A California woman serving as a surrogate mother for a same-sex couple is claiming that the gay men who hired her demanded that she "immediately" "erase" the infant in the second trimester upon finding out she was diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer, threatening her with legal action if she were to birth the baby prematurely or place the child up for adoption.
37-year-old Brittney Pearson, of Sacramento, told the Daily Mail that after undergoing a full-body MRI, which revealed the metastatic cancer's progression, the purchasing parents, who were paying her to carry the child, used legal threats to pressure Pearson into terminating the surrogate pregnancy at 24 weeks, about six months in gestational age and considered a viable birth.
Pearson claimed that doctors at Sutter Health Medical Centre believed she would have been able to receive a type of chemotherapy treatment that's compatible with pregnancy and then be induced at 34-weeks gestation. At first, the gay men, who haven't been named, were seemingly happy for Pearson to go through chemo and continue the pregnancy. But then, her medical team realized the HER2-postive cancer had spread further than expected, requiring more intense chemotherapy to combat it.
Recommended
The unnamed partners, Pearson claimed, wanted the baby, who is now dead, "immediately terminated" and "erased," believing the child had no chance at life and fearing the infant would be born with serious medical needs, if delivered before 34 weeks.
First to report on Pearson's case, the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, a surrogacy watchdog that raises concerns surrounding bioethical issues, said the would-be fathers sought to bar Pearson from delivering the baby early and offering the infant for adoption, because they didn't want their "DNA out there" being raised by someone else. The men went on to allegedly threaten "everyone they could with a lawsuit," including Pearson, her surrogacy agency, and Sutter Health's oncology team.
Pearson's aunt alerted the anti-surrogacy center to the case, explaining that once the baby was born, the child contractually became the "property" of the prospective parents. "They'd rather watch...their baby die than allow it to be saved," the aunt said.
Even though one of Pearson's doctors knew someone willing to adopt the baby, the couple only wanted a "death certificate" for the child and asked that no life-saving measures be performed on the baby, if born alive. It's speculated that the death certificate acted as official documentation rendering the surrogacy contract null and void. Surrogates are often compensated throughout the pregnancy's duration, with the final payment made at the surrendering of the child and relinquishing of maternal rights.
Pearson's family reached out to Child Protective Services (CPS) but the child-welfare agency didn't see the situation as infanticide, if the baby was delivered alive but no one took measures to save the premature infant's life. When the family contacted the local sheriff's office, though sympathetic, the department did not know of a law that would allow them to intervene.
After the flurry of legal saber-rattling, Pearson's oncologists expressed uncertainty about proceeding with treating her, she said. Pearson eventually was able to find a hospital that induced labor and delivered her baby vaginally, but the baby died soon after.
"The baby was born on Father's Day," Pearson said. "My mother got to hold him and take pictures, but he did not survive."
Following the baby's death, the gay men cremated the child's remains. "I would have done things differently," Pearson reflected in hindsight. "I didn't understand it," she said of the couple's cremation decision, "since they didn't see him as a baby at all."
The mother of four, who had beforehand carried out a successful round of surrogacy resulting in the birth of twins, said she felt like "a rented-out uterus" and "frustrated" after her second surrogacy, because she "wanted to give them a family," Pearson told the Daily Mail, feeling a sense of betrayal and heartbreak. "They said they cared but they didn't. I felt betrayed and heartbroken."
"The first thing I thought after I was diagnosed was I want to keep this baby safe and bring it earthside," Pearson stated, adding passionately: "I would have been there; I would have given him every chance of survival; I had people ready to help."
Pearson is speaking out about her harrowing experience, because she "never wants anyone else to feel like this."
However, despite the tragic ending for her baby, Pearson has not changed her mind about surrogacy. "I wouldn't do it again, but I still think surrogacy has a great time and place but [prospective] families need to be screened a little more," Pearson asserted.
The "main provider" for her family of six, which includes four school-aged children—ages three, five, 12, and 13, Pearson is currently unable to work while receiving chemotherapy. A GoFundMe page has been launched to financially support Pearson.
As an article by pro-life advocacy organization Live Action pointed out, surrogates tend to be low-income women searching for monetary support. "Meanwhile, the people 'renting' the surrogates’ bodies are typically wealthy, giving the contract an immediate power imbalance…and making threats of abandonment much more significant," Live Action's Cassy Fiano-Chesser wrote.
The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network's founding president Jennifer Lahl aptly assessed the case's horrifying outcome:
This case highlights many of the problems with contracted, largely commercial, pregnancy.
The physician in this case has two patients. First is the pregnant woman, and second is the baby she is carrying. We see competing interests in medical care between the mother and the baby being directed by the purchasing parents and not the physician. The mother wanted to try and deliver early, in hopes of saving the baby, and being allowed to start her cancer treatment in hopes of saving her life. But California law recognizes the contracting intended parents in surrogacy arrangements as the legal parents, they alone can make decisions around the care of the baby. In this case, refusing care.
The rights of the mother to direct her own care are undermined, not even allowing her to advocate for her own needs and the needs of the baby she’s about to deliver.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member