After a recent decision out of the California Supreme Court, other states may wish to refine their child surrogacy laws.
A pro-life woman in California who entered into a contract to be a surrogate mother was confirmed pregnant with triplets in September 2015. But the biological father decided to only accept twins and – pursuant to the terms of the contract – instructed her to abort the third baby. She refused and filed suit. After lower courts (including the California Supreme Court) upheld the right of the sperm donor, the case (C.M. v. M.C.) was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where, early last month, the high court refused to hear the case.
Shortly after the suit was originally filed, the surrogate mother went into labor two months early and gave birth in February 2016 – but her parental rights had already been terminated and the biological father was legally declared the sole parent of the three infants. The preemies remained in NICU for three months, with neither a mother nor a father at their sides.
The 51-year-old biological father, according to his sister, is deaf and mute, lives with his elderly invalid parents, and is unable to care for the three children – who are now 18 months old. The sister also claims the children live in deplorable conditions in the basement of her parents' home. (More details at LifesiteNews.com)
Brad Dacus, attorney and president of the Pacific Justice Institute, tells OneNewsNow the high court's refusal to hear the case means surrogacy will flourish – but he argues the law is faulty.
"There's no safeguard to ensure that that parent is having that child for the proper motive," Dacus says. "It almost creates a commoditizing of children, and that can be very, very dangerous for our society and for humanity."
The attorney argues that no child should be a commodity to be bought and sold. At the same time, he contends surrogacy should be available for couples who are unable to conceive their own child. But that leaves room for a dilemma such as that of the California surrogate who fought for the life of all three children she carried.
Dacus said no woman who's carrying a child or children should ever be forced to abort one of the children.
"For such a provision to be enforced would have a grave consequence not only for the unborn, who's going to be killed, but also for the surrogate mother who is carrying the child," he states.
According to court documents, the surrogate – in response to the donor's instructions that she abort one of the children – had offered to raise the child instead.