An Alaska nurse hired as a surrogate is waging a multi-state legal battle to protect the life of an unborn baby after the biological parents demanded she abort him following a heart defect diagnosis, and now two state courts are pulling her in opposite directions.
McKenna West, a single mother of two and a nurse in Alaska, is 35 weeks pregnant with a baby boy she carried for a California couple through a Connecticut-based surrogacy agency. At the 20-week ultrasound, a doctor found no blood flowing through the left side of the baby's heart. A maternal-fetal medicine specialist diagnosed the condition as hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a serious but treatable defect that requires a series of three surgeries after birth.
The biological parents, identified in court documents only as AB and CD, responded by requesting West undergo an abortion. West refused. What followed is a legal and moral collision that now stretches across four states, involves a quarter-million-dollar lawsuit, and raises a question American law has never cleanly answered: who decides whether a surrogate baby lives?
West told reporters the diagnosis blindsided everyone involved. All prior genetic testing had come back normal, and the pregnancy had been uneventful.
"So we were all really upset. It was completely unexpected. Everything had been going great. There had been no signs of anything being wrong. All the genetic testing was normal."
At the first meeting after the diagnosis, the couple raised the idea of abortion. West pushed back. She researched treatment options and found a hospital in Dallas that she said had a 100 percent success rate in recent years with the first of the three surgeries the baby would need. She told the surrogacy agency, Worldwide Surrogacy Specialist in LLC, that she could live with a friend in Texas to reduce costs.
The agency's liaison told West the couple remained concerned about the baby's future quality of life. Then, on the Monday after the diagnosis, the liaison called with the official request: the biological parents wanted West to abort.
West described in court filings what the procedure would have involved, an injection to stop the baby's heart at approximately 24 weeks, after which he would be "literally ripped apart and dismembered" as he was removed from her uterus. She refused.
"I knew that I didn't want to have to go through [an abortion]. I didn't want for this baby, for his life to be cut short."
The surrogacy agreement West signed with the couple through the Connecticut-based agency included a clause requiring her to abort the baby in the event of an "anomaly." The contract also stated that the laws of Alaska would govern the agreement.
That clause is now at the center of the legal fight. The biological parents argue the contract gives them authority over the pregnancy. West and the State of Alaska argue that no contract can override a woman's constitutional right to make her own medical decisions, including the decision to continue a pregnancy.
Before the dispute turned legal, small details hinted at where the couple was heading. The biological father told West she could mail the 20-week ultrasound images but to address the envelope only to him. The couple had already taken the baby's 12-week ultrasound off their refrigerator.
One of the most striking turns came from inside the couple's own family. The wife's brother reached out to West directly and told her he did not want her to go through the abortion.
"I do not want you to go through this. I know you don't want to go through this. He had talked to his wife, and said, 'We'll adopt this baby if it means you don't have to go through this procedure. We're here for you. We love you either way.'"
West then contacted Ellen Fisher, a podcaster and friend, who had previously hosted Lila Rose, founder and president of the pro-life advocacy organization Live Action, on her show. Within 12 hours, West received word that Rose would help her and her children get to Texas to meet with doctors at the Dallas hospital.
"I couldn't believe that within 12 hours of talking to my brother, I was getting these screenshots of Ellen's and Lila's text exchanges and I finally felt hopeful."
By the next day, West was meeting with attorneys. The legal machinery on both sides began moving fast.
West filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Alaska seeking sole custody of the baby so that doctors in Texas could treat him. The biological parents responded by filing their own lawsuit in a California court, seeking to establish parental rights and demanding $250,000 from West, the money they had paid her plus additional damages. They also demanded she travel to California to give birth.
The State of Alaska entered the case with a formal Statement of Interest, arguing that the Alaska Constitution protects a surrogate mother's right to make deeply personal medical decisions.
"The constitutional right of privacy protects a woman's autonomy to make those decisions for herself. It does not empower contracting parties or courts to make them for her here."
The California couple fired back in a legal objection, accusing West and what they called her "drove of out-of-state, special interest-driven attorneys" of "bullying and intimidation." They argued the proceedings ignored their constitutional rights as parents and the best interests of their unborn child. Their filing claimed West "continues to cause confusion and stress at a time when the only interests being considered should be the child's."
Last week, the Alaska Supreme Court denied a motion to force West to relocate to California to give birth. But the same ruling also held that a California court can dictate where West gives birth and which medical team treats her, a split decision that left West in legal limbo.
Since that ruling, a California court has granted the biological parents a judgment reasserting their parental rights. West is now appealing that judgment on an emergency basis.
Hypoplastic left heart syndrome is serious. It is not a death sentence. The baby needs three surgeries, the first shortly after birth. New York Presbyterian Hospital puts the odds of a baby surviving to age five after the first surgery at 75 percent. Babies who make it to their first birthday have a 90 percent chance of reaching age 18.
The Dallas hospital where West is now receiving care has reported a 100 percent success rate in recent years with the initial surgery. West offered to go to California if the parents would commit to providing the baby with that surgery. Through her attorneys, she made the offer formally. Whether the couple has responded is unclear.
West, now 35 weeks pregnant and living in Texas, has framed the fight in simple terms.
"I want to fight for him because he deserves that chance."
"There's no guarantee; there's not a guarantee with anything. But he deserves a chance of living life outside my womb. I just really pray he gets that opportunity."
The baby's due date is September 2, 2026. The emergency appeal is pending. And McKenna West, a nurse, a single mother, a surrogate who signed a contract she now calls unconscionable, is running out of calendar but not resolve.
Several critical unknowns remain. The California court has not publicly clarified whether the biological parents would allow the life-saving surgery after birth or insist on what is sometimes called "comfort care", medical attention without intervention. The wife's brother, who offered to adopt the baby, has not been identified by name in court filings, and it is unclear whether he has formally initiated adoption proceedings. The surrogacy agency, Worldwide Surrogacy Specialist in LLC, has not disclosed any formal position in the litigation.
And the contract itself, governed by Alaska law, signed through a Connecticut agency, now contested in California courts, sits at the intersection of competing state legal frameworks that were never designed to answer this question cleanly.
A surrogacy contract that treats an unborn child's life as a line item subject to a cancellation clause is not a medical document. It is a consumer product agreement applied to a human being. McKenna West understood the difference. The courts should, too.
