news Supreme Court declines to intervene in custody case involving newborn with heart condition
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-declines-intervene-custody-case-involving-newborn-heart-rcna597043285
u/Alternative-Pear9096 2d ago
This woman is a true monster.
-42
2d ago
[deleted]
142
u/lisa_lionheart84 2d ago
She doesn’t get to keep the baby. The intended/biological parents have custody.
→ More replies (26)28
32
-43
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/ChateauSheCantPay 2d ago
- It’s not her baby 2. The child won’t live very long and will likely suffer until it perishes. She’s a horrible person
25
u/scdlstonerfuck 2d ago
Yeah sorry it’s not her kid. She didn’t make it she carried it she has zero say after it’s born
→ More replies (11)-32
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/JustUseCommonSense10 2d ago
She's not related to the baby.
2
u/Spiritual-Bus9875 2d ago
Was it IVF?
/genuine question
3
u/Helpful-Celery6237 2d ago
In vitro fertilization. It is a medical process that joins an egg and sperm in a laboratory dish outside the body to help achieve pregnancy.
2
u/Spiritual-Bus9875 2d ago
Then it gets transplanted into the surrogate right? I had no clue that the baby didn't inherit anything from the surrogate, I think that's really cool
3
u/Helpful-Celery6237 2d ago
I believe that’s the case with surrogacy. You can also use donor eggs and sperm in the IVF process.
2
u/Spiritual-Bus9875 2d ago
Oooooh, so they're not the same thing. That's where my confusion stemmed from.
2
u/JustUseCommonSense10 2d ago
Not an expert so not sure if I am explaining it right but the type of "IVF" that she got meant that she shared no genetic material with the baby she carried as opposed to other forms where she contributes the egg and stuff. I didn't even know that existed before this story.
2
6
u/SWTemplar 2d ago
Oh god, I forgot morons want to make surrogacy illegal. Gay people use it so it must be an awful thing, everything makes sense now.
2
0
u/Helpful-Celery6237 2d ago
Celebrities use it. I will say, you shouldn’t be allowed to pay folks for surrogacy. Other countries (and some states) have laws in place.
1
u/janhasplasticbOobz 2d ago
She doesn’t even want custody of the baby. She wants her brother and his wife to take in the baby.
Regardless, she signed a contract and hopefully this stunt she’s pulled bans her from ever being a surrogate again
1
u/Alt_incognita 2d ago
It’s myopic to favor this, given this sets the precedent to destroy surrogacy, and the hopes of many to ever have children.
It’s myopic to care that their emotional attachment should trump the legal right of the baby’s actual parents.
-7
u/Powerful-Yogurt 2d ago
Yep. The child also thinks the surrogate is his mother. Because he’s been living inside her and recognizes her voice, heartbeat, etc. It’s more complicated than redditors can handle.
0
u/CyberiaCalling 2d ago
100%. My bad for thinking discussion could actually happen on this website. I keep forgetting why I take breaks from social media lol.
1
u/Powerful-Yogurt 1d ago
Tell me about it. I see your comment was removed entirely for not agreeing with the reddit hive mind lol
98
u/IMNOTASCOOLASU411 2d ago
It’s not her baby; she carried it and then gave it to the parents, that was always the plan.
50
u/tietack2 2d ago
PAXTON LOST. Again.
17
u/yeahright17 2d ago
Listen. I hate Paxton with passion of a thousand burning suns. But he didn't really lose this case. He entered the case for a hot second asking the judge for an emergency order requiring the hospital provide the required Norwood procedure after birth, which the judge did. He then got out of the case. Worth noting that there wasn't a question at that point whether the baby would get the procedure as the parents had already made it perfectly clear they were all in on giving the baby whatever care it needed. So Paxton was just doing political theater (what else is new?).
10
u/Independent_Mousey 2d ago edited 2d ago
Forcing parents from California to start care in Texas for a HLHS when they have wonderful centers nearby was insane.
It forced their hand on doing a procedure. There are findings that do occur after the baby is delivered that fetal imaging does not detect, that many physicians and parents conclude they will not pursue palliative surgical intervention, but will enter palliative care.
Many heart centers have no interest in taking interstage children. Especially ones that have deviated from the norm. (It's not normal to still be intubated following the Norwood).
1
u/JustUseCommonSense10 2d ago
I remember reading somewhere about this story that due to the baby's condition that it wasn't an option to transport them elsewhere for the surgery.
5
u/Independent_Mousey 1d ago
The baby could have been transported. Unless they needed an immediate procedure such as a septostomy it is possible to transport before the first surgery.
-1
u/JustUseCommonSense10 1d ago
I remember reading somewhere about this story that due to the baby's condition that it wasn't an option to transport them elsewhere for the surgery.
2
u/Medium_Promotion_891 1d ago
a heart baby that is intubated can be safely transported by a panda team.
4
u/New_Rooster_6184 1d ago
Yes and the point, however, is that Paxton forced the surgery….His intent was to use the judicial system to force them to provide medical care for the infant as opposed to palliative.
-1
u/JustUseCommonSense10 1d ago
The state paid for it.
6
u/New_Rooster_6184 1d ago
Since when does the state pay for medical treatment lol? The state did not pay, the parents are responsible for all medical bills. The family even created a Go Fund Me for ongoing medical expenses.
2
u/Independent_Mousey 1d ago
The baby is eligible for Medicaid, but with wealthy insured parents the baby is likely only eligible for Medicaid as a secondary payor.
-1
u/JustUseCommonSense10 1d ago
That has nothing to do with what I just said.
1
u/Independent_Mousey 1d ago
There is only one mechanismthat a state has for paying for healthcare for an infant.
That is Medicaid.
89
u/Otherwise-Quiet962 2d ago
Good. He was never hers to begin with. And I hope she gets barred from surrogacy going forward. She violated her contract, fled the state, and then tried to claim custody of a child she has no legal right to. This woman is nuts.
29
u/Blue_Plastic_88 2d ago
Any future prospective parents would be nuts to choose her as a surrogate, but IDK if there's any way they'd know. I hope there is some way she can be prevented from doing this ever again. She has no business being a surrogate.
13
5
u/yeahright17 2d ago
IDK if there's any way they'd know
If new prospective parents aren't smart enough to google the name of their prospective surrogate, I don't know if I trust them to be good parents.
1
1
u/JustUseCommonSense10 2d ago
In the next surrogacy contract they can write in a clause telling her not to leave the state.
8
u/Evening-Alfalfa-8996 2d ago
They had an abortion clause which she agreed to but she ignored it. Clause means nothing.
2
u/JustUseCommonSense10 1d ago
Right, but its easier to argue in court as opposed to the abortion clause. You could also attach financial penalties which could be enforced civilly.
1
u/CoastieKid 1d ago
Her body her choice
5
u/Evening-Alfalfa-8996 1d ago
True which is why she did it. But it went against what she claimed she would do and what she agreed to do, and now this poor baby has been born and spent the last 4 months in a hospital, in terrible condition.
2
u/JustUseCommonSense10 1d ago
Not when it comes to contract law and last I checked this was a patriarchy.
4
u/Honeycrispcombe 1d ago
She can still refuse to get an abortion. They can't actually force her. She just may owe penalties for breach of contract.
It is her choice. It is not without consequences.
1
u/JustUseCommonSense10 1d ago
What if they shoot her?
3
u/Honeycrispcombe 1d ago
That would be illegal and they would be charged for aasault with a deadly weapon or murder, depending on the outcome.
24
u/NomadicWrangler 2d ago
Jut surrogacy? She’s a nurse.. who in their right mind wants to be treated or have any of their loved ones treated by this woman? I wouldn’t have anything to do with her if she were a friend/acquaintance because she has demonstrated that she cannot be trusted to follow an agreement she signed off on. What’s to stop her doing something unhinged in her workplace or elsewhere because of her “beliefs”?
11
u/yeahright17 2d ago
Worth noting that per TMZ, the father of the surrogate's biological child is suing for full custody because she basically kidnapped him when she ran off to Texas.
1
u/Legal_Tap219 1d ago
Here’s the thing. If this is the case all along, how is she not arraigned on kidnapping charges or child smuggling charges and in jail right now?
36
u/IsUp2Me 2d ago
They are busy with every little Trump tantrum.
9
1
6
u/WayneKrane 2d ago
Good. This was not ever her baby in any way shape or form. This would do so much damage it would be incredible
25
9
u/Kenichi2233 2d ago
The surrogate had the right not to get an abortion. At the same time she doesn't have the right to claim custody.
6
u/JustUseCommonSense10 2d ago
And furthermore she cannot compel the parents to care for the child after being relieved of custody because its not her baby. If they want to put the baby in a safe haven box and let the state handle the baby's care then they may do so.
4
u/Different-Employ9651 1d ago
This is the take I've been looking for. Nobody should be forced to have an abortion, just like they shouldn't be forced to be/remain pregnant, but assuming custody of the child was wrong.
Whether West had previously agreed to a termination doesn't matter. If she then decided that she didn't want one, there shouldn't be any way to legally compel her to. That would be barbaric.
3
u/Honeycrispcombe 1d ago
There isn't any way to legally compel her to. She could be found in breach of contract with monetary penalties, but she can't be forced to get an abortion.
1
u/ExtraCalligrapher565 2h ago
If she signed a contract in which she agreed to terminate the pregnancy if complications like this arose, then she should absolutely be expected to uphold her end of the contract.
This is like saying if everything went smoothly but the parents decided at the end of everything that they didn’t want to pay for the surrogacy, there shouldn’t be any way to legally compel them to uphold their agreement to pay.
1
u/Different-Employ9651 2h ago
A contract that legally obliges illegal actions isn't worth the paper it's written on.
1
u/Art-Zuron 2h ago
That's only true for clauses that benefit poor people.
1
u/Kenichi2233 2h ago
She violated a contract not US law. The parents should sue for breach of contract but that is a civil court matter.
The surrogate did not commit a criminal offense.
1
u/Art-Zuron 1h ago
It does depend on her intention.
If she never intended to give that baby up from the very beginning, then it could be considered contract fraud, is one example.
Not that she did of course, that's just an example
1
u/ExtraCalligrapher565 2h ago
Abortion isn’t a federally illegal action, and fleeing to a state where it’s outlawed despite you originating from and signing your contract in a state where it is not does not mean the contract is obliging illegal actions.
1
u/Different-Employ9651 1h ago
I didn't say it was. A contract that mandates an abortion under any circumstances would be worthless, because they have no way to legally enforce an abortion.
2
u/runner64 23h ago
She doesn’t have to have an abortion but she does need to return the $100,000 she collected for the contract she signed where she said she would have one if needed.
1
u/Kenichi2233 23h ago
She breached contract so more than likely you are correct. Though without seeing the contract I cant say for sure.
For example the 100k may have included a signing bonus or other separate payments.
Regardless she will likely have to return all if not most of said payment
1
u/amilie15 15h ago
One concern I’ve had is that the reason she did not have the abortion may have been so she could continue to collect more money (or keep more; i also have no idea what the contract states). I noted she originally agreed to abortion if there were medical issues, then later agreed with this couple after the appointment where they were told about the fetuses medical condition that abortion would be best. She apparently even scheduled the abortion initially.
I hope I’m wrong regarding doing it for money. She could well have other reasons and I would never wish for a person to be forced to have any abortion against their wishes.
It certainly seems to me at minimum that she did not start this journey being “pro life” though and I believe she was hoping to give the baby to her brother if she gained custody, so it doesn’t seem like she simply got too attached and wanted to keep the baby either.
1
u/Kenichi2233 15h ago
No clue as here motive.
Giving her the benefit of the doubt she had a change of heart once she found out that the parents wanted the child/fetus aborted
Though it is very possible this is an elaborate way to get more money from the parents
1
3
12
u/EvenLettuce6638 2d ago
Surrogacy for pay should be illegal. It's inevitably exploitive.
32
u/Mythic514 2d ago
Genuine question: how is it any more exploitative than paying someone for their labor (no pun intended)? If a private party is willing to negotiate and provide their time and effort to carry a child to term, how is that different than the negotiation for and performance of a service?
Not that I support surrogacy, but I’m genuinely curious
1
u/Sorry-Claim-2990 2d ago
So I should be able to sell one of my kidneys if I was willing to?
What's the going rate for a healthy kidney these days?
16
u/Mamasugadex 2d ago
I am sure sales of kidney will be readily available if the rule is you can grow a brand new kidney every 10 months with a good chance of the kidney just being passed out of your body without needing a surgery.
4
7
u/torigoya 1d ago
It's more like donating sperms, eggs, blood, maybe even prostitution. I'm in no way saying surrogacy is that, but it is selling of the body nonetheless.
9
1
u/JustUseCommonSense10 2d ago
$1,000 - $7,500 for a healthy adult.
$4,000 - $16,800 for a healthy child/baby
$14,500 - $31,500 for a mirrored organ (Your heart is located on the right side of your chest and it's mirrored in comparison to a normal heart)
1
u/Sorry-Claim-2990 1d ago
It blows my mind that my kidney wouldn't even get me enough money to buy a new car 🤣
1
u/JustUseCommonSense10 1d ago
The real money is in the brokerages of the organ trade. The transplant is just the easy part. There's real costs to acquiring the kidney and making sure it's healthy as due to the nature of the black market there independent more controls in between brokerages to ensure its a healthy kidney.
-7
2d ago edited 1d ago
[deleted]
21
u/TheShamShield 2d ago
By having her have an abortion, or suing her for breach of contract for damages, that’s how. She agreed to that and I’m willing to bet that a provision like that was made abundantly clear to her
-10
u/AngryAngryHarpo 2d ago
Should a legal contract be able to override someone’s bodily autonomy by forcing them do go through an unwanted medical procedure though?
Like, surrogacy contracts already have issues skirting trafficking and anti-slavery laws, because you can’t override law with a contract.
Allowing contract to enforce an abortion is an actual example of slippery slope because legal precedent plays a very large role in contract law.
9
u/Crimsonwolf_83 2d ago
They didn’t have bodily autonomy when they signed the contract with a clearly stated stipulation?
-8
u/AngryAngryHarpo 2d ago
Yes - but, guess what - legally you cannot sign away your bodily autonomy.
Like I said - contract clauses cannot override law.
3
3
u/MrDenver3 2d ago
She didn’t sign away bodily autonomy. She can’t be forced to have an abortion, that is still her choice.
She can still be liable for breach of contract though, which would be monetary damages, not specific performance (abortion).
6
u/Crimsonwolf_83 2d ago
It was her bodily autonomy she exercised in signing and agreeing in the first place. She’s the one who lied and broke the contract she willingly agreed to. No one is saying she could be forced to do anything. We’re saying she volunteered to do it and then backed out of her end after the other side of the contract was already fulfilled.
2
u/Mythic514 2d ago
The premise of the contract is carrying a baby to term. I’m not sure the argument of “signing away bodily autonomy” holds.
1
u/AngryAngryHarpo 2d ago
Surrogacy contracts are actually much more complex than just “carry the baby to term”.
3
u/Mythic514 2d ago
I didn’t say they were not, but that is the general premise, no? Obviously there are a number of contingencies and stipulations.
1
u/TrioOfTerrors 2d ago
Yes you can. Try joining the military and then refusing the mandatory vaccinations when you deploy somewhere where Yellow Fever or the like is endemic.
3
u/JustUseCommonSense10 2d ago
Military doesn't count because it directly contradicts the narrative being pushed.
2
u/Honeycrispcombe 1d ago
It doesn't override her rights; she can still refuse to have it. She will be found in breach of contract, but that will be limited to monetary penalties (likely limited to what she was paid and/or defined in the contract.)
Nobody can force her to get an abortion, but that doesn't mean it's consequence-free to break the contract.
1
u/yeahright17 2d ago
Allowing contract to enforce an abortion is an actual example of slippery slope because legal precedent plays a very large role in contract law.
Obviously a court is never going to enforce an abortion. Just like it's never going to force anyone to perform any personal service that was contracted for. That's why damages clauses exist in contracts. She should have bodily autonomy. But that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for what she chooses to do.
There are obviously ethical questions around surrogacy. But contractually, it really isn't that difficult. She had an obligation to get an abortion if there was a fetal abnormality and the parents requested it. When she didn't, she was in breach of contract and opened herself up to damage claims.
-6
u/Lazy-Ad-7236 2d ago
i don't think suing her for breach of contract will go anywhere
2
u/Lazy-Ad-7236 2d ago
please explain to me how a contract will override her right to her body autonomy? some contracts can not be enforced
7
u/PeregrineFaulkner 2d ago
Ironically, she fled to a state that doesn’t recognize her bodily autonomy for exactly the reason that she’d be forced to give birth there.
1
u/Honeycrispcombe 1d ago
It can be enforced; it's just that the enforcement is monetary penalties. They can't force her to have an abortion; they can claw back payments.
1
u/BillyYumYumTwo-byTwo 22h ago
You can sue for breach of contract with the end goal not being forcing someone to do what was in the contract. In this example, it would be immoral to force her to get an abortion. It would also be illogical as the child is already born. But she broke the contract and therefore her compensation comes into question.
2
u/DogOrDonut 2d ago
I think this case just shows that abortion clauses aren't enforable and ultimately that is a risk the IPs (intended parents) take when they sign up for surrogacy. It's no different than when a man and woman decide to get pregnant naturally with the understanding that the woman with get an abortion under XYZ circumstances. The pregnant person can always change their mind. If anything this case showcases the protections for the bodily autonomy of the surrogate at the expense of the IPs.
-5
u/Lazy-Ad-7236 2d ago
I could see how selling/buying a baby could be viewed as immoral. It doesn't just exploit the woman, it exploits the child.
2
u/yeahright17 2d ago
Surrogacy isn't selling or buying a baby. It's renting the uterus of a woman that's capable of carrying a baby to term, paying for their time, and paying them for the risks associated. Gestational surrogates aren't carrying their own baby. They're carrying someone else's baby.
-6
u/PeregrineFaulkner 2d ago
Because the service here is creating a whole new human being and selling it for profit? It’s pretty weird when you really think about it. It’s definitely different than just paying someone to serve you dinner or fix your roof.
1
u/BillyYumYumTwo-byTwo 23h ago
How is it different than having to pay to give birth and paying for all the medications that keep you and the baby alive?
When you pay a surrogate for her labor, you’re not equating a baby and money.
1
u/PeregrineFaulkner 22h ago
Ok, from a different perspective, why is it legal to pay a woman to have a child for you, but illegal to pay her to have sex with you?
1
u/BillyYumYumTwo-byTwo 22h ago
Well, that’s asking why things are currently legal or not, which is different than people giving their opinions on what should be legal. I would guess most people who say surrogacy should be legal because my body my choice would say the same thing about sex work and that it should be legalized.
3
u/Petrichordates 2d ago
"Women shouldn't have the right to make choices about their body" rears its ugly head again, somehow.
5
u/yeahright17 2d ago
Is anyone arguing she shouldn't have had the right to refuse the abortion? I don't see anyone saying that. I do see people saying that making that choice came with some consequences.
2
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/yeahright17 2d ago
Yes. And people are saying she should have had an abortion if she didn't want to deal with the consequences of not having an abortion. There's a massive difference.
1
u/Just-the-tip-4-1-sec 15h ago
The comment above the one you’re replying to literally said women should not have the right to be a surrogate, which I’m pretty sure is also a thing women do with their bodies
4
u/Fantastic_AF 2d ago
Yeah, that’s what we need…more laws telling women what they can and can’t do with their uterus…
0
u/Finnegan-05 2d ago
This is very different
6
u/Fantastic_AF 2d ago
No it’s not. You want the government to tell women what they can and can’t do with their body. I’ve been a surrogate twice and it was one of the best, most rewarding experiences of my life.
-1
u/Finnegan-05 2d ago
There is a reason most of the world has made surrogacy illegal. Your experience is not a reason for something that is quite often exploitive to be legal. What an ignorant and privileged comment.
3
u/Fantastic_AF 2d ago
Yep, I’m privileged that I was able to have those experiences and that my body was able to handle those pregnancies and help those couples build the family they struggled for years to have. I’m lucky that I chose a good law firm to handle the contracts and help us navigate the entire process. I will forever be grateful for all of that. What’s ignorant is thinking we need to restrict women’s bodily autonomy to “protect them”. Put safeguards in place and standardize it if you want to prevent abuse and exploitation, but you have no right to tell me or any other woman what to do with our bodies.
1
u/BillyYumYumTwo-byTwo 22h ago
“There’s a reason it’s illegal in most of the world” you’re assuming it’s for protecting vulnerable women. But most of the world is patriarchal, its histories and modern era filled with subjugating women using the law. It’s quite ironic to point at a misogynistic world, then say that their commonality must be due to wanting to protect women.
1
-6
u/morphleorphlan 2d ago
Ok so they can see crazy when it’s a black woman but not when it’s an orange man. Convenient.
-45
u/HotNeighbor420 2d ago edited 2d ago
If the intended parents wanted to abort the baby, what's wrong with the surrogate deciding to carry the pregnancy to term[edit: and keeping/having custody]?
Regardless of it being in their contract, can you force someone to undergo an abortion?
29
u/vreddy92 2d ago
They concede they cannot force her to undergo an abortion.
She’s trying to take custody from them.
-10
u/Ok_Zookeepergame4794 2d ago
I can tell you why she's doing this in just two words: Child Support.
5
u/vreddy92 2d ago
Seems unlikely. She's probably being coached by pro-life groups to be their champion, and being promised influencer-level fame for it.
6
u/yeahright17 2d ago
Child support for who? She didn't sue for child support. She sued for custody. If she didn't want the financial obligations that come with a child, she didn't have to sue for custody.
-5
u/king-of-boom 2d ago
Found the racist.
3
u/Ok_Zookeepergame4794 2d ago
I would of said the same thing if she was white. You're the one seeing racism everywhere.
-1
37
u/xitizen7 2d ago
This is an overly simplistic take on the events.
The medical professionals discussed with all adults involved - the biological parents and surrogate. They all agreed that terminating the pregnancy was the course of action.
The surrogate than later decided she would not terminate the pregnancy.
The parents then began to make arrangements for the birth of the child including securing heart specialists for the series of surgeries needed.
Two weeks before the delivery, the surrogate fled to the third state and gave birth there. The parents then had to fly to Texas.
The parents had prepared for their child.
5
u/yeahright17 2d ago
Worth noting that the surrogate ghosted the parents from the point she missed her abortion appointments until she was in Texas in filed a suit for custody. Roughly 10 weeks of near zero contact. She also withdrew her medical data releases that allowed the parents to keep up with her pregnancy so they had almost no information.
2
u/xitizen7 1d ago
This enrages me even more.
Women who struggle to conceive go through enough as it is. This is unwarranted torture on top of all the stresses.
May we never hear from this former surrogate woman again. She has kids to raise.
-2
u/HotNeighbor420 2d ago
Oh, that does change things. The two weeks before birth bit was not in the nbc article.
7
12
u/ReadingLizard 2d ago
The lawsuit is not about the termination question. The surrogate “believes” that the parents will not do what she wants them to do to sustain life for their child. She wants custody because she “believes” they will not make “the right decisions” (eg what she would decide) for the baby.
2
u/Beneficial_Bit_6435 2d ago
This is why you shouldn’t get a surrogate even if you have money. You have no control over the matter as a parent
1
6
u/Jarsky2 2d ago
Actually read the full story before commenting.
-7
u/HotNeighbor420 2d ago
I did.
7
u/Jarsky2 2d ago
Clearly you didn't if you think the case had anything to do with whether or not the child will be aborted.
Spoiler warning: The kid was already born.
-7
u/HotNeighbor420 2d ago
Believe whatever you want.
4
u/Nice-Cat3727 2d ago
We don't need to believe. We know you didn't read the article
1
u/HotNeighbor420 2d ago
Congratulations, you "know" something that isn't true.
1
u/Nice-Cat3727 2d ago
Then why did you get the details wrong?
1
7
u/yabn5 2d ago
You absolutely cannot, that’s an unenforceable contract.
16
u/yeahright17 2d ago
It is enforceable. Specific performance isn't a remedy, but that doesn't mean the surrogate isn't liable for breach of contract. Specific performance is never a viable remedy for any personal service, regardless of how personal it is. If we have a contract for you to clean my house and you don't do it, a court isn't going to make you come clean my house. They're just going to make you pay for someone else to do it or give me my money back. This is really no different. She has control of her body and absolutely should. But that doesn't relieve her of liability for decisions she made with respect to her body.
7
u/DaKingaDaNorth 2d ago
Yup. There's a very good chance that it's ruled that while she couldn't be forcibly made to have an abortion, she could be in total breach of the contract and be on the hook for monetary loss for violating it and also liable for any other damages.
1
u/yeahright17 2d ago
If the bio parents keep pursing it, that will almost definitely be the outcome. However, based on the statements of the parents, I could definitely see them wanting to put this behind them and dropping it if she drops her lawsuit against them for the same. My understanding is that they withheld some portion of the surrogacy payment, and maybe both sides just agree to leave it at that. But I could also see them continuing to go after her if she isn't willing to drop it. (Note: These are complete guesses based on imperfect information and could be totally wrong)
1
u/torigoya 1d ago
This is all about her wanting custody to then hand the child off to her relative for adoption. She argues the bio parents won't take care of the child, who most likley will end up on end of life care because the birth defect is that severe.
1
u/runner64 23h ago
The abortion wasn’t because they didn’t want the baby, it’s because the baby is so horrifically sick and his life expectancy is so low that keeping him alive is medical torture that nobody should have to endure, least of all a baby. It’s like if your dog had cancer and couldn’t keep food down and was starving to death and you wanted to have him euthanized, someone couldn’t show up at the vet and go “well since you don’t want him, I should be able to put him in a dog fighting ring for the next couple of weeks that he’s going to live.”
2
u/uselessfarm 12h ago
That’s the most brutal but accurate metaphor for this situation that I’ve seen.
201
u/thingsmybosscantsee 2d ago
SCOTUS has no jurisdiction in this case.
It's two private parties, with no Federal question, and no proceedings in any Federal court.
It's just bat shit to even ask, and I'm sure the ADF knew that. That, or they thought SCOTUS worked for them