*A surrogate who refused a California couple’s request to terminate a pregnancy after their unborn son was diagnosed with a life-threatening heart defect has now given birth in Texas — and the woman who carried him is seeking parental rights even though the child’s intended parents have been legally recognized as his parents.
McKenna West gave birth Wednesday to a boy with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, or HLHS, a congenital condition in which the left side of the heart is severely underdeveloped.
The newborn is receiving specialized medical care and is now in the physical custody of his intended parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, according to their attorney.
What began as a disagreement over abortion has become an extraordinary legal collision involving bodily autonomy during pregnancy, parental rights after birth and the power of courts to protect a critically ill newborn.
The Surrogate Said No to an Abortion
West entered a gestational-surrogacy agreement with Gilkar and Ahmed in 2025. At about 20 weeks, doctors diagnosed the fetus with HLHS.
Scroll to continue reading
Court records reviewed by The Texas Tribune show the couple initially decided to terminate the pregnancy after consulting doctors and researching the condition. West initially agreed before changing her mind.
West has alleged that the couple subsequently pressured her to have an abortion. The parents dispute her characterization of events and say their position later changed.
Their attorneys say Gilkar and Ahmed ultimately wanted the pregnancy continued, asked West to deliver in California and arranged specialized treatment for their son after birth.
An Alaska court recognized West’s authority to make her own medical decisions while pregnant, according to CBS News.
That distinction sits at the heart of the case: a surrogacy agreement did not give the intended parents control over whether West underwent an abortion.
Then the Fight Became About the Baby
West eventually traveled to Texas, where she sought recognition as the child’s mother and authority over his medical treatment.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened amid allegations that Gilkar and Ahmed might refuse life-saving treatment after birth. A Dallas judge ordered medically necessary life-sustaining care for the child.
But the parents emphatically deny that they intended to deny their son treatment.
Ahmed wrote in Texas court filings that since West moved to Texas, he and Gilkar had sought access to their child’s doctors so they could “make informed medical decisions for him as his parents,” according to the Associated Press.
A California court had already recognized Gilkar and Ahmed as the child’s legal parents. In Texas, a separate temporary restraining order prevents West from making medical decisions for the newborn or representing herself as his mother.
West’s attorney says her fight for parental rights isn’t over.
Parents Call It ‘Political Theater’
The intended parents’ attorney, Lee Budner, says the newborn is receiving the medical care he needs.
“Our clients’ only focus at this time is ensuring that their baby receives the medical care that he vitally needs and that they, as his parents, are able to spend every precious moment they can with him,” Budner told The Texas Tribune.
He accused West and Paxton of turning the family’s ordeal into “political theater.”
Even the child’s name reflects the two competing narratives. West and supporters have called him Gabriel, while his parents call him Rumi.
Pregnancy Rights and Parental Rights Aren’t the Same
University of Texas law professor Rachel Rebouché told the Associated Press that surrogacy contracts commonly address pregnancy termination and medical care, but such provisions can be “aspirational, not enforceable in court.”
While pregnant, West retained bodily autonomy over whether she would undergo an abortion. But giving birth after refusing one does not automatically establish that she becomes the child’s legal parent.
After birth, the legal equation changed. The baby became a separate patient, California had recognized Gilkar and Ahmed as his parents, and Texas courts had authority to intervene if they believed medically necessary care was threatened.
Meanwhile, the child at the center of the legal battle has HLHS, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says generally requires multiple surgeries. Without treatment, the condition can be fatal.
The case now extends beyond West’s right to refuse an abortion.
The harder fight concerns what that decision meant — and what it didn’t mean — once someone else’s genetically related child was born.
And while lawyers in three states sort that out, the most immediate issue belongs neither to politics nor contract law.
It’s keeping a seriously ill newborn alive.
(If You Like/Appreciate This EURweb Story, Please SHARE it!)
MORE NEWS ON EURWEB.COM: Don Lemon, DL Hughley & Jasmine Crockett Bring Raw Politics and Comedy to City Winery | WATCH
We Publish Breaking News 24/7. Don’t Miss Out! Sign up for our Free daily newsletter HERE.
