E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWhen a Vernon woman was hired to be a surrogate in 2011, she never expected that the decision would lead to a more agonizing decision about the fate of a little girl, a battle in the courts and a move out of state so she had the power to make choices about the child's welfare.
Crystal Kelley said the couple she was carrying the child for asked her to get an abortion when tests showed severe problems, and even offered her $10,000 to terminate the pregnancy, but Kelley refused and gave birth to the little girl last summer.
Kelley met the couple from New York in mid-2011 at a playground near her Vernon home. They discussed plans about providing a good home for their children and Kelley said they immediately wanted Kelley to be their surrogate.
“They were very attentive. They wanted to be involved in the pregnancy. She said she really felt like she was living through me in this pregnancy and she wished she could experience it,” Kelly said.
Kelley, who has two daughters of her own and also had two miscarriages, said she wanted to go ahead with the pregnancy because she understood the heartbreak of not having a child when you’re expecting one.
"They were fantastic for a long time,” Kelley said. “They gave me the impression that they definitely cared about their children very much. They were very involved in their kids’ lives.”
Around five months into the pregnancy, doctors at Hartford Hospital determined the baby had several medical problems and the couple offered Kelley $10,000 to terminate the pregnancy.
“They didn't believe it was fair to bring a child into the world that would only know pain and suffering,” said Kelley. “If I don’t have support of these people. What am I going to do with a baby? I didn’t get into this to have a baby. I can't deny that I did say, if you give me $15,000, I'll think about doing it.”
She dismissed the thought when she got home from the hospital.
Then, several lawsuits were filed and Kelley moved to Michigan, a state that let her have full control over the child’s rights.
On June 25, 2012, Kelley gave birth to a girl who she referred to for this article as “Baby S" and found a couple from the area that has the financial means to take care of the baby
Doctors said that if the child makes it through the first five years of her life, she has a great chance of making it to adulthood.
“I had a very hard time giving her up for adoption. I really wanted to keep her,” Kelley said.
Kelley said she still sees Baby S, who’s now 9 months old, about once a month.
View more videos at: http://nbcconnecticut.com.
Leave a Comment:
This lady entered into a contractual agreement that included an abortion clause with her eyes (on the dollar signs) wide open. When it was discovered the fetus had physical and/or developmental abnormalities, some serious and others not, the couple instructed her to abide by the contract and abort. To which, she asked for more money than what the couple had offered!
IMO, Her actions strongly suggest her only motivation and concerns had been about the monetary gains to be gotten!
Asking for more money might have been a way to buy more time.
The baby has a new home with parents who want her, will care for her, who love her, and who have the financial means for her surgeries.
The ones who hired the surrogate can go find another one, and run the risk of the same thing happening again.
I doubt if the surrogate will be entering into any more contracts.
Come on, outragious. Let's you and me go do something more productive with our lives than hang out on the computer. (After we both check my grammar in that last sentence, of course.)
It could've been.
But does that absolve her from entering into an binding contract she has already been paid for, but refuse to abide by? This is a woman who has given birth to 2 children and claims to have had 2 miscarriages as well. Therefore, she knew from experience that pregnancies do not always turn out the way we'd like them to.
Also, this couple who hired her already have disabled children -which was why they hired a surrogate to begin with- and fully understand the costs involved in their immediate and future care.
As for grammar, as fun as it is sometimes to see our common errors- I never go out of my way to belittle anyone for it. Mostly because I have more days where I have more thumbs than fingers pounding away at the keyboard.
Productive? Umm, your name wouldn't be Mr. Sampson? If so, you caught me goofing off during hours! In my defense, I'm not only up to date but did some up coming work as well.. LOL...
so you think the government should have forced her to have an abortion? You can not make a contract that legally requires someone to have an abortion. Perhaps she could have been sued for the 10k they paid but that would be the end of it. Go cry so some more outragious or move to china..
Never mentioned the government in any manner. Simply stated she entered into a binding contract and failed to uphold her end of the agreement.
The contract she agreed to had an abortion clause included within it. She shouldn't have agreed to this stipulation prior to signing her name upon the contract.
Perhaps the couple who hired her to be their surrogate should sue her for all the monies she recieved and for failure to uphold her end of the agreement.
No tears here. This situation does not affect my life one way or another.
You first. Better yet, move to Afghanstan, Pakistan and other similar areas that control their masses using religious rhetoric. Have a nice trip. 8-)
Just another appalling incident in the trend to go against nature.
Some Americans act like a baby is a pet. They believe they are 'entitled' to as many children as they can possibly have. Surrogacy is unnatural, has negative psychological consequences, and should be outlawed. IVF has become a huge, expensive business with costs to the gene pool that have yet to be determined.
With all the unwanted and abused children we have, it's time to take proper care of those who are already living and end overpopulation at the same time.
HOWEVER - in the end, she did not accept ANY MONEY, now did she? In fact, I'm sure it would be reasonable to deduce that she herself incurred significant expenses personally as a result of uprooting both herself and her own children and relocating to Michigan, no? So CLEARLY in the end her heart was not about money but about the life and well-being of the baby........or did you miss that part?
Shame on the couple who so callously was willing to have the life of their unborn child just snuffed out, for $10,000, all because the baby wasn't "perfect." From what I've gathered in the video, the baby has a cleft lip and palate (both can be surgically repaired, as is done for millions of babies world-wide), a deformed ear (big deal, this is only cosmetic), and would require some future surgeries for brain and heart issues. In the video the baby looked beautiful and very happy, smiling lots, very bright. We live in a disposable world where the rich can pick and choose life or death. What a shameful, selfish couple. I hope they are forever haunted by the fact that they will never be able to know the joy of their precious daughter.
With all of the many precious and innocent children in this world who are unwanted and orphaned, in desperate need of parents; going from foster home to foster home, spending their lives in horrid orphanages, living in deplorable conditions without love and security, people look for all sorts of artificial means to make a baby when they could essentially "save a life" and adopt one of the millions who so desperately need a home.
That being said, I also find it deplorable that any woman would be willing to use her body as an incubator for someone else's baby -- even moreso when doing it for monetary gain. And in this case, what on earth was this single Mom going to tell her existing little children about "where the baby went"? What a greedy society we live in where money means more than human life, and right from wrong.
The surrogate had to make a hard decision, on whether to abort the unborn child or not; she chose not to abort the child she was carrying and found a home for it instead. There are those who will argue both sides of this case, but in the end... it was her body and her decision. I think she made a courageous choice.
The bottom line is that it was her body and her choice to make. I applaud her decision. The baby was adopted by informed adoptees and stands the best chance of survival.
Remember that a woman's decision about her own body take precedence over all other people's consideration or rights (the Father's, surrogate's, and certainly the baby's).
This is always the case, don't even start a debate about what's "right" about any of this. It doesn't matter.
The surrogate should have released the people that hired her from any obligation and refunded the money. She could have just as easily decided to terminate the pregnancy (abort the baby) after she found about the issues if that had been against the family's wishes.
Any opposing thoughts are against the inviolable rights conferred on woman by the courst in regards to decisions over their reproductive choices.
greg , i wish your mother had also exercised her right over yours, man , had to click on make changes , i repent & wish you all God's blessings
I don't see where the article says there was an abortion clause in the agreement. Did I miss something? stimulating, what a horrible thing for a "christian" to say.
The surrogate mother entered into the contract to have the child. If the contract said anything about aborting the baby if there were severe genetic defects found, then there may be grounds for issue. No person enters into a surrogacy to only be told later that they have to have an abortion. The "parents" of the little girl ( the egg and sperm donor ) should realize that with other children that have handicaps, they, the donors of the genetic material, are the one's that are passing on the problems. They shouldn't be trying for any more children.
Yes, that is a mean thing to say. I have worked in the public schools and have worked with children with moderate to severe handicaps. If these people insist on trying to have more kids, then they need to have any and all embryos that are going to be implanted into a surrogate checked through genetic screening to make sure that the resulting child will be born healthy. They can't wait until a few months before the child is to be born to decide that "oh, the child might not be perfect. let's abort it and try again." This falls on the parents that are hiring the surrogates to ensure that their genetic material is healthy and will result in a healthy child.
outragious,
I can tell you're a Liberal/Democrat, against the death penalty for convicted murderers, but all for the murder of unborn children. You're so effing pathetic that your name is beside the word " pathetic " in the dictionary! Loser...................
Blondeness,
No, it was not her body. It was the BABY'S body. Arghh, I get SO sick of when people say it's the mother's/surrogate's body and choice. At 41, when I was pregnant the first and only time, I had so many damn ultrasounds from just a few weeks on, that I got the full opportunity that others don't really get: a window into my child's life. It was clear to me from the very first ultrasound that I was protecting another's life, which just happened to be within my body. No different once she was outside my body.
That being said, I agree that she made a courageous choice. I was very scared about having a deformed child at my age. She was not, but I knew I couldn't decide to end her life if she was. I think the child ended up in the right home in the end.
Kaybeetoys, surrogacy is unnatural and should be outlawed? IVF costs the gene pool? Just what century are you living in? Do you have something against science? I guess, by your standards, we should still be living in caves and functioning as hunter gatherers.
If you have a problem with anything unnatural, I am surprised to find you on a computer because beating on a keyboard to communicate with others is very unnatural. The only “natural” form of communication would be face to face. Driving cars, flying in airplanes, watching TV, eating at McDonald’s are, also, unnatural? Perhaps, you believe you should be the only one to determine what should be considered natural or not?
While we are at this, please share with us the evidence you have that surrogacy as any more negative psychological consequences than any other means for having a child? Are there any peer reviewed studies by psychologists? As for negative consequences, what about all the abused and neglected children, who are a result of “natural” insemination and birth? Just a guess on my part but, I would imagine that far more children born from surrogacy, live very happy lives than those born the “natural” way. There is no question that the vast majority of surrogacy children are, absolutely, wanted!
By the way, just for the record, both of my children are the result of IVF. They are both happy, healthy, and in their 20s. In case you didn’t know, that means they were born in the early days of IVF. I am sure the whole process has improved, drastically, since that time.
Jane, I love your comment and your way of thinking. "Outragious", you are entitled to your own opinion. I believe that surrogacy is a blessing for those not as fortunate. The woman did say she did not want more children and Jane is right she did not accept any payment. I think what the couple did was outrageous, following the lines of harassment and they violated the terms of the contract, therefore the contract became void, in terms of their rights. They did not pay her and I commend her for protecting the child and fighting for it's life. Just because there is a possibility of problems with any child, there is also hope in life and now this baby has a great chance at living a great life, with loving parents. She has three.
I fell she should have still received at least a partial payment, a thank you and she should go after them in civil court. And I am glad she moved to a state that supported her decision to believe in her child and know that there is a chance her baby would be amazing. Instead of thanking her, they showed their true colors, because no matter what any test says, you would still love your child, children born with no flaws, can grow to have more problems then those who were born with flaws, tiny sparkles of light that makes them special. We don't abandon our children if they are diagnosed with cancer, do we? Do we abort their rights after a car accident and they are brain damaged, do we? No, we support, love and pray and give strength, which is exactly what this mother did. And now she and that beautiful girl are reaping the rewards of something greater that this universe and that is love.
When I fist saw this article, I thought it was going to be that they wanted a boy and she was having a girl, so abort. But it wasn't that.
What I can't wrap my miind around is anyone who wants to have a child so desperately, and is willing to pay for a surrogate, would in the end opt for an abortion.
I can speak to this subject because my husband and I tried to get pregnant for more than seven years. Nothing worked. So we opted for IVF. That worked!
There is NO WAY I would have had an abortion, under any circumstances. We were going to have that baby come hell or high water. I did not even agree to an amniocenteses because I did not want to jeopardize losing the baby.
You'll be happy to know that we gave birth to a normal, beautiful baby girl. She's now 14, and the love of our lives.
@Auzziegirl - I too would never have an abortion. I had no trouble getting pregnant, but I also did not have any pre-natal testing done because nothing would have stopped me from having my babies. I ended up with two healthy boys who are today 12 and 16 years old.
Just to be clear, I'm not against women having the right to choose to do as they wish with their bodies, but for me, abortion was never an option - period.
What kind of medical problems? I read the article and watched the video. I agree with the biological parents. It is their child. One of the medical problems must have been severe.
As a Woman who had infertility problems, did the infertility roller coaster, suffered through 2 miscarriages, and eventually adopted.. I think it's disgusting that they asked her to abort at 5 months! No pregnancy is perfect, and everyone that gets pregnant takes the chance of something going wrong. If her body didn't reject the fetus, there must be a reason! I had so many of my friends "say" they would get pregnant for me, but no one actually did. I would have LOVED for someone to be a surrogate for me. When we were adopting, we were told that there was a possibility of health issues (the birth-mother did cocaine through the majority of the pregnancy). I didn't care! My son has ADHD, and a learning disability, but I love him just the same. If he had more serious issues, it wouldn't have stopped me from wanting him. The baby could be born perfect, but that doesn't guarantee that there won't be health issues down the road.. what about childhood cancers, accidents.. etc. I just think it's horrible, and she did the right thing. If she was doing it for money, she would have taken the money and had the abortion... I don't see where it says it was in the contract to abort, and evan if she did, I'm sure it would have been before 5 months along! If it was in the contract, why would they offer her money to abort?
This precious child owes her life to a courageous woman. Thank you Michigan for protecting life! Kelly, you are a hero. May angels surround this baby girl. There is NOTHING worse than your own parents wanting you dead. May this little one be protected from knowing this. As I read this article, I couldn't help but think of the young woman who lost her life in a tragic late term abortion recently. My heart goes out to that family, how much they must all be suffering.
Contract?! You must be joking! I don't see why this is a hard choice. The woman carrying the baby gets to decide whether to carry it to term, period. If the biological parents don't want the baby, fine, put it up for adoption. Perhaps the contract, a commercial agreement involving property rights, can determine who gets what money. Last time I checked, you can't contract away basic civil rights (or, the courts won't enforce it). It'd really like us to get over these idiotic ideas that corporations (legal constructs for the purpose of making money) are people, that property rights are the only ones that matter, and that the consciences of the folks paying the bills are the only consciences that matter.
Check again. Abortion is legal in many states up until birth.
"Our body, our choice (to murder an innocent child because it would be 'inconvenient')"
Just because abortion is legal, doesn't mean you can contractually force someone to have one. The only thing the courts should be able to do is find that the terms of the contract were violated. She was smart to move to a state where this was clearly the case, rather than trust that the courts in her state would agree with me.
An interesting ethical dilemma for a bioethics debate; however, I question the idea of "binding contract" with regards to its enforceability. As MattShh noted, " ..you can't contract away basic civil rights..."
As far as the suffragette not having signed a contract with such a clause, this would only concern the courts with regards to the return of monies paid [which would be another ethical debate of interest to several vocational groups] The suffragette mother was not attempting to sue the biological parents for more monies, nor attempting to force them to take financial and/or custodial responsibilities for the child. [even thought the biological parents had "...several lawsuits were filed and Kelley moved to Michigan, a state that let her have full control over the child’s rights." [per the article].
Most assuredly , this was a very traumatic period for all concerned--and something that none us should forget. It is too easy for us arm chair ethicist, theologian, and generally concerned participant in this thing we call the human condition to lose the inherent pain that the subjects for our clinical annalists.
I often wonder if we could ever get to the point in our societies development were we are truly able to insert a emphatic element into our debates-- if our humanity can ever maintain that element of compassion for the "other" that is not murdered by our own personal emotions, opinions, prejudges, and all the other emotional baggage we each carry. I wonder what manner of society we would see evolve when we--the citizens of that society--are able to find some balance between what "I fee should be correct/ethical/right" and what the "other" is currently experiencing
Someone once wrote that, "we often see those faults we observe in others are ultimately the magnification of our own personal faults." For myself, I have found it all too true...how goes it with you?
suffragette = surrogate
fee = feel
I don't know which I loath more...computer's "self-corrections", my diminishing eye sight, or the lack of an "edit" button on this forum. Sigh... Perhaps an exercise in self-humility does a soul good; however, I'd much rather have a glass of warm milk instead.
I'd pick the eye sight. There IS an edit button in that black bar below your new comment, but it disappears after 3 minutes.
edit: Does someone need a hug? >-:)-< (sorry, that's the best I can do with a keyboard)
olsow...I liked "suffragette".
It is great that the baby is adopted by loving parents...the ones who wanted to have her in the first place would have probably abused her being so willing to kill because she wasn't perfect in their eyes. I think this OLD NEWS is a smoke screen to avoid talking about the treason that happens in the White House everyday...
Have to reply to johns treason comment. If you want to call what's happening in the white house treason, what about all the filibusters in congress. I think that is pretty treasonous wanting the U.S. to crumble just because of losing a couple of elections. With many more losses to come, as more and more U.S. citizens are wanting to progress into the future not regress into the past.
On this story, I hope no one was paid, and hope that the child can live a good life. The biological parents should have been able to call the shots, but it is done now, and the child found a home, so it should be a done issue. If the child has severe mental problems, they might not even wonder about their biological parents.
Ok, so you support having military drones killing Americans in their homes, on American soil without "due process"?
You're one sick puppy.
And this "dirty politics" thing is played by Demoncrats and Republitards.
Perhaps. What's your address again?... ;-)
Howie, I love your wit...
Of course they do it for the money. Ever heard of a rich woman carrying a child for a poor woman? These renters of women's bodies do not want to be parents, they want to reproduce themselves. If your goal is to be a parent, why aren't you adopting? And what about all the fertilized eggs which weren't implanted via IVF? What about all those thousands of frozen potential children? An unselfish person would put eithics ahead of desires.
What is so wrong about wanting to pass on your blood line? There is a big possibility, that this couple wasn't able to do IVF. All of those fertilized eggs are just a cell or two, not a baby in any form. For all you know it could be a lizard, a fish, or whatever, because at that stage of development, all creatures look the same. Basic biology/zoology there. Quit being crazy, please.
Adele - it's your kind of ignorance that drives me banana-sandwich. I've undergone IVF 3 times, and I can tell you that it's impossible for any doctor to "implant" a fertilized egg. The doctor "transfers" it into the uterus, where it floats around for days and may or may not implant itself. It's the same thing that happens when a fertile woman conceives. Normally the egg is fertilized in the fallopian tube, then floats down into the uterus where it may -- or may not -- implant.
Which brings me to the second point I'd like you to attempt to grasp: Fertile, sexually active women likely have several fertilized eggs they never even know about. That's right - it's estimated that half of them don't implant. They're simply swept away with the next period. We're talking many more than were ever frozen for IVF, but there's no outcry for those. Nobody protests or tries to make silly laws to stop it. Nobody gives the used tampons a proper burial. But heaven forbid an infertile couple do IVF and have some frozen.
Did you know that the pregnancy hormone is only made when/if the embryo implants? So all pregnancy tests are negative until implantation happens.
You either don't understand the reproductive process, or you're a hypocrite. Which is it? But take comfort in knowing that you're not alone. There are millions of others -- catholic leaders and politicians included -- that are just as ignorant and/or hypocritical as you.
Almost forgot to address your "why aren't you adopting" question. Obviously you've seen the movie Annie and are under the delusion that orphanages still exist where people can visit and pick out a delightful young cherub to raise as their own. Today, the reality is foster care, where the goal is to eventually reunite the child with their abusive, neglectful parents. After all, they should get a second and third chance to really mess their kid up. So the foster parents care for a child, maybe for years, get attached and love them as their own, at which time the system rips them away. By the time the system admits the parents can't handle the kid, they've been bounced from foster home to foster home, and they likely have severe emotional issues. Now, with a system like ours, why on earth would anyone choose to have their own biological child? It's a mystery.
terminate the parents ...
I, also am not against a woman's right to make decisions about her own body. But the baby's body is not her body. I'm really fed up with all this nonsense that claim another's body is their own. If you give birth, it is to a live human being. If you have an abortion, you have a dead human being. No one can give any argument that they were not once an embryo and then a fetus. The heart starts beating before anyone knows that they are pregnant. It's perfectly clear that if your mother [or surrogate in this case] had decided to abort, you would not be alive on this earth. It's beyond me why anyone thinks they are deserving of life, but their baby isn't? She clearly made the only moral decision possible. How many people would want their child dead if something unforseen happened to him/her while growing up, and it was no longer 'perfect' ?
I say if you want to say a baby is alive at that point, let the parents claim that unborn baby on their taxes. Give it a social security number, let these people qualify for WIC and other programs. If you don't allow abortions for medical reasons, then the government should pay for the child's care, too. Dee, you have to think over all points of view. Is this child going to be able to take care of itself or is it going to have to rely on somebody for the rest of their lives? What happens when their caregiver dies? Sometimes you have to decide if it is cruel and unusual punishment for the child.
I see your point of view, I know that a lot of it probably comes from religion, but their are many things to consider.
Personally, I think that religion is something that gives people hope, and tells a history of the world, with some tall-tales mixed in...a moral guidebook of sorts. I don't think people should live their lives for God, or whoever you worship but for themselves, to be a good person. Deities go all the way back to cave man days and evolved as our brains have.
I wonder about parents who knowingly bring in a baby which will need medical care or special treatment for the rest of its life. Only a wealthy society can afford such burdens on itself, or very wealthy parents. Look at what happens to such people in 3rd world countries, they dont live very long and while they are alive its not a good life.
Sorry square dude,
I gotta ask, are you speaking from experience, or are you just talking?
So, since when were you put in charge of deciding what is a good life and what is not?
Are you sure that your is so great that you look down on those poor slobs in the 3rd world?
Have you ever been? Have you lived there? Have you experienced what its like to be poor?
Or are you just assuming that people that aren't like you couldn't possibly be happy?
Oh Maninjapan78, you are so purposeful, in your wise comments... Thank you for your input...
Life is full of chances. Why is it okay to abort a baby at 5 months because of a medical issue, but not 5 months after birth if they get sick...or develope a desease...or have an accident that causes a disability.
The real debate is not about contracts (although she should be sued for breech. Didn't she READ??). It is about the simple question of whether you believe abortion is murder. If you do, no amount of persuasion or making fun of religeon will change your mind.
Morndew, I believe it is because civil rights, AS A CITIZEN, begin at the moment a child begins to breathe independently of his mother's womb. Independent breath, however, could also mean assisted mechanical breathing if the child needs it. Therefore, a child who is five months old--after birth--is a citizen and has the same rights and the same protections as an adult. A child/fetus prior to birth, basically, is not a citizen yet. So according to law, if you kill a five-month old breathing child, it is murder.
There's nothing morally wrong with infanticide, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Legally when you're born you're a person, it may be a bit lazy but eh, better than accidentally killing people to draw the line south of actual personhood, than accidentally drawing it north of it and killing actual people.
What a beautiful baby!
@ Jayne Sampson-Baker, how do you know the adoptive parents didn't pay her some sort of monetary payment? She said she found parents to adopt her, and here in the US, adoption is difficult, so if she used a private adoption firm, which she perhaps did, I'm sure she got some sort of payment, I have no doubt about that. Also, whose to say the adoptive parents will treat this child with love and care? We don't know what will become of this child, and I do believe that this women did it for the money.
Is this really about money? The woman chose not to abort and found a home for the child weather she was compensated or not does not matter! The child is alive. The fact that these rich people found out that child was not perfect and wanted to destroy her only goes to show that they think money can buy anyone.
Were they playing GOD?
Guess the expecting mother showed them different.
Um, I'm not too sure on the legal stuff here, but for all of the folks saying that she signed her name on the dotted line and so....
What if she had sold her children? Signed contract? Sure! dotted line? Sure! But you can't sell people.
Now as for abortion, from what I understand, that is a really hard row to hoe even when you do it of your own free will.
Now, imagine that you have this being growing inside of you for 5 months, you have bonded, you are beginning to realize that it will be very difficult to let the child go to the biological parents when the time comes, but you comfort yourself with the knowledge that you will be considered a part of the family, and have visitation rights. And then you are told that you must destroy said "being" inspite of the 5 months and the bonding, because of a piece of paper.
That my friends is a hard row to hoe indeed! Its like hard and mean. I'm not talking about "to the child", I'm talking about the surrogate. I'm a guy, but I work with kids, and I bond with my wards, and I get misty eyed when they move out of state. And yes, there have been a few over the years that "passed on". I am not "Cool", about "leting go and saying goodbye" and all that. I can't begin to imagine being a woman who is legally ordered to end the life within her because of a piece of paper talking about imperfections.
Granted, birth defects are no walk in the park. Could be I have a few myself, but this is not the issue. If this woman chose to abort, I would bow my head and say my prayer for both the parents and the child. But Forcing her to adhere to a contract that is at best immoral is like way to Mainland China for me. So our country now has both extremes.
A) "The strap her to a table and make her have the baby" crew,
and
B) "The strap her to a table and make her have an abortion" crew.
Wow!
To the parents, I'm not sure if they were suing or being sued. Nor is it clear wether they were suing to bake her have the abortion or to get their money back. These are different arguments.
$15,000 and she'd 'think about it?' Wow, greed is everywhere and disgusting!
They only told half the story. She took the baby out of state so the biological parents had no more rights to their own child. It was then that they learned that an egg donor was used and only the Dad was the biological parent of the baby. The biological parents had threatened to put the baby up for adoption as soon as she was born in an attempt to force her to end the pregnancy.
Both sets of people in this scenario are awful, awful, horrible. But it should be pointed out that this baby's medical problems cause great suffering and, in later pictures of the baby, you will notice that she's disfigured.
I've grown weary of stories about surrogates violating the contracts they signed. Stronger laws should be passed to ensure surrogates abide by the stipulations of the contracts.
“They didn't believe it was fair to bring a child into the world that would only know pain and suffering...” An attitude which shows that they had no love for that child. If pain and suffering is all your child knows, what does that say about you as a parent? Even with pain, there's a lot more to life than that.
Whether life is worth living depends on things like love, safety, care, contact -- all basic parenting skills. Pain and suffering are part of life for all of us, to some degree. But, speaking as someone with a very painful disability, I'd still take this life, even if I knew what was involved, over being erased from this earth the moment it became apparent.
Life is not about the pain, it's about the love and the work. If these parents couldn't love their daughter, I'm delighted she had someone else to champion her, force the delays, make the colossal efforts, incur the losses, and find some REAL parents to raise her.
As for laws forcing surrogates to face "stiffer penalties for not abiding by their contracts", you go ahead and get pregnant, carry that child in your body and under your heart for nearly half a year, and then tell me if *you'd* have yourself cranked open and have it torn piecemeal out of your body because it wasn't *someone else's* idea of perfect. For heaven's sake, people, try being human!
I've been a surrogate twice. I've helped make two wonderful couples parents. I, like most surrogates, did it because I had a strong desire to change someone's life and this was a meaningful way I could do it. Yes, I was paid, but it was a small fraction of what I earn at my job and certainly not a motivation.
This surrogate is the reason that the industry (for lack of a better word) must be regulated. She was desperate for money. A shady agency matched her with a couple who would want to abort in the event of severe abnormality, even though she was supposedly against abortion. It all would have been spelled out in her contract. The problem was that the abortion would terminate her monthly compensation, which she needed to survive. A surrogate should NEVER be dependent on the "income." Never - because sometimes you never get a dime since the industry is not regulated and the only thing you have to make the parents pay is a piece of paper that's not even enforced in many states (i.e. Michigan). In fact, sometimes you never get paid AND you get stuck with all the medical bills, even the baby's. It's no get-rich-quick scheme.
Here's my opinion: She refused the abortion so they'd have to keep paying. They wanted to do the merciful thing for their child (in their eyes) so they offered to continue paying her despite the fact that she'd no longer be carrying their child, since 10K would have been about the remainder of compensation owed to finish the pregnancy. She wanted (needed?) more.
I don't know if she required them to pay her the rest of her compensation prior to kidnapping their child by going to Michigan. I don't know if she accepted gifts or compensation from the adoptive parents. I don't know how much was donated to her by suckers when she posted about this situation and asked for donations on her blog, making the facts foggy.
Here's a personal story from one of my surrogate pregnancies. I, being pro-choice, agreed to an abortion if the parents wished it and in the event of serious abnormality. The baby, at 21 weeks, ended up having a soft marker for down syndrome. The parents opted for the amnio and stated that they likely would have asked for an abortion if it was positive. No matter what my philosophical views are on abortion, when faced with that prospect it rocks your world. It wasn't my baby, but I could never have imagined how I would feel, especially since it was *only* down syndrome. Luckily my contract was good and my attorney was good. I had an out. I didn't have to have an abortion; no one could force that on me. I could have refused the abortion. Compensation would have stopped and I could have kept or placed the baby. But in doing so, I would also be forcing them to bring their biological child into the world and have it raised by strangers. I couldn't think about either horrible option. I waited with baited breath for the results. Negative. While I believe it's possible I would have refused the abortion, I NEVER would have expected a DIME from the parents from that point on. I made a contract with them. It would have been despicable for me to benefit from my refusal to follow that contract. It's akin to blackmail.
For those of you who are praising this surrogate, think about this. From day 1 she accepted money by signing a piece of paper saying that she would ABORT that baby if there was anything wrong with it. I promise you she knew darn well what she was agreeing to. Her principals only came out when she knew they could garner her even MORE money. Not to mention, we are only hearing her side of the story. The baby's original parents are showing some class in this tragic situation.
I hope the parents can sue the dickens out of her. One good thing about this story making the media is that she'll hopefully never be able to be a surrogate again.
I am so glad she didn't abort. That picture of the baby just melts my heart. She did the right thing to put her up for adoption to a couple who wants and loves her and can support all her needs. They say if she lives past the age of 5 she has a good chance to make it into adulthood. That is wonderful news. My husband has 2 severe disabilities and if his mom would have aborted him, I would have missed out on the most amazing man I have ever met. Not only is a wonderful husband but also a wonderful father. I could not ask for more! To baby S, I hope you show your biological parents that they missed out on a great thing, you.
Why is anyone surprised? This is America, after all. None of us are resposible for anything we do. All we need to do is get a good lawyer.