By The Epoch Times | Created at 2026-08-12 00:16:58 | Updated at 2026-08-12 00:30:20
32 minutes ago
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has stepped in to protect an unborn surrogate baby whose intended parents in California have allegedly refused consent for a life-saving heart operation and seek to remove the baby from Texas.
The child, referred to as baby Gabriel, was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a life-threatening but treatable heart defect, at roughly 20 weeks in utero, according to Paxton’s office.
Without intervention, the heart defect is fatal in the first days or weeks of life.
The heart condition typically requires a series of surgeries, one of which is called the Norwood procedure, which his treating physicians recommended soon after delivery, according to the release.
“Baby Gabriel deserves a chance at life, and I will not allow anyone to unlawfully deny him medically necessary care,” Paxton said in an Aug. 11 press release. “My office will use every tool available to protect innocent lives and ensure that every child receives the care required under Texas law.”
The California couple, identified as Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed in court documents, “allegedly demanded that the surrogate mother undergo an abortion,” according to Paxton’s office. The surrogate, McKenna West, refused and traveled to Dallas for state protection of the unborn child and to be close to medical professionals knowledgeable about the baby’s condition.
“The intended parents have refused to agree that they will consent to the life-saving surgery upon birth and may attempt to transport the child out of Texas to prevent treatment from being administered,” the release states.
The Epoch Times has sought comment from Dallas attorneys Bennett Rawicki, who represents West, and Alyssa Hernandez, who represents the California couple.
In an Aug. 10 letter to UT Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Medical Center of Dallas, Paxton’s office notified the hospitals and staff expected to care for the child of their legal duty to provide life-saving care upon birth without a court order and regardless of disputed parenthood.
“The pending parentage dispute determines who speaks for the child,” the letter states. “It does not determine what life-saving treatment must be provided to the child.”
Paxton’s notice to the hospitals and their medical staff said no parent may refuse life-saving treatment for a child who can live, and only a court may override that refusal. He urged the hospitals to refuse any unlawful attempt to transfer the child out of state.
“The state writes because the timeline is short, the decisions will be made under pressure, and everyone involved should be working from the same understanding of what the law requires,” the letter adds.
In an emergency, a doctor may provide life-sustaining treatment without parental consent or a court order and incurs no liability for doing so, Paxton’s letter states. Absent a court order determining parentage or medical decision-making authority, the birth mother’s consent to medically indicated treatment should be considered valid.
A lawsuit over parenthood is pending in California.
Paxton’s office intervened in a Dallas district court lawsuit affecting the parent-child relationship involving the surrogate and the intended parents, seeking care for the child upon birth, prohibiting the child’s removal from the state, and setting an expedited hearing on any refusal of treatment, according to the letter.
“This case arrives at the courthouse looking like a contract dispute. It is not one. Once the child is born alive in Texas, he will be a complete legal person, and Texas will protect his life without regard to the circumstances of his conception or the terms of any private agreement,” Paxton’s intervention request before Dallas’s 301st Judicial District says.
