Gay Couple Sues Surrogate for Refusing to Kill Baby With Cleft Lip in Abortion

A same-sex couple in Ontario has sued their surrogate mother after she refused to abort their baby diagnosed with a cleft lip, a relatively minor and easily correctable condition with surgery.

The lawsuit, filed in Ontario Superior Court in May, seeks approximately $600,000 in damages. It alleges the surrogate failed to keep the couple informed about the baby’s health, put the child at risk, failed to follow their directions on medical care, violated confidentiality and caused one parent serious emotional distress.

The conflict began in late June 2024 when an ultrasound at about 22 weeks showed the baby had a cleft lip along with possible cleft palate and a minor heart defect. The couple sent the surrogate a letter demanding she kill the baby in an abortion under a clause in their surrogacy agreement.

“Considering that medical tests indicate that the fetus has, or is likely to have, a genetic, chromosomal or other abnormality or defect, and in accordance with article 8.5 (a) of our surrogacy agreement … we want to inform you of our wish that the pregnancy be terminated,” the letter stated. “Although very difficult, this decision is free and informed.”

The surrogate, a single mother and corrections officer in Ontario’s Muskoka region, refused. She insisted on further testing and said she would only consider having an abortion if the baby had no realistic chance of survival. She viewed the cleft lip as largely cosmetic.

Specialists at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto later determined the baby was otherwise healthy, with only the minor cleft lip defect that can be addressed through surgery and therapy. The couple agreed to continue the pregnancy.

The relationship soured after the disagreement. The surrogate gave birth at home with midwives as originally agreed, though the couple had wanted a hospital delivery because of the cleft lip.

The newborn baby had temporary breathing difficulties but recovered quickly after receiving oxygen and being transported to the hospital.

After taking their son home, the gay couple cut off contact with the surrogate. She later sought reimbursement for roughly $10,000 in expenses related to the pregnancy. The contract required disputes over expenses to go through arbitration.

The surrogate has denied the couple’s allegations, stating she kept them informed and did nothing to endanger the child.

“You know I’m a single mom, you know I have a daughter, and you’re basically suing me for my house. It seems very s—ty, it’s just awful,” she said. “I just feel used … They didn’t get the perfect child they wanted and they threw me away.”

Sally Rhoads-Heinrich, who owns the agency that arranged the surrogacy, expressed concern over the lawsuit.

“What I find most difficult in this is they are suing the woman who brought their son to them. How is their son going to feel some day if he learns that?” she said.

Bioethicist Juliet Guichon noted that the couple had sought to end the baby’s life for a medical condition that can be completely overcome by surgery and therapy. She questioned whether it is in the best interests of the child to be raised by these people.

IVF always results in killing, or freezing and (usually) abandoning, excess embryos. Not sometimes, always.

If you believe human life begins at conception, that means it always involves homicide. Always. Owning a gun or going target shooting or hunting doesn't imply homicide. IVF does.

(If you don't believe human life begins at conception, that's you putting your opinions and wannabees above objective scientific fact.)

Surrogacy is equally wrong; it turns human beings into goods to be sold, effectively, to the highest bidder. The last time we did that, we had to fight a Civil War to end it.

The concept that each fertilized zygote could have lived if IVF were not involved is flawed. That there may be a small number of fertilized eggs from IVF that might or might not have been able to complete the process is not germane. Many fertilized eggs are donated, many are given the chance but are not viable.
Those that are not implanted were given a chance to grow. As in all natural selection the strongest are the most successful and are implanted. Many of those still are not successful. Without IVF none of them would be born.

It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. At that point everything that is necessary for it to develop into a human being is present, including its own unique DNA. Allowed to complete its natural development, it will not turn into a kidney or lung or an undifferentiated mass of cells, but a human being.

The real point is whether the destruction of human life is any different than the murder of a born person. Since science now unequivocally tells us that at conception it is a human being, that should be the starting point for any consideration of this question, not the aftermath.

When we speak of human zygotes, embryos, fetuses, babies, children, teenagers, adults, middle-aged, and old age, these are all simply descriptions of the various stages of human development. Some occur on one side of the birth canal, others on the other side. Some may have been conceived under less-than-ideal circumstances. Some may be imperfect or unwanted by their parents or by society. But all are living human beings. All have an equal human dignity. None should unjustly be deprived of life.

So where do we draw the line at the taking of an innocent human life? What difference does location or stage of human development make? If we lower ourselves to countenance taking the life one category of people for our own convenience and satisfaction, who is next?

Before it can become a legal issue, the moral issue has to be addressed. Before there were written laws against pre-meditated murder, especially the innocent, there was a general consensus among even the most primitive people that it was wrong and this was the basis of the law against murder.

Even though it seems clear to me and others that based on the scientific evidence it is rational to conclude that human life begins at conception, it is an unfortunate fact there is doubt or disbelief about this in a large segment of the population. Is it a human life, or isn't it? If it isn't, you can do whatever you want with it. If it is, it should be treated like all other human life. If one simply does not know, it should be given the benefit of the doubt of being human until proved otherwise. It would be akin to seeing a human shaped bag in the middle of the road. If there's a chance there's a human being in there, do you stop or go around it, or just run over it because you don't know? If you are going to err, it's always wise to err on the side of life.

I understand you have a personal stake in this, but I want to make it clear that I am not saying those who resort to IVF are evil or the children were that were conceived in this way are evil or in any way less human or precious in God's sight. However the process itself and the profit motive behind is evil (unlike a gun, which is an inanimate object, inert until someone employs it).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.