TWO SURROGATES IN CALIFORNIA ARE REFUSING TO ABORT ONE OF
THEIR TRIPLETS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THEY BELIEVE IT IS THE
WRONG THING TO DO.
THE CONTRACT THEY SIGNED WITH THE SEPARATE COUPLES
INDICATE THAT IF THEY ARE PREGNANT WITH TOO MANY BABIES,
THEN THE COUPLE CAN HAVE THEM ABORTED, AS MANY AS THEY WANT.
THESE TWO WOMEN ARE REFUSING TO DO SO.
PART OF THE FINE PRINT INCLUDED A SELECTIVE REDUCTION
CLAUSE IF THE IMPLEMENTATION RESULTED IN A MULTIPLE
PREGNANCY, THE INTENDED PARENTS COULD REQUEST THAT ONE OR
MORE OF THE FETUSES BE TERMINATED.
IN THIS CASE THEY BOTH GOT PREGNANT WITH TRIPLETS.
THIS OFTEN HAPPENS WHEN YOU TRY TO GET PREGNANT THROUGH A
SURROGATE.
MELISSA COOK SAYS THE FOLLOWING, "THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS.
I BONDED WITH THESE KIDS.
THIS IS JUST NOT RIGHT."
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PREGNANCY IS ILLEGAL AFTER
24 WEEKS, AT THAT POINT ñ I AM SORRY, ABORTION.
IT'S ILLEGAL BECAUSE THE FETUS IS VIABLE.
IN THE CASE OF THESE TWO WOMEN, THEY ARE PREGNANT AT 20 AND
17 WEEKS.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.
REMEMBER, THERE IS A CONTRACT.
THE CONTRACT DOESN'T MEAN MUCH BECAUSE PAST CASES WITH
SIMILAR CONTRACTS LED THE JUDGE'S RULING AGAINST THE
CONTRACTS AND IN FAVOR OF THE SURROGATES.
WHY?
BECAUSE YOU ARE DEALING WITH WOMEN AND THEIR BODIES, AND
THEIR
DECISIONS ON WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES.
IT'S REALLY COMPLICATED.
IT SEEMS COOK HAS NEARLY REACHED 20 WEEKS INTO HER PREGNANCY.
THE LEGAL CUTOFF FOR ABORTION IN CALIFORNIA IS AT VIABILITY ABOUT
24 WEEKS.
>> IN THE PAST THERE HAVE BEEN CASES WHERE THE COURTS
RULED WITH SURROGATES.
RECENTLY THERE WAS
A STATE SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT
SAID THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER HAD THE RIGHT, AND CANNOT BE
TERMINATED BASED ON A CONTRACT.
IT'S A DIFFICULT SITUATION, AND THE MORALITY IS CLEAR
TO SOME AND NOT SO CLEAR TO OTHERS.
EVEN IF YOU ARE A CONSERVATIVE AND A PRO- LIFE ñ BUT TO BE FAIR
TO THEM THEY ALSO HATED THE BAILOUTS.
DONALD TRUMP HAS DONE THIS BEFORE.
>>YOUR ABILITY TO INJECT DONALD TRUMP INTO THE CONVERSATION IS
AMAZING.
>> I AM GOING TO SAY THAT CLEARLY IT IS THE RIGHT OF
THE SURROGATE.
SO, THAT IS PROBLEMATIC IF YOU ARE GOING TO GET INTO THESE
ARRANGEMENTS.
IT IS HER BODY, HER CHOICE.
>> I HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU.
IT IS A DIFFICULT THING TO SEE PERSPECTIVE TO HAVE BECAUSE
SHE GOT PREGNANT UNDER SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES.
SHE KNEW WHAT SHE WAS GETTING HERSELF INTO.
SHE RENEGED ON HER PROMISE.
I THINK THAT IS IMMORAL AND THE WRONG THING TO DO.
IF SHE DECIDES SHE DOESN'T WANT TO ABORT ONE OF THE
FETUSES, WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT GOING TO DO?
FORCE HER?
YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
IT'S HER BODY AND HER CHOICE.
THE BEST PART OF THE STORY IS THAT ONE OF THE WOMEN IS 47
YEARS OLD, I STILL HAVE TIME.
>> BUT NOW PEOPLE WILL HATE WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY.
THEY SHOULD NOT GET PAID.
ONE OF THE WOMEN SHOULD HAVE HER PAYMENTS ENDED.
THERE ARE CLAIMS THAT THE FATHER WHO IS GOING TO TAKE THE
BABY THEN THREATENED HER WITH LEGAL ACTION.
THE THREATS, I GET WHY THEY ARE UPSET BUT THEY SHOULD NOT
HAPPEN.
IN TERMS OF A DEAL, OF COURSE I'M NOT GOING TO PAY YOU
FOR A DEAL YOU ARE NOT DOING.
EACH BABY HAS AN ENORMOUS COST THROUGH THEIR LIFETIME.
THAT IS A HUGE DECISION.
SHE IS NOT KEEPING THE BABIES, SHE IS STILL GIVING THEM TO
THE PEOPLE THAT ARE TAKING THEM.
IT IS A MESS.
AT THE SAME TIME, YOU CAN'T SAY IT IS GOING TO COST ME A LOT
OF MONEY SO GO AHEAD AND TAKE ONE OF THEM OUT, IF YOU OBJECT.
YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
FINAL THING, DON'T GET FREAKED OUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO
SURROGACY.
IT IS HONESTLY A TRANSACTION.
THIS IS A VERY RARE CASE.
IT HAPPENS INFREQUENTLY.
USUALLY EVERYBODY ABIDES BY THE AGREEMENT AND IT IS FINE.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO ENTER INTO ONE OF THESE AND YOU ARE ONE
THE PARENTS WHO'S GOING TO TAKE THE KID FROM THE SURROGATE,
UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ULTIMATE CONTROL.
YOU CAN SIGN ANYTHING YOU LIKE, BUT SHE IS THE ONE CARRYING
THE BABY.
SHE HAS THE RIGHTS.
IF YOU ARE UNCOMFORTABLE, GET USED TO IT.
THAT IS THE REALITY OF LAWS IN AMERICA.
WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THEIR BODIES.
EVEN IF YOU HAVE A CONTRACT.