US4 min(s) read
Published 14:32 14 Aug 2026 GMT
The Trump administration has gotten involved in a legal case involving a surrogate and her refusal to terminate her pregnancy, despite the biological parents' request.
Alaskan native McKenna West was a surrogate for a California couple when doctors found at around 20 weeks that the unborn baby had hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS).
This is a rare condition in which the left side of the heart is severely underdeveloped, and while the condition can be treated with surgery shortly after birth, children could face lifelong health issues.
Following this sad news, the baby's biological parents asked West to terminate the pregnancy, which they were entitled to request under the terms of the surrogacy agreement.
But she instead refused to adhere to the demands of biological parents Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed and travelled to Texas, where abortion laws are among the strictest in the US.
Following the legal dispute, the surrogate has been prohibited from seeing or holding the baby.
The baby was born prematurely on Wednesday, August 12, despite the contract reportedly stating that termination was allowed if a fetal "anomaly" was discovered during the pregnancy.
A Texas court ruled that West could remain in the state and seek medical treatment for the baby's heart condition, and "Baby Gabriel" is receiving treatment, as per The Dallas Morning News.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton further stated: "Baby Gabriel deserves a chance at life, and I will not allow anyone to unlawfully deny him medically necessary care."
The court order, which was issued on Tuesday, read: "Upon the child's live birth, medically indicated stabilizing and life-sustaining care shall be provided to the child pending further order of this Court.
"No person shall withhold, direct the withholding of, obstruct, or delay that care."
Now, officials from the Trump administration have got involved, as the Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights (HHS) is supporting the court order.
The HHS Civil Rights office also contacted two Texas hospitals to remind them that withholding medical treatment based on disability is against the law.
The department also told Fox News that this extends to life-sustaining treatment, as officials said they would also be writing to Children's Medical Center for Dallas and UT Southwestern Medical Center about the protections.
"The court has made the right decision in immediately acting to protect baby Gabriel’s life and ensure he receives the care he deserves," Paxton said after the court order.
He further explained: "My office utilized every tool at our disposal to protect life, and we will not back down in continuing to support baby Gabriel’s well-being.
"Every child in our state deserves to be cared for and protected, and that’s exactly what I’ll fight for."
The intended parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, are due to appear at another court hearing on August 25.
Their attorney, Lee Budner, said their sole priority is making sure their son receives the treatment he needs while allowing them to be with him.
"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 said.
He added: "Our clients will continue, as they always have, to place their baby’s health and well-being first, following the advice of the baby’s medical team, just as any loving parent would."
Budner also accused West and her legal representatives of turning the baby's situation into "political theater", arguing that his birth and medical condition had been caught up in the wider legal battle.
Meanwhile, a court order currently prevents West from seeing or holding the newborn.
Her attorney, Lincoln Wilson, has questioned whether Gilkar and Ahmed have been genetically confirmed as the baby's biological parents, claiming that genetic testing has not yet taken place.
Wilson has also said West would consider seeking custody of the baby if the courts allowed.
He further criticized the terms of the original surrogacy agreement, describing it as "offensive to state and federal law" and calling it a "hit man contract."
