Speaker 1: Folks, it is Saturday, August fifteenth, and a surrogate from
Speaker 1: Alaska traveled to Texas to have a baby for a
Speaker 1: couple that lives in California. Here's the thing, the couple
Speaker 1: in California did not want her to have the baby.
Speaker 1: Are you keeping up here? Because this has now set
Speaker 1: off a multi state maga mess And with that, welcome
Speaker 1: to this episode of Amy and TJ. Robes. I say,
Speaker 1: Maggie went with mess. But the fact of the matter
Speaker 1: is this is a family, personal, and even legal dispute
Speaker 1: that is turning into now a major political football.
Speaker 2: Even you could say without a doubt, without a doubt,
Speaker 2: this is now pitted anti abortion activists against pro abortion rights. Folks,
Speaker 2: you've got surrogacy issues. All sorts of people have taken side,
Speaker 2: including the Attorney General of the state of Texas, but
Speaker 2: courts are involved. And now this sarrogate, McKenna West, as
Speaker 2: you mentioned, from Alaska, wants custody of the baby boy
Speaker 2: she gave birth to, who, by all accounts, was never
Speaker 2: meant to be born in the first place.
Speaker 1: So let's go with that. Robes, coupland California. Let's start
Speaker 1: from the very basics couple in California want to have
Speaker 1: a baby. They found a Saraga. She's in Alaska, she
Speaker 1: is pregnant, she's carrying child, but twenty weeks into it,
Speaker 1: to have right robes, they found a severe birth defect,
Speaker 1: a heart defect. The family decides, the couple decides, we
Speaker 1: would like to terminate this pregnancy. The saragate says, no,
Speaker 1: that sets off a legal mess. Robes in here we.
Speaker 2: Are exactly and so that's Sarahgate again. McKenna West decided
Speaker 2: to flee to Texas because she said she felt like
Speaker 2: she could get better protection there. Texas has some of
Speaker 2: the strictest abortion laws in the country, meaning if you
Speaker 2: have been raped in cases of rape and incest, you
Speaker 2: still have to have the baby. So that was the
Speaker 2: state she chose to flee to, and she did receive
Speaker 2: help from some anti abortion groups in choosing where she
Speaker 2: went and how she got there. But yeah, the parents
Speaker 2: found out that their baby was diagnosed with hypoplastic left
Speaker 2: heart syndrome. It's a life threatening condition. It requires I believe,
Speaker 2: three surgeries, and yes it can be fatal. But basically
Speaker 2: the left side of this baby's heart didn't develop. It
Speaker 2: restricts blood flow, and unless you have open heart surgery
Speaker 2: and again two other surgeries, the baby will die.
Speaker 1: There is no guarantee this of this baby's survival and
Speaker 1: even if so, what life it'll have after that. That's
Speaker 1: the reality of the situation. The reality is, though Rope,
Speaker 1: this no other way to say it. That is not
Speaker 1: her baby.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 1: She has no legal rights to that baby as of
Speaker 1: this moment.
Speaker 2: Correct, in fact, and she, by the way, the couple
Speaker 2: was able to obtain a temporary restraining order against the
Speaker 2: surrogate mother, So she has not been able to hold
Speaker 2: the baby. She has not even been able to see
Speaker 2: the baby, and certainly she has no rights to what
Speaker 2: happens to that baby. Now. However, the parents were restricted
Speaker 2: for some of their rights as well, because when she
Speaker 2: traveled from Alaska to Texas, the Texas Attorney General Ken
Speaker 2: Paxton got involved. He had a court order to ensure
Speaker 2: that the unborn baby would receive life saving medical treatment
Speaker 2: over any objections from the biological parents.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you see the mess. Who has the rights
Speaker 1: to the child, Not the woman who just birthed it,
Speaker 1: not the parents who's that's their DNA.
Speaker 2: Yes, the state of Texas. Yes, that is their DNA.
Speaker 1: So now the state of Texas is saying they have
Speaker 1: the right to make decisions about this child. Yes, Robes,
Speaker 1: this is a mess.
Speaker 2: Yes, and yes, Paxton said, baby Gabriel deserves a chance
Speaker 2: at life and I will not allow anyone to unlawfully
Speaker 2: deny him medically necessary care. And I say baby Gabriel
Speaker 2: because that is the name that Paxton gave this child.
Speaker 2: It's the name that this child is now being referred
Speaker 2: to by anti abortion Gabriel the Angel.
Speaker 1: Uh, they just decided to name that.
Speaker 2: They decided to name the baby that the biological family
Speaker 2: has now named the baby Roomy and says the baby's
Speaker 2: name is not Gabriel, it is Roomy. But literally, if
Speaker 2: you go look up the story, you will see the
Speaker 2: name interchanged in how folks are reporting on this story.
Speaker 1: What was Gabriel's What was Gabriel's thing with the what
Speaker 1: was Gabriel's backstory? The Angel I'm trying to remember, that's
Speaker 1: not the fallen Angel though, right, who's the fallen Angel?
Speaker 2: Well, the fallen Angel was I'm so bad, don't get
Speaker 2: me onto this, but you're putting me on the spot.
Speaker 2: But the angel Gabriel is a heavenly messenger, and his
Speaker 2: name means God is my strength or God's Hero. He
Speaker 2: appears in the Bible explaining visions to Daniel announcing the
Speaker 2: birth of John the Baptist and Jesus.
Speaker 1: So they have just decided to call the very Gabriel.
Speaker 2: He's the one who told the virgin Mary that she
Speaker 2: would give birth to Jesus. She's the that angel told
Speaker 2: Mary that she had just had an immaculate conception. So
Speaker 2: it is about a miracle baby, so to speak, the
Speaker 2: miracle baby being Jesus. Gabriel announced that the miracle of
Speaker 2: Jesus would actually exist. And so yes, they named this
Speaker 2: baby Gabriel.
Speaker 1: So just like now Gabriel setting off a whole mess
Speaker 1: of controversy. Has Gabriel not and what are we saying?
Speaker 1: So wasn't Lucifer the name?
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I want to say, isn't that the devil? Yes,
Speaker 2: battled Lucifer. Yes, Lucifer was an angel.
Speaker 1: Man.
Speaker 2: We got to get back to some we're getting held
Speaker 2: a tak now by so many people who just heard
Speaker 2: that and thought, y'all are crazy.
Speaker 1: I didn't remember Gabriel, but Lucifer obviously was the guy.
Speaker 2: Oh my goodness, Anyway, here we are. So here's what
Speaker 2: we know about baby. Let's call the baby Roomy. That
Speaker 2: is the child's actual name. Roomy is now under medical
Speaker 2: care at a Texas facility in Dallas, I believe, and
Speaker 2: he's being evaluated right now. And look, it's so interesting
Speaker 2: when you hear what the biological parents are saying now
Speaker 2: through their attorney. They are claiming that yes, they did
Speaker 2: want her to terminate the pregnancy, but then once she
Speaker 2: fled and once she went to Texas, they wanted to
Speaker 2: then have the baby born in California, and they agreed
Speaker 2: to have these life saving surgeries take place. So they
Speaker 2: backed off of this idea that the baby shouldn't be born.
Speaker 2: And at a certain point it wasn't possible. I mean,
Speaker 2: this was found. This heart condition was found in twenty weeks.
Speaker 2: A baby is can survive outside of the uterus live
Speaker 2: around twenty four weeks unilatterally and generally speaking, so there
Speaker 2: wasn't a lot of time. But here is what they
Speaker 2: have said through their attorney. Our client's focus at this
Speaker 2: time is ensuring that their baby receives the medical care
Speaker 2: that he vitally needs and that they, as his parents,
Speaker 2: are able to spend every precious moment they can with him. Yes,
Speaker 2: they accuse the Attorney General and the surrogate of turning
Speaker 2: what they call a family tragedy into political theater. And look,
Speaker 2: I think it's important to point out August eleventh, or
Speaker 2: excuse me, August twelfth, is when the baby was born.
Speaker 2: But in July they actually filed court documents and acknowledged
Speaker 2: and accepted and wanted to provide medical treatment for their babies.
Speaker 2: So they weren't still pushing for terminating the child. So
Speaker 2: they said, after heartbreaking this is how they described what happened.
Speaker 2: After heartbreaking consultations with medical providers and their own research
Speaker 2: about suffering and the quality of life these types of
Speaker 2: babies endure, they made the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy.
Speaker 2: It is undisputed that West initially agreed, and that she
Speaker 2: herself made the initial appointment. They're talking about an abortion.
Speaker 2: She then changed youdilaterally changed her mind, cut off all
Speaker 2: contact with the birth parents, withdrew medical releases allowing the
Speaker 2: birth parents to have contact with all medical providers. So
Speaker 2: they were seeking to have West give birth to their
Speaker 2: son in California, not in Texas, but they did not
Speaker 2: they were not able to do that. That's kind of wild.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, she'd be charged with a crime. This is
Speaker 1: their child has been kidnapped and decisions are being made
Speaker 1: for their child that they have legal rights to by
Speaker 1: other people, including the State of Texas. They don't have
Speaker 1: a right to their child right.
Speaker 2: Now, Well they do right now. They are in custody
Speaker 2: physical custody of their child.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm saying, but Texas had the right to say
Speaker 1: this and that.
Speaker 2: What But Texas has the right to make sure that
Speaker 2: that child is getting specific life saving surgery.
Speaker 1: Not whatever the family decides for the child. Are medical
Speaker 1: decisions being made for this child by the state of
Speaker 1: Texas and a Senate candidate in Ken Paxton.
Speaker 2: Yes, initially. But here's the deal. The parents do want
Speaker 2: these same life saving surgeries now to take place. They
Speaker 2: just want them to take place in California. I mean,
Speaker 2: at this point, it's happening in Texas. But they're trying.
Speaker 2: We can get into some of the legal battles that
Speaker 2: are going on, because there are multiple ones, not just
Speaker 2: on who has custody of the child, but also where
Speaker 2: this child can be taken to have these surgeries.
Speaker 1: Why is there a discussion. There are parents, there are parents,
Speaker 1: oh boy. And so that's she probably knew she'd be
Speaker 1: going to the right place for such a fight. And
Speaker 1: she's now in the hands of the right guy who
Speaker 1: needs help in a Senate campaign exactly.
Speaker 2: And he knows his audience, he knows his voters. And
Speaker 2: in terms of the Sarah Gate, McKenna west right. Now,
Speaker 2: just for the record, she has been denied any contact
Speaker 2: with the child. She is trying to get custody of
Speaker 2: the child. That is going to be a massive, uphill
Speaker 2: battle that she almost certainly will not win. But here's
Speaker 2: the deal. This is what her attorney said. We are
Speaker 2: working on challenging the orders of parentage because we think
Speaker 2: that Texas law makes a woman who gives birth to
Speaker 2: a child the mother of the child. That is doing
Speaker 2: their legal argument. And this woman has the help of
Speaker 2: so an anti abortion Christian organization called the Alliance Defending
Speaker 2: Freedom is helping her seek parental custody. So they are
Speaker 2: providing her the funds for her legal counsel to try
Speaker 2: and get custody of this child. And she also had
Speaker 2: another anti abortion group, Live Action out of Virginia, pay
Speaker 2: for her and her other two children to travel from
Speaker 2: Alaska to Texas and to be set up in Texas.
Speaker 2: She is being funded, She is being funded.
Speaker 1: She is being used.
Speaker 2: Yes, she's a pawn.
Speaker 1: She is wrote you said there's a Texas law. This
Speaker 1: is not what I've heard of before that if the
Speaker 1: person who ever gives birth too said child. So surrogacy
Speaker 1: is a non event in Texas.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's going to stand. This is what
Speaker 2: their interpretation of what parentage means in Texas.
Speaker 1: Was that Texas or the group this is to her attorney.
Speaker 2: Her attorney is claiming that.
Speaker 1: So Texas has a birthright motherhood if you will.
Speaker 2: Ain't that funny?
Speaker 1: Who of this up?
Speaker 2: It's But certainly this is obviously making massive headlines, Yes
Speaker 2: for the abortion rights aspect of it, but in terms
Speaker 2: of the parental rights aspect of it, and just your
Speaker 2: your right to determine how your child is treated, where
Speaker 2: they are treated, who treats them, what, what surgeries you'll allow,
Speaker 2: Like this is insane, this and this has so many implications.
Speaker 2: Sarrogacy is a huge industry in this country, and this situation,
Speaker 2: although rare, absolutely could set precedence. So when we come back,
Speaker 2: we're gonna tell you what is next in the legal
Speaker 2: battle and what's up with all of these sarrogacy laws.
Speaker 2: Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. We are talking
Speaker 2: about this wild case. And I would normally say out
Speaker 2: of Texas, and I guess that's where it's happening right now.
Speaker 2: But you've got multiple states involved, Alaska, Texas, California, and
Speaker 2: all of them have varying sarrogacy laws. And that's part
Speaker 2: of the confusing part of this, just because saragacy laws
Speaker 2: vary from state to state.
Speaker 1: Now, is there any sarrogacy law that gives rights to
Speaker 1: the baby to the surrogate?
Speaker 2: Yeah, almost every I would say almost. I have not
Speaker 2: seen one legal expert who believes that for one second
Speaker 2: this sarrogate is going to have any legal rights to
Speaker 2: this child period. I can't imagine a scenario in which
Speaker 2: that would be possible. You've got parents whose biology their DNA,
Speaker 2: that is their physically biologically, that is their child. The
Speaker 2: question is have I don't know of a case where
Speaker 2: you've had parents they said, yes, it's happened. Obviously, parents
Speaker 2: have wanted or needed to terminate a pregnancy that is
Speaker 2: in a saragate's body. But there are Usually they're almost
Speaker 2: in every case there are, they agree that both parties agree.
Speaker 2: They don't have a Sarahgate going rogue and saying I
Speaker 2: want to keep the baby and then going across state lines.
Speaker 1: But it's also in the contract. These things are laid out.
Speaker 1: All decisions having to do with the medical decisions having
Speaker 1: to do with that child, and yes, having to do
Speaker 1: with that Sarahgate's body belong to the parents. This is
Speaker 1: plain as day, And yes, I think specific language robes
Speaker 1: has to address this. If the parents make that decision
Speaker 1: that the pregnancy needs to be terminated for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: if Seraha doesn't like that, then don't have to agree
Speaker 1: to that ahead of time. I'm saying in the contract correct.
Speaker 1: But I don't see anywhere anybody suggesting that the parents
Speaker 1: did anything wrong or they were not well within their
Speaker 1: rights at every step here.
Speaker 2: But of course you have folks who are anti abortion,
Speaker 2: who believe that this child wouldn't even exist if the
Speaker 2: parents had their way, and because of that, they shouldn't
Speaker 2: have any right to this child because they didn't want
Speaker 2: the child in the first place.
Speaker 1: So you gave up the rights to the child when
Speaker 1: you decided you wanted the pregnancy to end. So if
Speaker 1: she was carrying that child, this is supposed to be
Speaker 1: the same thing. If that mom in California was pregnant
Speaker 1: and found.
Speaker 2: Out, she would have terminated her.
Speaker 1: She wanted to terminate. By this same logic, then robes
Speaker 1: could a state step in and say, no, you can't,
Speaker 1: we'll take the baby off your hands. That is what
Speaker 1: they're saying, Babe, Is that Okay, you don't want it,
Speaker 1: so we'll take it. Would you be saying that if
Speaker 1: the woman everybody at any abortion clinic is doing that
Speaker 1: and say, Okay, you don't want to have the baby,
Speaker 1: we'll take them all. We'll take them. We'll take them,
Speaker 1: we'll take That's just it doesn't work that way. I
Speaker 1: don't know why people are thinking it works that way
Speaker 1: this time. It's just it's too bad. I would love
Speaker 1: those parents out in California. I mean, there was a
Speaker 1: reason they needed to go surrogacy. I mean, what their
Speaker 1: journey has been, who knows who wonders, But I think
Speaker 1: and I guess I understand Rose, But I don't think
Speaker 1: a lot of attention or sympathy has been has gone
Speaker 1: the way of the parents in this there being deemed
Speaker 1: the monsters.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and can you imagine what they are receiving in
Speaker 2: terms of reaction from folks in Texas and around the
Speaker 2: country who don't think that abortion should be legal for
Speaker 2: whatever reason. And so yeah, we're talking about Nashene Gilker
Speaker 2: and Omar Ahmed. So those are the parents out of California.
Speaker 2: And there is a hearing that is on the books.
Speaker 2: It is scheduled for August twenty fifth at one pm.
Speaker 2: And here's what this hearing is going to address whether
Speaker 2: the biological parents acted in the child's best interests when
Speaker 2: making medical decisions. And they're going to address whether the
Speaker 2: child is healthy enough to be transported to California because
Speaker 2: that's what the parents want.
Speaker 1: What was the first question again, they're going to They're.
Speaker 2: Going to address whether the biological parents acted in the
Speaker 2: child's best interest when they made medical decisions. So look,
Speaker 2: this is you know, it's being brought by the sarrogate
Speaker 2: who wants to be able to intervene and make medical
Speaker 2: decisions for the baby. She wants to be basically the
Speaker 2: baby's guardian, and she wants to make the medical decision.
Speaker 1: It's not your baby. Like go through every parent in
Speaker 1: the state of Texas, it's what we're talking about. Whatever
Speaker 1: decisions they're making, you don't like them, Okay, that sucks.
Speaker 1: See it all the time. I don't intervene, you don't
Speaker 1: have the right. Is that all we're talking about? Roaches? Yep,
Speaker 1: we don't like it. Sounds it's simple when you say
Speaker 1: it that way. Every parent listening. If the State of
Speaker 1: Texas or some rando off the street decides that you're
Speaker 1: not giving the right type of care to your child,
Speaker 1: I know better, and I'm gonna take you to court
Speaker 1: over it is what we're talking about here. I guess
Speaker 1: robe there's some different because she did carry the child,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't change law. It changed people look.
Speaker 2: At her as saving his life. That's how they look
Speaker 2: at her. And the other interesting thing too, is just
Speaker 2: should be noted the parents are not trying to not
Speaker 2: give their son these surgeries. The parents are not saying,
Speaker 2: let him die, I'm not going to give him a
Speaker 2: surgery to save his life. They are not saying that.
Speaker 2: They are absolutely wanting and trying to save his life now.
Speaker 2: So they're not at odds about that. They just want
Speaker 2: the care to happen in where the place where they live,
Speaker 2: which is Los Angeles.
Speaker 1: So you're saying, let us take our baby and go home. Yes,
Speaker 1: And that's the saying no, you can't and.
Speaker 2: Have doctors in our home state perform these surgeries.
Speaker 1: This is a mess of a story. And again, Saraha say,
Speaker 1: is a very big deal and it is meaningful to
Speaker 1: so many and necessary for so many people in this country. Robes,
Speaker 1: we have very close people to us who have done
Speaker 1: this for their own reasons. And it's just I hate
Speaker 1: if this turns people off from it, if this now
Speaker 1: changes the conversation around it. The trajectory of it is
Speaker 1: just an important tool, and this is an unfortunate situation
Speaker 1: that's now being used in a political way. That's it
Speaker 1: should be private family.
Speaker 2: Matter, absolutely, And I do think the silver lining here
Speaker 2: is that maybe people will get a little bit more
Speaker 2: careful in terms of the contract and just knowing ahead
Speaker 2: of time, having this conversation ahead of time, after seeing
Speaker 2: what played out here and is playing out here nashally,
Speaker 2: maybe this will have more meaningful conversations ahead of time
Speaker 2: so that there are clear lines about what can or
Speaker 2: should happen given a different set of circumstances. But yes,
Speaker 2: in most cases, and we know you pointed out friends
Speaker 2: of ours. Beautiful surrogacy stories bring tears to your eyes. Beautiful, amazing, generous,
Speaker 2: phenomenal women out there who are willing to house these
Speaker 2: children and grow these children so that families who can't
Speaker 2: do it on their own get blessed with children. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's almost always just stories of hope and inspiration, So
Speaker 2: it's tough to have an ugly one out here, but
Speaker 2: maybe it will provide clarity for folks going forward and
Speaker 2: without everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm
Speaker 2: Amy Roboch alongside TJ. Holmes. We'll talk so