A surrogate mother for an unidentified Georgia man is facing legal backlash after she refused to abort on of the three babies she is carrying for the man. The Georgia man’s lawyer claims the man only wants two of the babies and is requiring that a “selective reduction” take place in which one of the babies will be aborted. However, the surrogate, Melissa Cook, says she is “bonded with these kids” and doesn’t feel like an abortion is right. She says she is morally opposed and that the man should not have implanted her with three healthy embryos if he was not prepared to care for three children.
Surrogate Melissa Cook claims the father told her to abort one of the triplets | Daily Mail Online https://t.co/BUpPC3L5Bu
— Bill O’Reilly (@wfbor) November 25, 2015
The New York Post reports that a California woman, Melissa Cook, agreed to be a surrogate mother for a Georgia man she has never met after agreeing on a $33,000 fee for carrying the baby for the man. The woman says she was implanted with three eggs from a 20-year-old egg donor that were fertilized with the Georgia man’s sperm. The man had purchased the donor eggs and agreed to pay Melissa $33,000 for carrying his baby. However, Cook says things did not go as planned when all three of the embryos took and she became pregnant with triplets. Cook noted that after discovering she was carrying triplets, the Georgia man told her she must abort one of the babies or face financial ruin. The woman says that she was told the Georgia man only wanted two of the babies so a “selective reduction” needed to be scheduled to do away with one of the healthy fetuses growing inside of her body.
Cook says that she is morally opposed to aborting one of the babies she is growing inside of her body, but that legal action is being threatened against her should she refuse. The surrogate says she received a letter from the Georgia man’s lawyer, noting that her refusal to follow through with the “reduction” can result in legal actions and potential financial ruin. The letter noted the extensive list of financial responsibilities that the surrogate may encounter should she not have an abortion.
“[The Georgia man] understands, albeit does not agree, with your decision not to reduce. As you know, his remedies where you refuse to abide by the terms of the agreement, are immense [and] include, but are not limited to, loss of all benefits under the agreement, damages in relation to future care of the children [and] medical costs associated with any extraordinary care the children may need.”
In response to the letter, Cook says she explained that the man should not have had the doctor put three healthy embryos into her body if he was not prepared to father three children.
“The doctor put in three healthy embryos. The chances were high they were all going to take. If you knew you only wanted two babies, then why put in three embryos?”
After her plea to reconsider the abortion, the lawyer responded that she must have a consultation with a doctor about the “selection reduction” by end of day or face consequences. She has not followed through and says she doesn’t want to suffer and that it does not seem right to abort a healthy fetus.
“I have to reduce. I’m scared. I don’t want to suffer.”
Cook is currently 17 weeks pregnant; therefore, she fears the man will not change his mind and she will be forced to undergo an abortion she does not want. According to California law, the state which Cook resides, she cannot have an abortion after the fetuses become “viable.” Therefore, once the surrogate reaches 20 weeks, the abortion would become illegal. This means that a legal decision on the forced abortion must be resolved within the next three weeks.
A surrogate under pressure to abort her unborn children https://t.co/156To4QjSo via nypost @ADFIntl_EU
— Ewelina O (@Ewelina_ADFIntl) November 26, 2015
What do you think about the idea of a forced abortion regarding a surrogate pregnancy?
[Photo by Olivier Douliery/Getty Images]