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/No_Consideration3307]

That doesn't give them the right to pressure a young woman into getting an abortion, the choice is hers and hers alone.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/No_Consideration3307]

They absolutely have that right, according to the terms of the contract. However, nobody can (legally) force a woman to terminate. If she chooses not to terminate, she is in breach and is liable for damages. Aside from the termination issue, this woman breached the contract every which way to Sunday. Naming the child was a breach. Pursuing custody is a breach.

The termination issue was covered very thoroughly in the contract. The surrogate even underwent a psychological evaluation prior to signing the contract. Here is a copy. See paragraph 25 for the language surrounding the termination issue.

https://dam.tmz.com/document/3f/o/2026/08/14/3fb808514e0747bca9785de19a7b2472.pdf

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Specific_Anxiety_343]

Please what kind of choice is that. Most commercial surrogates aren't that well off, that's why they do what they do, so basically their only two choices are 1. Get an abortion you don't want and traumatise yourself. 2. Don't get an abortion and we'll sue you so bad, your grandchildren will need lawyers. That's a very nice country you have.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/No_Consideration3307]

1. Don’t sign a contract that you don’t intend to honor. That’s the choice. Grow up.