirmed that Rumi has received necessary medical treatment. The surrogate, McKenna West, had previously challenged the couple’s parental rights, claiming they intended to deny medical care for the newborn and were pressuring her to undergo an abortion — an accusation the parents deny. In a statement from her legal team, West reiterated her pursuit of custody, emphasizing her commitment to ensuring Rumi receives ongoing care despite his parents’ approval of the initial surgery.
Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion organization Live Action, which is collaborating with West, expressed skepticism about the couple’s intentions. “I don’t understand how they can be trusted,” she stated, suggesting that their actions have not demonstrated a genuine concern for the child’s welfare.
Budner countered these claims, asserting that the parents acted swiftly to agree to Rumi’s surgery, which is part of a series of procedures required to treat his congenital heart condition. “Ms. West continues to assert baseless claims for custody of Rumi, in violation of multiple court orders from both Alaska and California,” he remarked. Budner added that the couple’s focus remains steadfast on their child’s health and safety.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for surrogacy arrangements in Texas, potentially altering the legal landscape for both intended parents and surrogates. Experts warn that a ruling in favor of West might undermine the parental rights of birth parents, weaken contractual agreements regarding pregnancy termination, and deter couples from seeking surrogacy as a means to expand their families.
Christine Andresen, an attorney specializing in surrogacy law, highlighted the broader societal implications of the case, questioning the extent of state influence over private family matters.
West’s situation has attracted the attention of various conservative groups, including the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing her, as well as Texas Alliance for Life and Texas Right to Life. These organizations view the case as intersecting with key conservative issues: opposing abortion, defending traditional parental rights, and scrutinizing commercial surrogacy practices.
According to Rose, West was able to move her legal fight to Texas with support from anti-abortion groups. Live Action funded her travel from Alaska, connecting her with the Alliance Defending Freedom. Furthermore, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton initially intervened on her behalf but withdrew after Rumi received medical care.
As conservative lawmakers consider imposing restrictions on commercial surrogacy and in-vitro fertilization (IVF), the case has gained momentum. Earlier this year, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick instructed senators to investigate foreign nationals allegedly taking advantage of Texas surrogates, while the Texas Republican Party called for a ban on commercial surrogacy.
John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, condemned surrogacy as exploitative, arguing it reduces women to mere vessels for childbirth and treats children as commodities. “This case underscores the concerns that pro-lifers and conservatives have raised about surrogacy, particularly commercial surrogacy,” he stated.
Legal experts describe West’s case as atypical and not reflective of standard gestational surrogacy agreements. However, they acknowledge it could provoke legislative changes in Texas. Rachel Rebouché, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, suggested that this case might serve as a catalyst for larger discussions regarding surrogacy laws.
Surrogacy agreements, typically established before pregnancy, delineate the rights and responsibilities of both intended parents and the surrogate. These contracts usually grant intended parents the authority to make medical decisions regarding the fetus. West is contesting her surrogacy agreement executed in Alaska with the biological parents, Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar, who are from California, in an effort to claim parental rights.
Despite attempts to invalidate the agreement in Alaska and California, the courts have ruled in favor of Ahmed and Gilkar. A judge in Dallas County also denied West’s request for a temporary restraining order, reaffirming the couple’s parental rights upon the child’s birth.
West’s legal team is challenging the validity of the surrogacy agreement, particularly an abortion clause typically included in such contracts. This clause outlines circumstances under which an abortion may be considered, including threats to the surrogate’s health or severe fetal conditions. However, the enforcement of such clauses has become contentious, especially following Texas’s statewide abortion ban enacted in 2022.
Rebouché clarified that while the abortion clause does not allow intended parents to coerce a surrogate into terminating a pregnancy, it can lead to financial repercussions for noncompliance with the contract. West argues that enforcing such a clause infringes on her rights to privacy and bodily autonomy.
The dispute raises complex legal questions about surrogacy laws, which vary significantly from state to state. Marla Neufeld, a family attorney, emphasized that the location of the surrogate at the time of delivery often determines which state’s laws apply, complicating cases like West’s.
Conservative advocates view surrogacy as inherently coercive and argue that abortion clauses exemplify how these agreements can infringe upon a woman’s rights. Texas Right to Life and Live Action advocate for a ban on commercial surrogacy altogether, seeking to eliminate such clauses from contracts.
Andresen cautioned that removing abortion clauses could leave surrogates vulnerable to financial burdens stemming from pregnancy complications, while the ongoing legal battles are likely to persist. As the legislative session approaches in January, the push to limit or ban commercial surrogacy is expected to gain traction.
Regardless of the outcome of West’s case, experts anticipate that the discourse surrounding surrogacy will continue to evolve. West’s legal team has indicated a willingness to escalate the matter to national courts if necessary. The next hearing in the Dallas County court is scheduled for August 25.
Concerns persist that tightening surrogacy laws could thwart the aspirations of families wishing to have children biologically linked to them. In 2025, Texas recorded 657 births resulting from surrogacy, underscoring the significance of this legal and ethical debate.
“Hard cases make bad law,” Andresen remarked, reflecting on the potential ramifications of this high-stakes legal battle.
