Surrogate Who Refused Abortion Takes Custody Battle to Supreme Court
Left 100%
Center 0%
Right 0%
2 left · 0 center · 0 right
What happened
McKenna West, an Alaska nurse acting as a surrogate for California couple Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar, was asked by the couple in May to terminate the pregnancy after a mid-pregnancy scan found the fetus had hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Court filings state that West initially agreed and made an appointment, then reversed course, withdrew medical releases, and traveled to Texas—where nearly all abortions are banned—without telling the couple; she gave birth on August 12, 2025, to a boy she calls Gabriel and they call Rumi. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton obtained an emergency order requiring lifesaving care, and the infant underwent surgery soon after birth; a California court later recognized Ahmed and Gilkar as the legal parents, and a Texas court barred West from seeing the child and, on September 2, gave full credit to the California judgment. At an August 25 Dallas hearing, Gilkar said the boy was “our child,” called West unstable, and testified that “Denying lifesaving care is not true”; West said she wanted custody but was open to dropping that claim if they agreed to such care. West then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the California parental-rights order, arguing the couple may place the child in hospice rather than continue treatment; they have also sued her for more than $100,000 alleging breach of a surrogacy agreement that included an abortion provision.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 3 articles
3 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 3 of 3
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: McKenna West, Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Lee Budner
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 3 of 3
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court filing, court ruling, court order
- Credits another outlet 0 of 3
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 3
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 10, 10:23 UTC by Daily Wire, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Daily Wire (court filing).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Left-leaning coverage presents McKenna West as a surrogate who refused an abortion after a heart defect was found. Readers of that account never learn she first agreed to terminate and made the appointment herself before changing her mind. Right-leaning coverage carries that sequence from the couple's filings. The omitted reversal changes the case from a clean refusal into a fight over whether she broke the surrogacy deal.
Left-leaning coverage calls it an "abortion request." Right-leaning coverage calls it a "demand to abort." One sounds like a plea she declined. The other sounds like an order she defied.
Neither side produces a court paper or a doctor's order putting hospice in motion. Have the genetic parents actually moved to stop further surgeries, or does that warning live only in the surrogate's filing?
Bottom line
The BBC leaves out that West booked the abortion appointment herself, so a reader of that account never sees the contract-break the Daily Wire puts at the center of the custody fight.
The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
- West initially agreed to the abortion and made the appointment herself before reversing course
- The genetic parents sued West for more than $100,000 alleging she violated a surrogacy agreement with an abortion provision
- Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton obtained an emergency court order requiring the boy receive medical care in Texas
- On September 2 a Texas judge upheld the California parental-rights ruling and removed West from the case
- The couple's attorney said the newborn was in critical condition and appeared to be suffering from potential complications
- West's filing warns the child could be taken to California for hospice around September 17
The Left View
BBC coverage frames the story as a custody battle after a surrogate refused an abortion request, underscoring that West “has been supported by several Republican officials.” It dwells on the diagnosis as one that often requires multiple surgeries that are “not a cure,” with possible lifelong complications, and gives weight to the intended parents’ statements that the boy is “our child” and “the love of our lives,” and that West left without telling them and blocked medical information. It also reports an attorney’s remark that the newborn was in critical condition and seemed to be “suffering from potential complications.”
The Right View
Daily Wire coverage frames a “nasty” and “extraordinary” fight in which West refused a “demand to abort” a child whose condition it describes as “treatable” and compatible, with staged surgeries, with survival “into adulthood.” It highlights her lawyers’ claim of “irreparable harm,” including that he “could be removed from the Texas hospital and taken to California for hospice—despite his treatable condition,” and her statement that “His life doesn’t have a price tag on it.” The account stresses that court orders have left her unable to advocate and “in the dark” about prognosis, and it features her attorney asking Gilkar, “Would you trust somebody to care for your child that wanted your child dead?”
Our Take (balanced)
The intended parents’ strongest argument is that a California court has already recognized them as the legal parents under the surrogacy arrangement, that West first agreed to terminate then cut off contact and records, and that they have sworn the child is theirs and that they are not denying care. West’s strongest argument is that those same parents sought an abortion after the diagnosis, that she is now excluded from information about a newborn who still faces further staged surgeries, and that her emergency filing warns they “may halt life-saving care” or move him to hospice before the Court can act. The unresolved tension is whether contractual and genetic parentage—including an agreement that contemplated abortion—or the surrogate’s claim that those parents cannot be trusted to pursue treatment should govern custody and medical decisions for this infant.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.