Can A Contract Force An Abortion?

A couple signed a clause to end a pregnancy for a heart defect—then their surrogate chose life anyway, and the courtroom lit up.

Story Snapshot

A California couple sued their surrogate for refusing an abortion after a severe fetal heart diagnosis.
The surrogate, an Alaska nurse, said she could not end the pregnancy and went to Texas to give birth.
Texas courts ordered hospitals to provide life-sustaining care to the newborn, now known as Gabriel.
Legal scholars say courts rarely, if ever, force a woman to abort despite contract terms.

A signed abortion clause collides with a living heartbeat

Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed say their surrogate, McKenna West, broke their agreement by refusing a termination after doctors flagged hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a grave cardiac defect. A filing reported by a major entertainment news outlet shows an August 2025 agreement with a clause calling for termination upon request for a fetal abnormality. The couple countersued for more than $100,000, framing the refusal as breach of contract and a denial of their parental authority.

West, a 28-year-old nurse from Alaska, wrote that she could not go through with a scheduled abortion. In a letter quoted in court records, she said, “This baby is in my body, and I care for him very much,” and that the request caused “deep pain and sorrow.” She described her duty to protect the vulnerable, consistent with her work and beliefs, and asked to cancel the procedure. She later traveled to Texas, where she sought to be recognized as the birth mother under state law.

Texas court steps in as birth nears

A Texas court issued a temporary restraining order that kept West in Dallas for medical care and restricted transport of the baby after birth. The order obliged major hospitals to provide life-sustaining treatment to the child, nicknamed Gabriel. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened, arguing for the baby’s chance at care immediately after delivery. The baby was born in Dallas amid a multistate tangle, with California proceedings affirming the couple’s parental status.

The couple’s camp points to the contract and earlier discussions about termination following the diagnosis. Their filings argue that surrogacy only works if intended parents can rely on agreed medical choices, especially in dire fetal cases. West’s camp points to the same fact pattern and says the core question is simpler: a woman cannot be ordered to end a pregnancy because a contract says so. That claim aligns with much of the legal commentary on the enforceability of abortion clauses.

What the law tends to do—and what it will not do

Legal scholars for years have warned that courts will not force a woman to abort as “specific performance,” even if a contract says she must. Analyses of surrogacy law, including law review work, say judges may award money damages in some disputes, but they stop at compelling pregnancy outcomes. Past cases show how selective reduction or termination clauses often fail when they hit the wall of bodily autonomy and medical ethics, even while other contract terms stand.

A surrogate who refused to have an abortion after the biological parents requested one following a fetal heart defect diagnosis gave birth this week, setting up an increasingly bitter legal battle over surrogacy, abortion, and parental rights.

The dispute began after McKenna… pic.twitter.com/ejFBQpfiTn

— Mosheh Oinounou (@Mosheh) August 15, 2026

That line makes common sense to many Americans: contracts can spell out many duties, but they do not reach into a human body to command life and death. Conservative thinking also tends to separate property promises from moral absolutes. A baby with a beating heart is not a defective product. When parents ask a court to enforce an abortion clause, they ask the law to call life a liability. That is a dead end in both conscience and court, and this case shows why.

The stakes: a blueprint for future surrogacy fights

This case now sketches the next chapter in surrogacy law. Expect more contracts to include detailed paths for fetal anomaly decisions, yet also clearer warnings that no court will force a termination. Expect more venue fights, as parties race to states that match their values and laws. And expect more judges to separate custodial rights and medical decisions, protecting care for the child while rejecting any attempt to weaponize a clause against the woman who carried him.