A Surrogacy Dispute Across Three States: What Happens When a Surrogate and Biological Parents Disagree on a Pregnancy
A baby boy with a severe congenital heart defect was born in Dallas on August 12, 2026, to McKenna West, an Alaska nurse who had served as a surrogate. West traveled to Texas specifically to prevent the biological parents from securing an abortion and to ensure the child received medical care after birth.
The birth was confirmed by Lee Budner, a lawyer for the biological parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed of California. Budner said the child was born that morning and was receiving care from a team of pediatric specialists. Gilkar and Ahmed have denied that they forced West to undergo an abortion.
The baby was diagnosed at 20 weeks of pregnancy with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a condition in which the left side of the heart does not fully develop, limiting the body's ability to pump oxygen-rich blood. The CDC notes that children with HLHS need a series of multiple surgeries starting soon after birth. These surgeries are not a cure, and complications can persist throughout life.
The conflict between West and the California couple hinges on competing accounts of what was agreed and when. In a July filing from an Alaska court, attorneys for Gilkar and Ahmed said the couple and West initially agreed to end the pregnancy, that West made the first appointment, and that she later changed her mind on her own, cut off contact, and withdrew medical releases. West, speaking on Megyn Kelly's podcast, said she felt trapped by the surrogacy contract and wanted to protect the baby.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened in the case, publicizing an emergency Dallas County court order that barred the fetus from being taken out of state and requested area hospitals to provide life-saving care. Paxton referred to the child as "baby Gabriel" in a news release, a name the California couple had not chosen but that West had selected. Texas law bans abortion in most circumstances except when a mother's health is at risk, a clause that has been criticized for vague wording and unclear enforcement. West, as a nurse, would have had professional familiarity with the medical dimensions of the diagnosis.
Budner called West and Paxton's actions "political theater" in comments to the Texas Tribune.
The broader context here involves several overlapping legal and ethical questions that this case brings into focus all at once: whether surrogacy contracts can be enforced across state lines, how far a state attorney general's authority reaches into a dispute between residents of other states, and how abortion bans interact with medical decisions involving a fetus and a pregnant person. Surrogacy agreements typically lay out the rights and obligations of both the intended parents and the surrogate, including what happens if a fetus is diagnosed with a serious anomaly. Think of these contracts as operating like a prenuptial agreement for reproduction: they set expectations in advance, but when the parties fundamentally disagree on a critical decision, there is no settled legal framework for resolving the conflict across state borders. Gilkar and Ahmed live in California, West lives in Alaska, and the pregnancy was carried to term in Texas, meaning three states' laws could each plausibly apply to different aspects of the dispute.
Paxton's intervention raises questions about legal standing (the right to participate in a case) and forum (which court has authority to hear it). The biological parents are not Texas residents. West traveled to Texas specifically to take advantage of the state's abortion restrictions and to obtain a court order compelling medical care for the fetus. The emergency order from a Dallas County court effectively used Texas's abortion framework to override the intended parents' wishes, regardless of what the surrogacy contract specifies or what California or Alaska law might say about its enforceability. Whether a Texas court can bind out-of-state parties to decisions about a pregnancy carried by a non-resident surrogate, and whether Paxton's office has authority to intervene when none of the main parties live in Texas, are questions the case raises without yet answering.
The medical dimension is not incidental. HLHS is among the most serious congenital heart defects, requiring staged surgeries beginning in the first days of life. The CDC's guidance that these surgeries are not curative and that complications may persist means the child's long-term prognosis will require ongoing specialized care, the logistics of which, including custody and decision-making authority, remain contested between West and the biological parents.
What remains unresolved publicly is the question of parental rights. The biological parents have said through their lawyer that they did not force an abortion. West has said the contract left her without agency. Paxton has used his office to frame the dispute around fetal protection under Texas law. The baby is now born and receiving medical care, and the legal contest over who holds decision-making authority will move into a new phase, though no court has yet ruled on the underlying parental rights question.
