The California couple who tried to compel their surrogate to abort their son because of a treatable heart condition are now suing her for more than $100,000 for refusing to end the pregnancy and instead allowing the child a chance at life.
The case centers on Alaska nurse and mother of two, McKenna West, who agreed to serve as a surrogate for California residents Nasheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed. As reported by Gateway Pundit, West was carrying a baby boy later diagnosed at 20 weeks with hypoplastic left heart syndrome when the biological parents invoked an abortion clause in their surrogacy contract and demanded she terminate the pregnancy.
Rather than comply, West left Alaska for Texas, a state whose pro-life protections and legal framework offered stronger recognition of the woman who gives birth. She delivered the child, whom she calls Gabriel, on August 12, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened with emergency orders to ensure the newborn received life-sustaining medical care.
Although Gilkar and Ahmed subsequently obtained temporary physical custody while the infant undergoes treatment, they have now filed a countersuit against West. The couple accuses her of breaching the surrogacy agreement by refusing to abort and by relocating to Texas so she would be recognized as the birth mother under state law.
According to the lawsuit obtained by TMZ, the surrogacy contract paid West $60,000 and contained a provision allowing the intended parents to demand an abortion if fetal abnormalities were detected.
Gilkar and Ahmed allege that by declining their order to terminate the pregnancy and traveling to Texas, West violated the agreement and caused them financial and emotional harm.
They are seeking more than $100,000 in damages, along with additional unspecified sums for what they describe as her malicious, outrageous conduct. West, however, has framed her actions as a moral stand against contractual abortion, insisting that no private agreement should override the fundamental right to life.
Speaking to The New York Post, West declared, Every life matters. No woman should be forced to end the life of the baby she is carrying including me Baby Gabriel should receive a chance at life.
She continues to assert parental rights under Texas law, which presumes the woman who gives birth to be the legal mother, and her legal team is prepared to defend that position aggressively.
Her attorney has underscored that Gilkar and Ahmed halted all payments once West refused the abortion demand, further illustrating the transactional nature of the arrangement. They have also signaled readiness to take the case as far as necessary, including to the Supreme Court, if that is what it takes to defend both Wests conscience rights and the childs right to live.
Reproductive law specialists acknowledge that West faces an uphill battle under conventional surrogacy frameworks, which often prioritize contractual intent over the surrogates later objections.
Yet the case has already ignited a nationwide debate over whether parents should be able to use private contracts to force abortion, particularly in an era when President Trumps pro-life judicial appointments have reshaped the legal landscape.
Gabriels heart condition requires multiple surgeries but is widely regarded as treatable, with strong survival rates when proper care is provided. West even offered to assume full responsibility for the baby and release Gilkar and Ahmed from all parental and financial obligations, an offer they rejected.
Instead, the biological parents appeared inclined toward palliative care that would allow the newborn to die and pursued legal action in multiple states to either compel an abortion or control the circumstances of his birth. After West delivered in Texas and Paxton secured court orders preventing the infants removal from the state absent medical necessity, Gilkar and Ahmed nonetheless succeeded in obtaining temporary custody.
Now, as the child they once sought to abort fights for his life in specialized care, they are pressing ahead with demands for financial penalties against the woman who carried and protected him.
West continues to call the boy Gabriel, while the biological parents refer to him as Rumi, a symbolic divide that underscores the deeper moral and cultural clash at the heart of this case.
Login