An Alaska nurse who agreed to carry a baby as a surrogate for a California couple is now fighting to keep the unborn child alive after the intended parents asked her to terminate the pregnancy.
McKenna West, a single mother raising two young children, applied last year to Connecticut-based Worldwide Surrogacy Specialist in LLC and was initially approved after a review of her medical history, Live Action reports.
The agency later presented West with the profile of a couple she believed could be a strong fit. She then met them over Zoom; in court filings, the intended parents are identified only as AB and CD.
‘It felt like a perfect match,’ West told Live Action. ‘The conversation was good. It felt exciting for both of us. We both agreed that we wanted to move forward and told the agency, and then took the next steps to move forward from there.’
West subsequently became pregnant, with doctors setting the baby’s due date for September 2, 2026.
The pregnancy appeared to be progressing normally until her 20-week ultrasound, when a doctor told West and the biological parents that ‘there was something really wrong with the baby’s heart’ because blood was not moving through the left side.
‘So we were all really upset,’ West recalled. ‘It was completely unexpected. Everything had been going great. There had been no signs of anything being wrong. All the genetic testing was normal.’
West was then sent to a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, who diagnosed the unborn baby with hypoplastic left heart syndrome — a serious congenital heart condition that can often be treated with surgery shortly after birth.
McKenna West, a single mother of two young children, is suing a California couple in a desperate bid to prevent them from aborting their baby
That was the first time the biological parents brought up the idea of getting an abortion, West said.
‘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,’ she said.
But after West first met with the parents, the contract she signed included a clause that would require her to abort the baby in the event of an ‘anomaly.’
The mother-of-two expressed her concern with the clause at the time, but the agency told her that such a situation was rare.
After she then found out about the baby’s condition, West said she asked the agency if there was anything they could do to help the couple with costs regarding the care the baby would need so they wouldn’t have to choose abortion for financial reasons.
At the same time, West shared some positive stories about people surviving with the condition – including one person she knew.
Still, when she asked the biological father whether he wanted her to send the latest ultrasound images to them, as she did all the previous ones, he told her they had already removed the baby’s 12-week ultrasound from their fridge and said she could mail the 20-week images – but to address the envelope only to him.
‘I was full of fear and stress of what they were going to choose,’ West recounted. ‘I was feeling pretty confident that they were going to choose termination, and how could I possibly live with myself going through that?’
West then decided to research treatment for the condition, and found a hospital in Dallas that has had a 100 percent success in recent years with the first of three surgeries a baby would need right after birth.
Babies who undergo that first surgery have a 75 percent chance of making it to the age of five, and those who make it to their first birthday have a 90 percent chance of making it to the age of 18, according to New York Presbyterian Hospital.
At that point, West told the surrogacy agency she could live with a friend in Texas to mitigate costs to the couple.
But a liaison at the agency told her the couple was still concerned about the baby’s future quality of life.
By the Monday after the diagnosis, West received a call from the liaison telling her the parents officially requested she undergo an abortion – something she was morally against.
Join the discussion
Who should have the final say in life-and-death decisions for a surrogate baby: parents or surrogate?
West, a nurse, said she researched the baby’s heart condition and found a hospital in Dallas, Texas that is successful at performing a necessary surgery for newborns
As she would be 24 weeks pregnant at the time of the abortion, West said in court documents she was appalled at the idea that doctors would inject the baby with ‘a solution that will stop his heart and then he’ll be literally ripped apart and dismembered as he’s taken from [her] uterus.’
As West then continued to struggle with the biological parents’ request, she said the wife’s brother reached out to her.
‘He said, “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.”‘
At that point, the nurse said she decided to reach out to her friend, podcaster Ellen Fisher, who previously welcomed Live Action founder and president Lila Rose as a guest on her podcast.
Within hours, West received a text message from Fisher saying Rose would help her and her children get to Texas to meet with the doctors who could save the baby’s life.
‘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,’ West said.
‘From there, it just blew up and I think the next day, I was already meeting with some of the lawyers.’
The biological parents are now seeking to establish parental rights through a California court – even though the surrogacy agreement they signed states that the ‘laws of the State of Alaska shall govern this Agreement.’
They have also filed a $250,000 lawsuit demanding West return the money they had paid her as well as any additional damages.
They are further demanding West travel to California to give birth, but have not said whether they would allow doctors to perform the life-saving surgery or if they would only provide him with ‘comfort care’ so he dies shortly after his birth.
Through her attorneys, West agreed to go to California if the parents commit to providing the baby with surgery.
But West has also filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Alaska seeking sole custody of the baby so she can allow doctors in Texas to treat him.
‘I want to fight for him because he deserves that chance,’ said West, who is now in Texas with her family and is 35 weeks pregnant.
‘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.’
West applied to Connecticut-based Worldwide Surrogacy Specialist in LLC last year and was matched with the couple
An Alaska Supreme Court denied a motion last week to force West to relocate to California to give birth – but also ruled that a California court can dictate where West gives birth and which medical team treats her.
Yet the State of Alaska has also issued a Statement of Interest in the case.
It argues that ‘the Alaska Constitution protects the right of a surrogate mother to make deeply personal medical decisions – including whether to continue her pregnancy, where she will receive prenatal care, which doctors will help her manage her high-risk pregnancy and who will ultimately treat her as she labors and delivers the baby.
‘The constitutional right of privacy protects a woman’s autonomy to make those decisions for herself,’ the statement reads. ‘It does not empower contracting parties or courts to make them for her here.’
The California couple has since filed an objection to the statement.
It argues that ‘McKenna West and her drove of out-of-state, special interest-driven attorneys have taken the bullying and intimidation in this case to a new level, using the power of the State of Alaska to intervene in legally irrelevant manner to ignore the constitutional rights of Defendants AB and CD as parents, their rights of privacy to make decisions regarding the health and medical care for their son and the best interests of their unborn child.’
They further assert that West ‘continues to cause confusion and stress at a time when the only interests being considered should be the child’s.’
A California court has since granted the biological parents a judgment reasserting their parental rights, which West is now appealing on an emergency basis.
