A legal dispute has emerged between a surrogate mother and the biological parents of the child she is carrying, centering on whether to proceed with an abortion following a prenatal diagnosis. The surrogate, McKenna West, an Alaskan nurse and mother of two, is seeking to continue the pregnancy despite pressure from the intended parents to terminate it.
West agreed to serve as a surrogate through Worldwide Surrogacy Specialists in September 2025. At about 20 weeks into the pregnancy, an anatomy scan revealed that the fetus, referred to as “Baby Gabriel” in court documents, has hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a serious congenital heart defect. The condition affects the left side of the heart but is considered treatable through surgery after birth.
According to West's lawsuit, the biological parents—identified only as A.B. and C.D.—invoked an “abortion on demand” provision in their surrogacy contract, requesting that West undergo a late-term abortion. Medical professionals in Alaska declined to perform the procedure, described as risky and requiring two days, prompting the parents to insist that West travel to Seattle to have the abortion carried out.
West expressed strong opposition to terminating the pregnancy, citing her emotional bond with the child and the treatable nature of the condition. She described the proposed abortion as involving injecting a substance to stop the fetus’s heart before its removal, which she finds deeply distressing. “Every life matters. No woman should be forced to end the life of the baby she is carrying — including me,” West said.
Medical experts note that infants born with HLHS typically require surgery immediately after birth to survive beyond their first week. Survival rates improve significantly thereafter; approximately 75% of affected newborns live to age five, and those making it past their first year have a 90% chance of reaching adulthood.
West has offered to absolve A.B. and C.D. of all financial and parental responsibilities for Baby Gabriel, but this proposal was reportedly rejected. The parents have threatened legal action seeking $250,000, an amount West says she cannot afford. In response, West relocated to Texas to give birth at a hospital specializing in pediatric cardiac care. The baby’s expected due date is September 3.
Legal proceedings have been initiated in both Alaska and California, with the biological parents seeking to compel West to deliver in California and to establish parental rights. West suspects their actions aim to prevent doctors from performing the necessary surgeries by denying her the ability to give birth in a facility equipped for such care. She has offered to relinquish parental rights if A.B. and C.D. agree to authorize lifesaving surgeries, but they have declined.
A.B. and C.D. have accused West of misrepresenting the situation and pursuing financial gain. Their legal filings claim West has refused to undergo certain prenatal tests that would clarify the fetus’s eligibility for surgery, suggesting concerns about compensation as the motivation.
The case highlights complex ethical and legal questions surrounding surrogacy agreements, prenatal medical decisions, and parental rights when fetal abnormalities are diagnosed during pregnancy.