Source Details

{
    "source_type": "extension",
    "content_hash": "8c74413745f952ba661b36968945e5b6f97a241f6e28e7f3a792c3a5a3d6ee5c",
    "submitted_via": "chrome_extension",
    "extension_version": "1.0.18",
    "original_url": "https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2026\/09\/22\/us\/politics\/supreme-court-surrogate-abortion-custody.html?emc=edit_na_20260922&nl=breaking-news&segment_id=226913",
    "parsed_content": "Supreme CourtMail-In VotingMissouri Map BlockedThe Justices\u2019 PapersBallroom ConstructionBan on Transgender TroopsTerm TakeawaysAdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTSupported bySKIP ADVERTISEMENTSupreme Court Order Gives Parents Custody of Baby in Surrogacy FightA surrogate refused to have an abortion after the fetus was diagnosed with a serious heart problem. She asked the justices to block a court order giving custody to the biological parents.Listen \u00b7 5:10 min Share full articleThe Supreme Court declines to intervene in a high-profile legal custody battle involving questions of surrogacy and abortion.Credit...Allison Robbert for The New York TimesBy Ann E. Marimow and J. David GoodmanAnn E. Marimow covers the Supreme Court. J. David Goodman is the Texas bureau chief for The New York Times.Sept. 22, 2026Updated 6:25 p.m. ETSee more of our coverage in your search results.Encuentra m\u00e1s de nuestra cobertura en los resultados de b\u00fasqueda. Add The New York Times on GoogleAgrega The New York Times en Google Justice Elena Kagan on Tuesday refused to intervene in a high-profile custody battle that involved difficult questions surrounding surrogacy and abortion, leaving in place a lower-court order that gave custody to the biological parents in the dispute.The case drew national attention when a surrogate from Alaska refused to have an abortion after the fetus she was carrying was diagnosed with a serious heart problem. She eventually traveled to Texas and gave birth to the child over the initial objections of the parents, a couple from California.The baby boy was born in August. He received open-heart surgery and has been in a pediatric intensive care unit at a hospital in Dallas, where the couple have also been living to be with him.On Tuesday, Justice Kagan, who oversees emergency filings from California, denied the surrogate\u2019s request to block the lower-court ruling in the couple\u2019s favor. She acted on her own without referring the matter to her Supreme Court colleagues. The justice\u2019s order did not include an explanation, as is often the case when the court responds to such filings.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTThe couple, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, had struggled to have a baby and entered into a surrogacy arrangement with McKenna West, a nurse. Their legal dispute began in April after the fetus was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome at around 20 weeks of pregnancy.Sign up to get J. David Goodman's articles emailed to you. J. David Goodman is a Houston-based reporter covering the people and politics of Texas. Get it sent to your inbox.The rare and life-threatening congenital heart condition requires open-heart surgery soon after birth, followed by two additional childhood heart surgeries.The couple asked Ms. West to terminate the pregnancy, citing a provision of their contract with her that left decisions dealing with abortion to them. Ms. West refused. She later moved to Texas, where the boy was born on Aug. 12.Ms. West is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal organization whose lawyers appear frequently before the Supreme Court. The Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, also intervened in state court to ensure the child received medical treatments. He later dropped out of the case.In June, a California court recognized Ms. Gilkar and Mr. Ahmed as the boy\u2019s parents. A judge in Texas extended a temporary order barring Ms. West from presenting herself as a parent to the baby.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTAfter a subsequent court hearing in Texas, a judge directed the hospital in Dallas to provide lifesaving care and prohibited the baby\u2019s removal from Texas. On Sept. 2, the court also dismissed Ms. West from the proceeding.Sign up for the On Politics newsletter. It's a pivotal moment for American politics. Join us for 2026 and beyond. Get it sent to your inbox.In their emergency request, Ms. West\u2019s lawyers told the Supreme Court that she had been denied \u201ccontrol over the medically fragile child.\u201d Without intervention from the justices, they said, \u201cshe will receive no further information about the child she carried for 37 weeks and fought to save.\u201dThe case should have been resolved in Alaska, her lawyers said, adding that the California courts had stripped Ms. West of her rights to \u201cprotect the baby\u2019s life.\u201dIn response, lawyers for the couple said on Friday that they have ensured that \u201ctheir child receives the lifesaving care he needs \u2014 and they are committed to doing so for the rest of his life.\u201dAn order from the Supreme Court blocking state court decisions would allow Ms. West to be involved in the child\u2019s medical care and \u201cserve only to cause chaos and confusion,\u201d according to the heavily redacted filing.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTMs. Gilkar and Mr. Ahmed are \u201cproviding the precise medical care for their child\u201d that Ms. West desires, the lawyers said, adding that \u201ca right to life is not at issue here.\u201dThe relationship between the couple and the surrogate got off to a smooth start. Ms. West stayed with them when she met with fertility doctors in California. Ms. Gilkar said in state court proceedings in Texas that she had sat by Ms. West\u2019s side during the procedure transferring the embryo \u2014 biologically Ms. Gilkar\u2019s and Mr. Ahmed\u2019s \u2014 so that Ms. West could carry it to term.But now they are at odds over even what to call the child. Ms. Gilkar and Mr. Ahmed named him Rumi, which their lawyer said had been put on his birth certificate. Ms. West\u2019s lawyers used a different name, Gabriel, chosen by Ms. West, until they were told by the Texas judge to stop.In response to the Supreme Court\u2019s order on Tuesday, Ms. West\u2019s lawyer, Lincoln Davis Wilson, said his client is disappointed in the ruling, but \u201ctakes great comfort in how these legal proceedings have prompted the contracting parents to say they are committed to provide the baby with the lifesaving care he needs. That\u2019s what McKenna has been fighting for from day one.\u201dThe couple\u2019s lawyer, Adam Wolf, said they are \u201ctruly grateful that Rumi can continue receiving the treatment he needs to survive, and that he will not be stripped away from what has been described by doctors as the excellent care of his parents.\u201dAdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENT",
    "published_at": "2026-09-22T20:52:50+00:00",
    "author_name": "Ann E. Marimow, J. David Goodman",
    "site_name": "The New York Times",
    "section": "US Politics",
    "publisher": "The New York Times Company",
    "ai_headline": "Supreme Court Order Gives Parents Custody of Baby in Surrogacy Fight",
    "ai_simplified_title": "Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Surrogacy Custody Battle",
    "ai_excerpt": "The Supreme Court declined to intervene in a high-profile custody battle, leaving in place a lower-court order that gave custody to the biological parents. This case involved a surrogate who refused an abortion after the fetus was diagnosed with a serious heart problem.",
    "ai_subject_tags": [
        "Supreme Court",
        "Surrogacy",
        "Abortion",
        "Custody Battle",
        "Medical Ethics",
        "Legal Dispute"
    ],
    "ai_context_type": "News",
    "ai_context_details": {
        "tone": "informative",
        "perspective": "neutral",
        "audience": "general",
        "credibility_indicators": [
            "expert_quotes",
            "legal_proceedings_cited"
        ]
    },
    "ai_source_vector": null,
    "ai_confidence_score": 0.9999999999999999,
    "ai_extraction_metadata": {
        "extracted_at": "2026-10-01T07:07:29.069533Z",
        "ai_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
        "extraction_method": "automated",
        "content_length": 6330,
        "metadata_prompt_body_chars": 6330,
        "metadata_prompt_truncated": false,
        "url": "https:\/\/nytimes.com\/2026\/09\/22\/us\/politics\/supreme-court-surrogate-abortion-custody.html",
        "existing_metadata": {
            "author_name": null,
            "published_at": null,
            "domain_name": "nytimes.com",
            "site_name": null,
            "section": null,
            "publisher": null
        },
        "openai_refusal_gemini_fallback": false
    }
}

{
    "extracted_at": "2026-10-01T07:07:29.069533Z",
    "ai_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
    "extraction_method": "automated",
    "content_length": 6330,
    "metadata_prompt_body_chars": 6330,
    "metadata_prompt_truncated": false,
    "url": "https:\/\/nytimes.com\/2026\/09\/22\/us\/politics\/supreme-court-surrogate-abortion-custody.html",
    "existing_metadata": {
        "author_name": null,
        "published_at": null,
        "domain_name": "nytimes.com",
        "site_name": null,
        "section": null,
        "publisher": null
    },
    "openai_refusal_gemini_fallback": false
}