M.W. “g[ave] birth” to Baby G. in Texas, and per the ordinary operation of Texas law, would thereby be “established” as his mother. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.201(a)(1). This Court has upheld the constitutionality of such statutes that confer parentage without regard to genetics—even in cases like this with facts that “are, we must hope, extraordinary.” Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 113 (1989). Once those rights are conferred by state law, they cannot be stripped away lightly. Even “[w]hen the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753–54 (1982). That didn’t happen here. The California courts stripped away M.W.’s rights to the child she carried for 37 weeks as she fought to save his life from those who sought him dead. They did so in overt breach of due process by construing M.W.’s challenge to jurisdiction and forum as consent....
In Michael H., the Court upheld a California statute that conclusively presumed the husband of the mother is the father and barred the biological father from any legal right to the child. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, noted that you can't expand everyone's "liberty interest" here: "to provide protection to an adulterous natural father is to deny protection to a marital father, and vice versa." That left the state to do what it wanted with its statutory law: "Our disposition does not choose between these two 'freedoms,' but leaves that to the people of California."
Does that mean the people of Texas can write a statute that gives a baby to any surrogate who manages to get to Texas to give birth? The biological parents filed their case in California, before the baby was born and the California court never considered the Texas statute. A Texas court was involved after the baby was born, but it gave full faith and credit to the California court's judgment.
संदेश
72 टिप्पणियां:
Solomon had it easy…
Just understanding some of the headlines of the situation and not the case, I disagreed that the parents should be able to force an abortion, and I understand that changed the contract of the surrogacy. However, I do think the couple should have the child.
If you ask a surrogate to have an abortion you’ve given up any claim to that child. That child would never have lived had your request been granted.
Picturing a baby in a car seat on a table in a courtroom while lawyers argue back and forth in front of a judge makes this story only slightly more surreal.
This surrogacy shit is out of control. However, it is funny to see that good 'ol contractual capitalism trumps "her body, her choice". Way to go wimmins. Way to go.
Put me down with MartyH. The baby is the surrogates once the couple wanted the baby killed in the mother’s womb.
Solomon knew who the fake mom was because she was willing to kill the real mother’s child. Put that way, it’s easy to see who the real mom is.
The surrogate was a womb with a room, which is less than an ideal choice. The biological genders deemed their child a "burden" and proposed a Choice to indulge planned parenthood, a wicked solution. The final solution is to select the guardian who favors the child's life over privacy and convenience.
Also here to say MartyH is correct.
The Michael H. case gives me the opportunity to tell a story.
I was in Blair, Nebraska for motion day. Judge John Sampson was on the bench. (He was a HS classmate of H. Cooper Hanson III, but that's another story.)
A paternity case is called. The father didn't appear. Judge Sampson made it clear on the record that the father had been served properly but was in default. The issue was then how much income to impute to the father for child support purposes.
The lawyer for the mother said that McDonald's in Fremont was advertising that it paid $15 per hour. So, that number was used.
The next issue was health insurance for the baby. Judge, "I'm assuming Medicaid."
Lawyer for mom, "The baby has health insurance through the spouse of my client."
Judge was flustered. "Oh, I understand."
I had seen this married couple in the back of the courtroom earlier that day. Little did I know of the drama that had gone down between them.
They’re going to kill the child and feminists will turn cartwheels down the street.
… following which Kagan should be burned at the stake to send a message to Roberts, Barrett, and the two DEI hires.
Just a reminder that surrogacy is child trafficking and evil, and neither party ought to be a parent. Lord have mercy on that child.
Her body, her choice. Right, libtards?
Agree. The surrogates wanted the baby dead.
That should cut the deal.
M Fitzgerald - 8:42
Spot on.
I guess it's good that too many people want this kid, as opposed to nobody.
RSM: That Army Veteran run ChiCom Babygigafactory has links to the Hoover Institute, so it must be just fine. It's just as likely we are flooding the People's Republic with Manchurian candidates that will emerge from privileged childhood to lead the American overthrow of Xi regime.
Baby Rumi was born Aug 12, has hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a rare congenital defect where the left side of the heart is severely underdeveloped and cannot pump enough blood to the body. It was detected at a 20-week ultrasound and is the diagnosis that triggered the biological parents’ abortion request.
Standard treatment is a series of three staged open-heart surgeries; they are not a cure, and some children ultimately need a heart transplant and lifelong medication. The baby had the first of those, the Norwood procedure, shortly after birth. (Perplexity)
from the link:
"Ms. Gilkar and Mr. Ahmed are “providing the precise medical care for their child” that Ms. West desires, the lawyers said, adding that “a right to life is not at issue here.”
I'm sorry- what?
"Her body, her choice. Right, libtards?"
When money's involved, it's always "different this time" Michael.
Howard - that much marijuana this early is not advised.
Let Lindsay Clancy adopt the child.
The alternative to the pregnant mother with a material investment and expressed interest in the child's sustained viability and care despite probable secular defects, is herding the child on a foster farm with known, progressive social dysfunction, or with the biological genders who demanded to contract with planned parenthood umbrella corporation to perform a human rite.
💪😎🤙
Precisely the opposite Howard. Most of the rest of the world laughs at our high-trust notion of "citizenship", and so will those anchor babies.
Bob Boyd, at 0844, said correctly that "
"...it's good that too many people want this kid..."
The problem is that (at least at one time) the bioparents wanted this kid dead.
Have they had a change of heart, or will they decide to go for "comfort care" instead of subjecting their little experiment to more surgery in the future?
The womb with a room is less than an ideal choice as a forward-looking guardian However, the biological genders who opt for the Choice with the rubric of privacy or convenience are downright Clancy-esque and cannot be trusted. Life is an exercise in risk management not to be planned lightly.
Oh brother. And the SCOTUS has been twisted in knots about every damn death penalty case is now going to be equally twisted with all these new commercial surrogate baby deals. Good. A pox on those assholes. Open Pandora's box and you get the curse along with it.
@Eva Marie, that was my first question, knowing about the defect as previously reported: How is the baby? Have the required procedures been performed yet, and to what result?
It seems like Texas is a Surrogate Anchor Baby State. And an Abortion Sanctuary State as well.
Perhaps we should concentrate on the child. Who thinks that a child who learns that their parents wanted them dead would be a good thing? Here’s a vote for the parent that wanted them to live.
@ WTIC
I wonder what the law in CA is regarding withholding or providing life-saving care in a situation like this?
The “My Body, My Choice” people won and now they're hungry for a new fight. It's going to be assisted suicide. Get ready. If Canada is any indication of things to come, our doctors are going to kill 100,000 people per year.
Check out the figures from Canada, they're truly insane!
The case is the case … complicated.
But it”s THE PROCESS at SCOTUS that worries me … and should worry each of you. There is no consistency.
CJ Roberts doesn’t seem to care if the justices color outside the lines. No damn discipline anywhere, and Ø consequences for rogue behavior.
No damn leadership. 😡
And the story gives no insight as to the results, or the prognosis for the baby. Nor do they address the motivations of the parents, who have simply said '...“their child receives the lifesaving care he needs — and they are committed to doing so for the rest of his life.”...' which to me is a very carefully loaded statement. Did they have a change of heart? Seems to me, they would say so, if it were the case.
Rumi was born August 12, had the Norwood shortly after, and was reported in critical condition with complications requiring reintubation as of the August 25 court filing. Reintubation resets the clock on ICU recovery, so a stay well beyond the 3–4 week average is likely. As of the September 10 Supreme Court filing he was still described as medically fragile, suggesting he was probably still hospitalized about four weeks after birth. (Perplexity)
It seems more like the question is: Who gets to sell (or not sell) the baby? If the baby doesn't have any rights before birth, and it's just the mother's property, who cares what the mother does?
Yeah, I don't believe that either.
Howard - those fake citizens will reduce your social security.
For babies who survive the Norwood, the standard path is:
• Discharge home after the Norwood, on heart medications and often with a feeding tube
• Glenn procedure at roughly 4–8 months, average 5–7 day hospital stay
• Fontan procedure around age 2–4, average 7–10 days in hospital
Between and after those, most survivors live at home, attend school, and manage the condition with cardiology follow-ups and medications. Ninety percent survive the Norwood hospitalization itself, and among children who reach age one, about 90% survive long-term, with 70% reaching adulthood.
"Solomon knew who the fake mom was because she was willing to kill the real mother’s child. Put that way, it’s easy to see who the real mom is."
There's SO much more going on there. See "Beyond King Solomon's Harlots: Women in Evidence" by Ann Althouse.
Read it, learn it, know it.
A small subset ends up hospital-bound for long stretches: babies awaiting a heart transplant, those with severe complications from the Norwood, or those with additional genetic or extracardiac problems that keep them ventilator- or ICU-dependent. Transplant waits alone average around 87 days inpatient.
For Rumi specifically, the reintubation and “critical condition” reports from late August put him in the higher-risk group for a prolonged stay in the hospital. (Perplexity)
The child is obviously the property of those who paid for him. What's the problem?
I understand both impulses on the parents’ parts. First to want the baby aborted and once it’s born to be the baby’s loving parents.
Thanks for providing all the extra info, Eva Marie.
King Solomon’s Harlots would make a great masthead motto. Describes most of us commenters. CC, JSM
I would think that upon birth the courts would consider the interests of the child, not the parents, as in a divorce case. If the purpose of the California couple is to euthanize the child as they wanted it aborted that is a stretch as to improving the child’s welfare. If they do get custody then they would owe the surrogate mother the full contract renumeration.
With Kagan this issue is fully identified as a Democrat issue and that won’t look good in Texas.
What would you do if you learned now that this baby is a Chicom anchor baby?
1) Heroic measures to save it even at taxpayer expense.
2) Provide comfort care only.
3) Just pull the plug.
4) Ship it China on the next thing smokin'.
Serious Question:
is there a prediction market?
where we can bet on How Long before the child is "sadly" found dead?
i'm not trying to sound like i'm implying that the "parents" will Intentionally KILL "their" child..
i'm EXPLICITLY stating that the "parents" will Intentionally KILL "their" child
Ironically, it would be best for the baby if the parents are CCP members in good standing because they could get a fresh heart for the kid no problem.
Smoke your celebratory cigar, Kagan.
Howard and his stupefying blasts of intoxication.
Go Howie, go Howie!
The motivations of the surrogate mom are pretty clear, as delineated by her actions. The motivations of the parents are completely unexplored in this story. And their actions are, to all appearances, being carefully managed to appear as neutral as possible. Why? These are stories that are crafted to grab our attention, and then seemingly designed to leave our curiosity unsated, uninformed, left in suspension. 'Scratch-the-surface' journalism.
I read the Althouse paper, it seems to me that whether the one or the other woman was the real mother is irrelevant. The one who acted to save the life of the child is a better mother for it than the one who would have it killed in a pique. So regardless of genetics, Solomon made the right judgement.
And this is true in the case before us now, also.
Our Hostess wrote:
"There's SO much more going on there. See "Beyond King Solomon's Harlots: Women in Evidence" by Ann Althouse.
Read it, learn it, know it."
Very interesting analysis, but toward the end, you seemed to dismiss the "Lying Woman/Innocent Man" stereotype. In the decades following your piece, we have seen several high profile cases of Lying Woman motivated by political activism (e.g. Kavanaugh, in which the FBI was flooded by accusations from his "victims".}
And I have always wondered why the case of the harlots could not have been handled at the trial level instead of at the appellate.
Reproductive prostitution is rarely a cheap trick.
Wait until the kid grows up and finds out their parents fought to have them killed.
The chances are very likely that this poor baby will be forced to go back to the "loving parents" who wanted him (or her? Rumi is not familiar enough for me to assume the gender) dead. Notice the weasel wording: the bio, abortion loving parents are "committed to providing the medical care for the rest of his life." And how long is the rest of his life? Will he die in the next month, and gosh darn it, such is life? Right after he went with the parents who wanted him dead? Couldn't be helped, could it!
If they are Chicoms, whose to say they aren't going to head to Canada immediately and "MAID" the kid, since he has "defects"? Canada will happily kill the baby; I hear they have same day service now. The only medical service that is fast and efficient in Canada is when the state murders you. As the leftists cheer loudly for each death of course!
The unfortunate baby's plea, "I Want You to Want Me"
Not here to persuade anyone, because this case is more complicated than I care to dig in. I do appreciate different opinions and really appreciate Eva Marie providing more context. I will though explain my reasoning.
I’m generally not a fan of surrogacy at all, sort of how Blair describes it. For me to accept it all is to have compassion for a couple who can’t have their own, but want a child with their genetics. For that reason, I can accept the surrogate (the mother that will carry the child and choosing from the beginning to give up the child) as doing something noble that deserves protection. However, the surrogate is the first to state a willingness to part with the child (read Althouse’s paper if this matters to you).
I agree with everyone that wanting to abort the child severs the contract, and I said with the initial reporting that I accept that and their refusal to pay for the child’s care. At that point, let the surrogate have the child. Again, not knowing the details, if the parents providing the genetics have had a change of heart and are willing to care for the child, then I’m back to considering the original deal. However, I would also expect them to go back to paying for the surrogacy and a commitment (as Aggie wonders rightfully) that they will actually provide and fund for the child’s care.
The rest is a difficult life for that child either way. It is a story my manager is going through with his child with so far successful results. Either way, both the genetic parents and surrogate have shown a willingness to reject the child, which is why I don’t like surrogacy in general. It is all complicated by the genetic defects of the child, which is a likely factor for why the couple needed a surrogate. This child may be there only hope, which is why they turned to surrogacy, and I have compassion to the notion they are frankly scared of it all and like most new parents making hard and sometimes poor decisions, but here in a public setting.
@eve marie: Good use of AI!
This ties to something I've been thinking about since we discussed it here as well as long-ongoing discussions about birthright citizenship
We talked about the Chinese billionaire who was fathering hundreds of babies born in the US and thus citizens. I am against birth tourism and glad to see PDJT enforcing and strengthening laws against it.
But the billionaire doesn't have to engage in birth tourism. He can send his sperm from China, implant it in a US citizen surrogate mother and not only is Bob your uncle, the resulting
baby is a citizen.
So now the question is who "owns" or controls the baby? The Billionaire paid the surrogate for a service. Can he take the citizen baby back to China with US passport and SS#? I assume yes if the mom doesn't object. Maybe(?) if the mom does object. As a billionaire he can probably give her enough money to quiet any objections.
Take it a step further, he sends eggs from a Chinese woman (who never leaves China) plus sperm. Is this Birth tourism? Is it illegal under any state/federal laws? (Presuming the surrogacy is legal)
John Henry
"Does that mean the people of Texas can write a statute that gives a baby to any surrogate who manages to get to Texas to give birth?"
Oh, Hell yes! In fact, they could award child support from the irresponsible bio-parents to the mother. As many a man has found out the hard way, it's all fun and games until somebody gets pregnant.
Don't get distracted by the surrogacy angle into thinking that this is totally a new situation. It happens all the time that the father of a baby in utero tries unsuccessfully to persuade the mother to have an abortion. The law doesn't figure that into whether the father should have custody once the baby arrives.
Great! If the heart defect materialized, do the California parents have a Lindsay Clancy abortion in mind?
From"king Solomon's Harlots":
"Consider this: One in four college women has been raped."
If true, why would anyone chance sending their daughters to college?
Rape or regret?
The thing about the law is that it's not always about what's morally right and wrong. I have not been following this case, but I assume that it's a very emotional subject for some people. As a general rule, as long as the contract is properly written, the courts should uphold it. (So be careful what you sign.) Also, unless a parent has been found by a court to be an unfit parent, they are still legally the parent. Someone can do ethically questionable things, but that doesn't automatically make them an unfit parent in the eyes of the law. So I can't give an informed opinion on this specific case because there are so many unknown variables involved. (Unknown to me, that is.)
"As a general rule, as long as the contract is properly written, the courts should uphold it."
There are people who would sign a contract that made them slaves. For example, to obtain money to pay for a loved one's medical care. Do you think courts should enforce slavery contracts?
It was thinking about slavery contracts that showed me the fundamental flaw in Libertarianism. The State cannot be indifferent to the nature of the contracts it undertakes to enforce.
The correct fix is for the SC of TX to set in and refuse to grant any faith to the CA ruling.
Then the murderous "parents" have to appeal to the 5th Circuit
एक टिप्पणी भेजें
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.