• Thu, Mar 7 - 1:26 pm ET

Surrogate Goes On Ahead And Gives Birth To Impaired Baby After Parents Try To Sue Her Into An Abortion

shutterstock_129404738Now here is an ethics forest you may not be able to find your way out of. Surrogate Crystal Kelley, a mother of two herself, agreed to be the surrogate for a New York couple upon meeting them at a playground. But after various 21-week ultrasounds revealed that the baby had severe medical problems, the couple insisted that she get an abortion. Kelley had agreed to this clause in the contract she signed with the couple. But upon being pregnant, she had second thoughts. Understandably.

The New York couple, who already had two little girls, reportedly offered Kelley $22,000 to carry their child. After the ultrasound, they offered her $10,000 to get an abortion. She describes them as “attentive” and wanting to be “involved in the pregnancy,” until the baby’s diagnosis:

“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.”

When Kelley refused, she was then slapped with several lawsuits. The 29-year-old then packed up and moved to Michigan where she was able to have rights over the baby. She delivered the little girl last summer, known now as “Baby S,” and placed her up for adoption. It was a very complex and emotionally fraught decision for the mother:

“I had a very hard time giving her up for adoption. I really wanted to keep her,” Kelley said.

Kelley sees the baby, now nine months old, about once month. Doctors are reportedly confident that if Baby S survives the first five years of her life, she has a strong chance of surviving to adulthood. The little girl has also been adopted by a couple — so all’s well that ends well.

But contractually binding any woman to an abortion is a measure of surrogacy negotiation that I simply cannot get behind, also known as “the low hanging ethical fruit,” according to Dr. Arthur Caplan, the head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center.  Like Caplan, I’m wondering how an abortion even made it into the contract:

No one can contract with a woman to have an abortion. Under any circumstances. For any reason. Never. A woman controls her body and no one can make her do anything she does not want to do in terms of medical intervention with her body no matter what she has said before, signed or promised. The lawyer who tried to coerce and threaten Crystal Kelley to have an abortion should be subject to loss of his license to practice law. Any surrogate agency which conveyed an offer of money to encourage an abortion is guilty of at best bribery and an attempt to crassly manipulate a vulnerable woman. And any surrogacy agency that sticks abortion language into its contracts is guilty of gross misconduct.

Mind that “abortion language,” surrogates.

(photo: Valentina R./ Shutterstock)

Share This Post:
  • CG

    The article posted on the links section of this website yesterday said that she asked for $15000 to consider the abortion instead of taking the $10000 offered….which makes the story weirder and way less black and white.

  • Eileen

    I read this story, and after hearing how it resolved…what’s the controversy? The biological parents would have had an abortion. As things turned out, they’re not burdened with the baby, and neither of them had to undergo the pregnancy. If the right to an abortion is about the pregnant woman and not the fetus, then it’s about the PREGNANT WOMAN, not the source of the genetic material of the fetus. No one would ever say a man should be allowed to force his ex-girlfriend into an abortion, and he wouldn’t even have the luxury this couple has of not being held responsible for the baby’s financial support.

  • CMJ

    I read the article and from the get-go the weird thing was she agreed to an abortion clause in the surrogacy contract and actually asked them for $15,000 (instead of $10,000) to have the abortion and when they said no, she moved, had the baby, and gave it up for adoption…I don’t think she should have been forced to have the baby but it’s strange that she would have had the abortion for more money…

    • Gangle

      I agree… she was willing to consider abortion for another poxy $5000? She hardly deserves a medal.

  • Lawcat

    I think I read somewhere that the children the couple already had we’re developmentally impaired. The hardships that they saw their children go through could be a reason why the abortion clause was included. If she wasn’t OK with having abortion as an option, she probably should have walked away from the contract. I’m glad the child found a loving home, because sometimes its not easy to find parents ready to adopt a child with a life threatening illness.

    And although she’s preemptively owning up to it (obv PR move), the whole counteroffer just doesn’t sit right with me. Oh, for $5000 more you’d think about it? Classy. This doesn’t sound like a lady who is taking the moral high ground; it sounds like someone being sued for breach of contract who is trying to push a favorable settlement by going to the press.

  • Daisy

    If this kid does grow up to have a long and healthy life, they might find out about this eventually, and I feel so, so sad for them when that happens. Whatever other circumstances or nuances are involved in the situation, here’s how it will look to the kid: “My parents didn’t want to take care of my health problems so they wanted me gone. The lady carrying me didn’t want to keep me, but also wouldn’t get rid of me… unless she got another $5000 out of it. Nobody cared about me at all.” What psychological damage that could wreak on a person! :(

  • Kelly

    She tried to extort more money out of them to go through with the abortion that she agreed to in the contract? She’s not a saint. Not even close. What a scumbag.

    • http://www.facebook.com/paul.white.3532507 Paul White

      This really sounds like a case of everybody’s wrong to me.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/3IY44OA2MWHBV766SV4OGKJQ2A Miki

    Her body, her choice. Period.

    • Lawcat

      Well, normally I agree… But surrogacy is a complex issue. Can they force her to have an abortion? No. Is she in breach of contract? Looks that way. Should they be suing her? Yep, unless she’s given back money previously given to her.

      In exchange for money, you’re willingly entering into a contract giving up some rights. For example, I’m sure the contract also included a no smoking or drinking clause and that she had to have scheduled prenatal visits. It’s her body, but her choices are limited when she agreed to it ahead of time.

    • Eileen

      Do surrogates get paid even if the pregnancy fails? The abortion didn’t come into play until 21 weeks, which is halfway through. She still spent ~five months pregnant for them.

    • http://www.facebook.com/skyemilan Ann Bertram

      From what I’ve read, she was getting paid a monthly stipend – sometimes earlier because she was in need of the cash – throughout the pregnancy.

    • meteor_echo

      Except that, if her body is her choice even after signing this contract, she should give the parents ALL the money she got from them.