Texas surrogate’s sprawling contract with biological parents revealed in court records: Massive monthly payment plan, long list of expenses… and additional ‘abortion fee’ she refused
Court records have disclosed the financial terms of a surrogacy agreement between McKenna West and a California couple, amid their dispute over the future of the baby she carried. The case has drawn attention because the agreement reportedly included provisions for ending a pregnancy after a serious fetal diagnosis, raising difficult questions about contractual obligations, bodily autonomy and parental decision-making.
The contract provided for regular monthly compensation and reimbursement of a broad range of pregnancy-related costs, including medical, travel and household expenses, according to the report. It also reportedly offered West an additional payment if she underwent an abortion, which she declined after the fetus was diagnosed with a life-threatening heart condition. West later travelled from Alaska to Texas to give birth, and the intended parents dispute her account of the circumstances and her claims about their plans for the child’s treatment.
- Court records reveal extensive surrogacy payments and expense provisions.
- West refused a contract-linked abortion payment after a fetal diagnosis.
- The dispute has become a wider legal and ethical battle.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of enforcing the agreement argue that intended parents assume profound financial, emotional and lifelong responsibility for a child, so they need meaningful contractual assurance that major medical decisions will reflect the shared plan established before conception. They may view compensation and expense provisions as a transparent way to recognise a surrogate’s labour and costs, while arguing that clauses concerning severe fetal diagnoses protect parents from being compelled into a situation for which they did not consent or feel able to provide care. Their central values are informed consent, certainty and respect for the parental role of those who initiated and fund the arrangement.
The case against
Critics argue that no contract should make a pregnant person’s continued medical treatment or decision to end a pregnancy contingent on payment, because she alone bears the physical risks and must retain final control over her body. They may regard an additional abortion payment, particularly after a grave diagnosis, as creating unacceptable financial pressure even if it is formally voluntary, and stress that circumstances and moral convictions can change during pregnancy. Their central values are bodily autonomy, protection from coercion and the view that contractual arrangements cannot override a surrogate’s fundamental medical choices.