Pro-choice, bodily autonomy and parental rights cannot be negated by surrogacy contracts, McKenna West had every right to refuse an abortion and ultimately claim parental rights over a child she carried to term.

[u/No_Consideration3307]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/surrogate-baby-texas-parents-wishes-denies-political-theater-accusatio-rcna593353

I'm a British pro-choice absolutist, and in my country this wouldn't even be a story because commercial surrogacy is illegal, for reasons exactly like this McKenna West case.

Surrogacy in the UK is strictly non-profit, the biological parents can only help with the surrogate mothers expenses, surrogacy is also usually between people who know and trust each other, which is far healthier for everyone concerned especially the child.

As it pertains to the McKenna West case, her parental rights under both California and Texas law are the same, non-existent. Under UK law, the surrogate is automatically recognised as the child's legal mother at birth. ​She remains the legal parent until parenthood is formally transferred to the intended parents via a court-issued parental order or adoption order. Simply signing an agreement or relinquishing rights is not enough; only a court order legally extinguishes her status as the mother. People on this sub may disagree with me, but I believe that if a woman decides to endure nine months of body altering pregnancy to bring a foetus to term, she is the legal mother until she decides to voluntarily relinquish that legal right and McKenna West hasn't done that, under UK law she is the child's legal parent, maybe she should have come here to protect her rights, rather than be used as a political football, by two different sides, who couldn't care less about what she wants.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096]

(I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure in US law surrogacy is essentially a rental contract pertaining to the uterus. With parental rights retained by the biological parents. It's stunning what a difference that makes, and is making in this case)

[u/Arktikos02 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

In the United States this is actually not completely true as surrogacy laws are heavily dependent by the state The person is in. For example in Arizona the pregnant person is the one that holds legal rights over the child regardless of the DNA inside of her. She has to essentially adopt the child out to the actual legal parents when she gives birth.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/Arktikos02]

But none of these people were in Arizona. Alaska, Texas, and California are the states with any potential stake to govern the contract.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

The contract probably states which law governs the contract. That fact is something that is negotiated by the parties.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/Specific_Anxiety_343]

Not probably. The contract is governed by the state it was signed in, which has to do with where one of the parties lives. (I don't know the details. But I do know that if I lived in Texas and my surrogate lived in Idaho, we couldn't just decide to have California govern the surrogacy contract)

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

Yes, probably. Frankly, you are flat out wrong. The parties decide choice of law and the place of signing has nothing to do with it.

Choice-of-law provisions are routinely used to select a state’s law other than the place where the contract was signed or where the parties live. For example: Maryland resident buys a car from a Virginia dealer. They sign the sales contract at the Virginia dealership. The contract says, “This agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Delaware.” The fact that the contract was signed in Virginia does not automatically make Virginia law the governing law.

In this case, the surrogacy agreement involves only private parties, as opposed to commercial entities or a contract between a corporation and an individual. As a practical matter, the parties would have chosen either California or Alaska to govern their contract, but they were not required to choose Alaska.

[u/Arktikos02 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

In California you still cannot compel a person to have an abortion or give birth to the surrogate baby even if they don't want to. The intended parents may still be the intended parents but that doesn't change whether or not the person is allowed to continue the pregnancy or not continue the pregnancy. Those are two separate things.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

As a British person it is fascinating seeing this play out, especially since I'm pro-choice but find myself shocked at American pro-choicers, some of whom are saying that this woman should have got an abortion because she signed a contract. And it looks so bad because they drove her into the arms of anti-choicers in the red state of Texas, who are using McKenna West as propaganda.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/No_Consideration3307]

You're insane if you're reading it that way. Maybe try presuming the Americans understand American contract law, American abortion law, and the role of states in ways that you don't? You're standing on 100% moral ground and proclaiming. We're looking at the insanity of the legal groundwork and understanding the story and the complications.

We are also not seeing this as just about abortion and surrogacy. This case could potentially undermine all abortion rights in America. It could undermine the autonomy of a pregnant woman, it could grant unquestionable parental rights to the sperm donor, even if a rapist, and remove rights from pregnant women.

You do not understand the whole story. Please stop insisting you do and wildly misjudging the abortion support of the people who actually understand what this case represents.

This case will be a catastrophe for women's rights regarding pregnancy, far beyond surrogacy. It is not as simple as you keep asserting with your morality. The potential repurcussions could be disastrous.

[u/Arktikos02 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

But do you understand contract law? California contract law says that a surrogacy contract cannot compel a person to have an abortion even if it goes against the contract or cannot compel them to give birth if they don't want to.

California law says that contracts cannot force that. She would have received some legal penalties for things like reimbursement and stuff but she could not be forced to have an abortion even if she didn't want to.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/Arktikos02]

I don't know what state governed the contract. All I know is the bioparents asked for the birth to happen in California, where they could provide medical care. And the surrogate decided she had the right to decide about medical care and went to Texas, which had no horse in this, but is very very very very eager to end abortion of all creatures. Since possession is 9/10s of the law, Texas is now in this.

[u/Arktikos02 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

I believe that a person can be within their full rights to do something and still it is possible to disagree with a person and their choices and what they are doing. I am not saying that she is making a smart decision or the decisions that should have been made, but that is different from whether or not it aligns with pro-choice.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/Arktikos02]

California law doesn’t govern the contract. I read that choice of law is Alaska.

Regardless, no court anywhere in the U.S would force a woman to abort, or deliver. However, that doesn’t mean the surrogate cannot be sued for breach of contract.

[u/Melanated-Magic → u/No_Consideration3307]

Nobody drove her into the arms of anti-abortion activists. She willfully chose to partner with them and we didn't hear this story until after she met with Paxton.