Posted on 02/25/2016 1:53:43 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
A set of triplets at the center of a major surrogacy case have been born in California and are being tended to in hospital. The three boys were born seven weeks premature on Monday night, according to a lawyer for Melissa Cook, the 47-year-old surrogate mother who refused to have an abortion at the request of the biological father, sparking a wide-reaching legal battle.
The lawyer, Harold Cassidy, told Fox News that the babies were immediately taken from Cook following the birth after a judge granted the father full parental custody. The father, identified in court papers only as C.M., is a 50-year-old postal service worker from Georgia who agreed to pay Cook $33,000 to carry anonymously donated eggs he had fertilized.
However C.M. requested Cook abort one of the embryos when it was discovered she was carrying triplets, as the pregnancy was deemed high-risk due to Cook's age.
C.M. also said he could not afford to raise three children as a single parent.
Cook, who is pro-life, refused the abortion, and set into action a legal battle that challenges California's surrogacy laws in a federal court.
In the state, a gestational surrogate has no parental rights.
'It's an attempt to reduce women to an object, or a breeding animal,' Cassidy told Fox News.
'The hospital personnel refused to let Melissa see the children, allow her to know what their condition is, refused to tell her their exact weights, and she is not being permitted to see the children at all.
'We have a mother who loves them, who fought for them, who defended their life, who stands ready to take care of them.
'You can't tell a mother who gives birth to children that what happens to the children is none of her business.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Those babies are not safe with a man who wanted to kill one of them.
It’s pretty straight-forward. He had no rights before they were born; she has no rights after they were born.
Everybody knew what they were getting into when they signed the contract.
But he wants one of those children killed and has gone to court to force the issue. Surely that trumps his so-called “rights”.
And has refused to pay the surrogate. Doesn’t that negate his “contract” right there?
Sure seems like it. The whole situation is a giant mess. They can wrangle over it in court for years and spend college-tuition-like sums of money on attorneys.
Those babies are seven weeks premature? Keeping them all alive at birth is in itself a fortunate event. Who knows what abortion ghouls are capable of?
What kind of son of a bitch would demand that one of the children be aborted?I’m 56 years old and if I was blessed with triplets I would figure out a way to afford them.
They had a contract. She delivered.. in fact, she over-delivered.
Hopefully people will start to realize that wombs for hire is a bad idea.
I applaud her for not terminating one of the babies. But, this lady has no judgment or was willing to look past the best interest of these babies if she was ever willing to surrogate for a 50 year old, single male. Who in their right minds thinks this man would provide the best home for a baby or babies in this case? Someone his age and marital status should consider adopting an at risk boy. Lord knows the foster system is filled with them and they need male role models very badly!
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.