I keep thinking about this. What happens if the babies have severe disabilities as a result? They aren't her children. Should she have a right to decide her beliefs trump the health of the children? BUT of course that's exactly what happens when a woman in a normal pregnancy decides to get or not get an abortion against medical advice. So...I don't know. This is really hard.
I'm still judging this surrogate though, from a personal standpoint. I think what she's doing is shitty and I don't think she should get her fee.
Do you mean if they have complications in the birth or delivery (i.e. very premature) due to being triplets?
I keep thinking about this. What happens if the babies have severe disabilities as a result? They aren't her children. Should she have a right to decide her beliefs trump the health of the children? BUT of course that's exactly what happens when a woman in a normal pregnancy decides to get or not get an abortion against medical advice. So...I don't know. This is really hard.
I'm still judging this surrogate though, from a personal standpoint. I think what she's doing is shitty and I don't think she should get her fee.
Do you mean if they have complications in the birth or delivery (i.e. very premature) due to being triplets?
Are the outcomes statistically better for twins vs triplets?
What is in the contract regarding selective reduction?
ETA: When does SR usually occur? Did the parents wait to find out the sex to decide to reduce?
I have lots of questions.
My question is whether the egg is the surrogates or the mother's.
I would be shocked to within an inch of my life is you could contract to agree to selective reduction and have it hold. As a practical matter., she'll be beyond the 24 week mark by the time such a contract was litigated anyway. But I guess it's possible.
And I don't think they waited to find out the sex. It sounds like the boys are identical twin and the girl is the "other egg." So, it's probably just coincidental that they know the sex. They probably find it more psychologically troubling to selectively reduce one of the identical twins.
Do you mean if they have complications in the birth or delivery (i.e. very premature) due to being triplets?
Yes.
Ah, that's what I thought you meant.
I don't know how I would see this. I mean, as a parent of IVF/surrogacy, you take a leap when you transplant more than one egg and also you don't expect twins from one egg and the other to take also, but nobody can be guaranteed a child with no disabilities or a perfect birth. If the surrogate goes against your wishes, I guess you have to fall back on contract law. I just hope they don't have to in this case and that all the babies brought to term are healthy.
Are the outcomes statistically better for twins vs triplets?
What is in the contract regarding selective reduction?
ETA: When does SR usually occur? Did the parents wait to find out the sex to decide to reduce?
I have lots of questions.
My question is whether the egg is the surrogates or the mother's.
I would be shocked to within an inch of my life is you could contract to agree to selective reduction and have it hold. As a practical matter., she'll be beyond the 24 week mark by the time such a contract was litigated anyway. But I guess it's possible.
And I don't think they waited to find out the sex. It sounds like the boys are identical twin and the girl is the "other egg." So, it's probably just coincidental that they know the sex. They probably find it more psychologically troubling to selectively reduce one of the identical twins.
What an fascinating case.
It's in the US, so you aren't ethically allowed to use a surrogate's egg with a surrogate you aren't related to (and it's even hard then). I would bet that it's either the mother's egg or a third, donated egg.
This is going to sound cold too given that (many? most? all?) people opt for surrogacy to grow their families because they've attempted other ways. But I think if you are going to enter into a surrogacy agreement, as the intended parent, you lose the ability to make certain choices - including the choice to terminate. Now, I don't know what's in this contract, so I will go ahead and ASSume that when a surrogate is involved, they are agreeing to gestate a baby/babies for you. That includes going through the procedures to become pregnant, gestating the baby/babies, and then going through whatever method of delivery the baby/babies require. They may be on the exact same page as you regarding when termination is appropriate, and if they are, well, that makes things a lot easier. And while the conditions of termination may be spelled out in a contract, it strikes me as an "additional" process that the surrogate shouldn't reasonably expect to have to do (unlike, you know, give birth to the baby or whatever).
Not to mention, women can (and currently have the right to) change their minds about termination. A woman may believe she could go through with abortion under certain circumstances, but then when that becomes reality, she may decide that she just can't have an abortion. And vice versa. So I'm also not going to say that just because the surrogate might have been okay with abortion before she got pregnant means that she can't change her mind at all. Feelings are complicated. And while I find this idea squicky too, I'm more okay with the parents suing the surrogate if CA allows them to do so if there are medical issues with any of the triplets that could have been eliminated if the reduction had taken place.
Finally, terminating for medical reasons is a shitty thing to have to do even if you're 100% fine with the choice and have no regrets. I can't imagine how much worse my experience would have been if I didn't have a choice in the matter. And at 17+ weeks? It's going to be very difficult to do anyway without endangering the other fetus(es). But I won't deny that the surrogate might be bullshitting here - unless she had a CVS early on, she wouldn't know at this point for sure if there are medical conditions any of the fetuses have without going through the amnio (and of course, not all conditions can be determined prenatally, like ASD mentioned above). My OB told me both times that the earliest I could have the amnio was at 17 weeks and then I'd still need to wait at least a week or longer for the full results. And the CVS and amnio are the only ways to confirm with 100% certainty several chromosomal abnormalities prenatally anyway.
She actually agreed to reduction in the contract, it was something they knew was a possibility going in and the parents covered their bases. I do think she's lying about the medical conditions. They usually choose which fetus to reduce based on location and since the other two are identical twins, the non twin is the logical choice. I don't think it has anything to do with a medical condition, I think the choice was made in a very straight forward way.
One of the reasons that surrogacy contracts are disfavored is because pregnancy and the situations around it are so highly individual that you really cannot know what you would feel or do until you are in that situation. It is one thing to say, "Yeah, I think I'd be okay with selective reduction." It's another thing to find yourself in a situation where you are confronted with the reality of what that means, what part you would be playing in terminating that potential person, whether you are complicit in some way. Not to mention the outstanding points that ESF made about how truly freely this woman may have entered into this contract. I actually think the contract should be unenforceable. I think it's unconscionable, that there was likely a gross disparity in bargaining power and even without that, entering into a contract in which you affirmatively agree to have an abortion in any circumstance seems like an unenforceable contract. I don't even like the precedent being set that it is enforceable.
Post by sparkythelawyer on Dec 18, 2015 13:35:23 GMT -5
Ugh, the whole situation sucks. I have to say though, what real recourse is there here? I mean, do the intended parents really expect a judge to use the power of the judicial system to order someone to have an abortion? And if the surrogate defies the court order, do they really expect the courts to somehow enforce compliance? Do they really think that a hospital would even agree to DO the procedure given the facts provided?
It sucks, but I think it is kind of the risk you take when you sign a surrogacy agreement with someone. As someone above said, abortion is one of those issues where people can have their mind change, and what they were ok with when they signed they are not ok with now. You can put it in, and probably try to make some financial remedy for her breach stick, but that is the best the IPs can reasonably expect here.
She actually agreed to reduction in the contract, it was something they knew was a possibility going in and the parents covered their bases. I do think she's lying about the medical conditions. They usually choose which fetus to reduce based on location and since the other two are identical twins, the non twin is the logical choice. I don't think it has anything to do with a medical condition, I think the choice was made in a very straight forward way.
One of the reasons that surrogacy contracts are disfavored is because pregnancy and the situations around it are so highly individual that you really cannot know what you would feel or do until you are in that situation. It is one thing to say, "Yeah, I think I'd be okay with selective reduction." It's another thing to find yourself in a situation where you are confronted with the reality of what that means, what part you would be playing in terminating that potential person, whether you are complicit in some way. Not to mention the outstanding points that ESF made about how truly freely this woman may have entered into this contract. I actually think the contract should be unenforceable. I think it's unconscionable, that there was likely a gross disparity in bargaining power and even without that, entering into a contract in which you affirmatively agree to have an abortion in any circumstance seems like an unenforceable contract. I don't even like the precedent being set that it is enforceable.
Why is this? I mean, I guess I don't understand how you can't regulate it as a business transaction? You can't just let it not get any regulation or basis, right? That would be worse.
Other life contracts are messy also - wills, living wills, even business partnerships, but we let those contracts go. Plus, it's hard b/c if the embryo is not the surrogates living tissue, it's a gray line, but still a line has to be drawn as to who gets to make medical decisions for that tissue and who gets to make medical decisions for the surrogate. Is a selective abortion a medical decision for a woman or an embryo or both? How would we feel if the woman wanted to selectively abort one fetus for health concerns and the surrogates didn't want her to since there wasn't a health issue yet?
I keep thinking about this. What happens if the babies have severe disabilities as a result? They aren't her children. Should she have a right to decide her beliefs trump the health of the children? BUT of course that's exactly what happens when a woman in a normal pregnancy decides to get or not get an abortion against medical advice. So...I don't know. This is really hard.
I'm still judging this surrogate though, from a personal standpoint. I think what she's doing is shitty and I don't think she should get her fee.
This! Her decision could affect these people for the rest of their lives. Even under the very best of circumstances which is three full term babies (and they are mentally preparing for two). But what if the best outcome doesn't occur and these children do have lifelong health issues? Does she really want to be responsible for creating that situation?
I still don't think you should be able to force someone to have an abortion. But she needs to really consider all of the potential outcomes for these children.
An awful lot of discussion about the risk you take when you agree to BE a surrogate. I'd argue you have a lot of risk when you agree to USE a surrogate. Nobody in this scenario gets to have 100% control.
Ugh, the whole situation sucks. I have to say though, what real recourse is there here? I mean, do the intended parents really expect a judge to use the power of the judicial system to order someone to have an abortion? And if the surrogate defies the court order, do they really expect the courts to somehow enforce compliance? Do they really think that a hospital would even agree to DO the procedure given the facts provided?
It sucks, but I think it is kind of the risk you take when you sign a surrogacy agreement with someone. As someone above said, abortion is one of those issues where people can have their mind change, and what they were ok with when they signed they are not ok with now. You can put it in, and probably try to make some financial remedy for her breach stick, but that is the best the IPs can reasonably expect here.
The enforcement is more about getting them out of paying which gives them back the money to try again if she looses the pregnancy, they have seriously premature trips, or have complications from prematurity.
she is just a vessel getting paid to help get them there. I want to feel bad for her and she should have some say if the selective abortion would put her health at risk, but for me it all comes down to the parents getting to decide about their own babies and her contract to just be the vessel and not the parent.
Describing a human woman like this is just so ... icky. It basically encapsulates all my issues with surrogacy in one phrase. Should it be a legal reality that a person can transform into "just a vessel getting paid" because of words in a contract? It's a little Handmaid's Tale for me, frankly.
The Handmaid's Tale is exactly where my mind went too.
Are the outcomes statistically better for twins vs triplets?
What is in the contract regarding selective reduction?
ETA: When does SR usually occur? Did the parents wait to find out the sex to decide to reduce?
I have lots of questions.
I'm currently pregnant with triplets and lurk here sometimes.
A pregnancy that starts as a twin pregnancy is going to go better than a pregnancy that starts as a triplet pregnancy obviously. My doctor doesn't believe that reducing a triplet pregnancy to a twin or singleton improves the pregnancy, though. There are risks in the SR procedure and you could lose more than intended. We chose not to SR. I'm not sure when it's usually done but earlier is better.
I'm not sure how they found out the sex at 13 weeks. It's on the early side for an accurate ultrasound. Blood tests can only tell if it's all girls or all boys. There are more invasive procedures but those are only done if there are other issues, not to determine sex. Maybe I'm missing something, though.
SR can also be decided based on the growth. If one baby is measuring significantly behind, then that one is reduced.
Are the outcomes statistically better for twins vs triplets?
What is in the contract regarding selective reduction?
ETA: When does SR usually occur? Did the parents wait to find out the sex to decide to reduce?
I have lots of questions.
I'm currently pregnant with triplets and lurk here sometimes.
A pregnancy that starts as a twin pregnancy is going to go better than a pregnancy that starts as a triplet pregnancy obviously. My doctor doesn't believe that reducing a triplet pregnancy to a twin or singleton improves the pregnancy, though. There are risks in the SR procedure and you could lose more than intended. We chose not to SR. I'm not sure when it's usually done but earlier is better.
I'm not sure how they found out the sex at 13 weeks. It's on the early side for an accurate ultrasound. Blood tests can only tell if it's all girls or all boys. There are more invasive procedures but those are only done if there are other issues, not to determine sex. Maybe I'm missing something, though.
SR can also be decided based on the growth. If one baby is measuring significantly behind, then that one is reduced.
I hope all goes well for you! We have lots of twin moms on this board (if you didn't already know).
Such a shitty situation all around with no clear answers.
On the one hand, no one should be forced to abort her children.
On the other hand these are not her children.
But no one should be forced to have a medical procedure against their wishes.
But what if the medical procedure was a c-section? To save the life of the baby or babies and the surrogate refused?
How much control does a surrogate get to have over the birth? Can she refuse a hospital birth? Can she refuse to go on bedrest? Can she insist on a free birth in the woods of triplets? Can she refuse an induction? Can she put together a birth plan contrary to the parents wishes?
I think this is why surrogacy is so thorny. I feel for both parties. As someone pregnant I can acutely feel the concerns of both sides. The surrogate feels repugnant at having to abort a baby she now "knows" and the parents are forced to worry about losing all three of their children because of the uncontrollable choices of another. I can't find a hardline here. If push came to shove I guess I side with the parents as they are facing the loss of 3 children because of the surrogate's choices and that is hard to swallow. But so much gray here.
But then do you really want a woman carrying your two remaining children after you sued her to force an abortion of one of the babies?
And no one gets a designer birth or children. It's all crap shoot in terms of risk.
How much actul risk is there is this particular situation?
We don't know as the article is entirely from the surrogate's perspective. Maybe the parents were given a very hard reality from the doctor and from that they made the very hard decision to terminate? And now they are made to look like monsters. Unfairly.
I'm currently pregnant with triplets and lurk here sometimes.
A pregnancy that starts as a twin pregnancy is going to go better than a pregnancy that starts as a triplet pregnancy obviously. My doctor doesn't believe that reducing a triplet pregnancy to a twin or singleton improves the pregnancy, though. There are risks in the SR procedure and you could lose more than intended. We chose not to SR. I'm not sure when it's usually done but earlier is better.
I'm not sure how they found out the sex at 13 weeks. It's on the early side for an accurate ultrasound. Blood tests can only tell if it's all girls or all boys. There are more invasive procedures but those are only done if there are other issues, not to determine sex. Maybe I'm missing something, though.
SR can also be decided based on the growth. If one baby is measuring significantly behind, then that one is reduced.
I hope all goes well for you! We have lots of twin moms on this board (if you didn't already know).
Thanks! So far they are doing well but I know it only gets harder.
Are the outcomes statistically better for twins vs triplets?
What is in the contract regarding selective reduction?
ETA: When does SR usually occur? Did the parents wait to find out the sex to decide to reduce?
I have lots of questions.
I'm currently pregnant with triplets and lurk here sometimes.
A pregnancy that starts as a twin pregnancy is going to go better than a pregnancy that starts as a triplet pregnancy obviously. My doctor doesn't believe that reducing a triplet pregnancy to a twin or singleton improves the pregnancy, though. There are risks in the SR procedure and you could lose more than intended. We chose not to SR. I'm not sure when it's usually done but earlier is better.
I'm not sure how they found out the sex at 13 weeks. It's on the early side for an accurate ultrasound. Blood tests can only tell if it's all girls or all boys. There are more invasive procedures but those are only done if there are other issues, not to determine sex. Maybe I'm missing something, though.
SR can also be decided based on the growth. If one baby is measuring significantly behind, then that one is reduced.
Congrats!
Totally beside the larger point, but I thought those genetic test could only confirm that a multiples pregnancy = all girls (no Y chromosome detected). If a Y chromosome is detected, it means there's a boy in there but it could just be one boy, if that makes sense. Or can the tests determine this far more specifically than I thought?
I hope all goes well for you! We have lots of twin moms on this board (if you didn't already know).
Thanks! So far they are doing well but I know it only gets harder.
Congrats! How far along are you? Man, I am not jealous of you I know how hard a twin pregnancy was and can't imagine one more in there. I ye you pregnancy remains uneventful.
And ditto, there are a lot of twin parents so please don't be scared to ask.
she is just a vessel getting paid to help get them there. I want to feel bad for her and she should have some say if the selective abortion would put her health at risk, but for me it all comes down to the parents getting to decide about their own babies and her contract to just be the vessel and not the parent.
Describing a human woman like this is just so ... icky. It basically encapsulates all my issues with surrogacy in one phrase. Should it be a legal reality that a person can transform into "just a vessel getting paid" because of words in a contract? It's a little Handmaid's Tale for me, frankly.
Handmaid's Tale doesn't with here. The handmaids were not being paid for their obligation to bear children. They were raped. The surrogate is a party who could legally enter a contract. Handmaids were "sacred" vessels; that's not how the term us being applied here.
that said, I'm on the surrogate's side here ethically. However, if she is in breach the contract, I'm equally of the opinion she should not get her fees.
Describing a human woman like this is just so ... icky. It basically encapsulates all my issues with surrogacy in one phrase. Should it be a legal reality that a person can transform into "just a vessel getting paid" because of words in a contract? It's a little Handmaid's Tale for me, frankly.
Handmaid's Tale doesn't with here. The handmaids were not being paid for their obligation to bear children. They were raped. The surrogate is a party who could legally enter a contract. Handmaids were "sacred" vessels; that's not how the term us being applied here.
that said, I'm on the surrogate's side here ethically. However, if she is in breach the contract, I'm equally of the opinion she should not get her fees.
Fair point. I read it over a decade ago so my memory is spotty. I do feel that using the term "vessel" to describe a person is fairly dehumanizing, which reminded me of those elements of the story.
Post by curbsideprophet on Dec 19, 2015 16:47:56 GMT -5
So many questions.
That being said, I can see how you might think you would be okay with selective reduction, but then when faced with actually having to do it you just can't go through with it.
I'm currently pregnant with triplets and lurk here sometimes.
A pregnancy that starts as a twin pregnancy is going to go better than a pregnancy that starts as a triplet pregnancy obviously. My doctor doesn't believe that reducing a triplet pregnancy to a twin or singleton improves the pregnancy, though. There are risks in the SR procedure and you could lose more than intended. We chose not to SR. I'm not sure when it's usually done but earlier is better.
I'm not sure how they found out the sex at 13 weeks. It's on the early side for an accurate ultrasound. Blood tests can only tell if it's all girls or all boys. There are more invasive procedures but those are only done if there are other issues, not to determine sex. Maybe I'm missing something, though.
SR can also be decided based on the growth. If one baby is measuring significantly behind, then that one is reduced.
Congrats!
Totally beside the larger point, but I thought those genetic test could only confirm that a multiples pregnancy = all girls (no Y chromosome detected). If a Y chromosome is detected, it means there's a boy in there but it could just be one boy, if that makes sense. Or can the tests determine this far more specifically than I thought?
Yep, i think you are right. We aren't doing the blood tests so I didn't look into it too much. And thanks!
Thanks! So far they are doing well but I know it only gets harder.
Congrats! How far along are you? Man, I am not jealous of you I know how hard a twin pregnancy was and can't imagine one more in there. I ye you pregnancy remains uneventful.
And ditto, there are a lot of twin parents so please don't be scared to ask.
I'm sorry to be beating a dead horse but I can't get this story out of my mind.
So here's a Question for those who think she should forfeit compensation:
As I understand it, compensation in these situations typically includes medical expenses, as well as time of work for appointments, complications and side effects, and recovery.
Are you saying she now has to return every dime? Or just some portion of the money? Like should she be paid for expenses incurred to date?
Going forward, if she's ordered on bed rest, but is no longer being compensated for time off work, and could suffer consequences, such as being evicted, is that ok to you? Don't you think there's a risk that she will avoid other medical directives now that she's paying out of pocket and make a bad situation much,much worse?
You know, every day in this country women are dealing with some version of this story. Maybe they made an agreement with their boyfriends that if they got pregnant, they'd abort. Maybe they discussed with their spouse and agreed they'd never abort even in certain high risk situations. We wouldn't say those people promised and deserve to be punished.
If a woman promised her husband she'd abort if presented with severe fetal abnormalities, chose not to do it, and he withheld money, we'd call it spousal abuse.
The mere fact that this woman's promise was ordained by a notary doesn't change anything at all for me.
I'm sure there are some horrifying clauses in pre-nups. Some might be unenforceable (can't waive the obligation to pay child support), but I'm sure you can imagine what other grotesque things men with money will try to buy and barter that don't make it through the courts. I have no doubt that contracts are used to ensure men get as much sex as they want while being able to threaten to take away women's money, home, and children. We wouldn't excuse financial duress and call it a business transaction.
That's not how it works. Bodily autonomy means you have the right to say what happens to your body when it happens. Women have fought for years to make abortion legal because people change their minds and individual circumstances require broad freedom. Women have fought for years to strengthen rape laws because just because he buys you dinner and fondles your breasts does not mean consent to everything that happens after that. One of the reasons prostitution is so problematic is the stealth way in which a paid consensual transaction can turn into sexual assault in a matter of seconds, with little recourse available to the woman because she agreed.
It's like that here. Except now, it's not men versus (white) women. It's white men and women of resources using the bodies of women who are often of a lower socioeconomic class and wanting their promises enforced. I think people who want the surrogate to just get be up her bodily autonomy under financial duress really need to step back here and think about their own privileges, as well as what they are asking, and what it really means. Because the way I see it, All this work - years of advocacy and struggles to change how men see women's bodies and their sexual and reproductive freedom and what autonomy really means - well, that work means nothing if we say, "all that can be overridden if a woman promises."
I feel for these couples who have been dealt a shitty hand in life. But they aren't renting a womb, nor do they have a right as heyjude pointed out, to buy a designer baby. For surrogacy to work and not exploit vulnerable women, however, the risks of the "transaction" have to fall nearly entirely in the couples. They just have to. Otherwise bodily autonomy means nothing.
But these aren't her children's lives at risk. Decisions that impact their health aren't hers to make. How are these parents and future IP supposed to proceed if the contract means nothing? If this woman can break the contract that sets a precedent for every other surrogate who decides mid-pregnancy that she doesn't like the terms of the contract anymore.
What if a surrogate decides she doesn't want to be surrogate anymore and to opt for an abortion? Her body so she can do what she wants? And still be entitled to the money that was paid to her so far to cover medical costs?
What if a surrogate decides she doesn't want to be surrogate anymore and to opt for an abortion? Her body so she can do what she wants? And still be entitled to the money that was paid to her so far to cover medical costs?
Yes, she has the right to get an abortion. No, they don't get the money back for medical expenses already paid.
In adoption situations, as I understand it, prospective parents and/or the agency can offer to pay medical expenses, but they are not entitled to that money back if the woman changes her mind and keeps the baby, or changes her mind and chooses different parents.
lexus, this impacts her health too. It's not a risk free procedure for her.