Sign up for Executive Dysfunction, a weekly newsletter that highlights one under-the-radar story about how Trump is changing the law—or how the law is pushing back—and keeps you posted on the latest from Slate’s Jurisprudence team.

A surrogacy case that has attracted national attention is now before the Supreme Court, and it raises a question that goes to the heart of what it means to be a parent.

McKenna West entered into a surrogacy contract in which she agreed to carry and deliver the genetic child of Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed. The contract explicitly provided that she would terminate the pregnancy if the fetus had a serious birth defect and the intended parents requested an abortion. About 20 weeks into the pregnancy, the parents learned that the fetus had a severe heart defect. They asked West to terminate the pregnancy. She refused and moved from Alaska to Texas, where the baby was born. After undergoing complex heart surgery in mid-August, the baby remains in critical condition. West, supported by anti-abortion advocacy groups, is now seeking custody of the child. Last week, she asked the Supreme Court to take away the parents’ right to control the medical care of the child while she pursues her request for custody in the Texas courts.

The case presents a profound conflict between two important principles: a woman’s right to control what happens to her own body during pregnancy and the rights of the people who are legally and biologically the child’s parents once that child is born.

This is not the first case in which a surrogate has refused to terminate a pregnancy after the intended parents learned that the fetus had serious birth defects. In October 2011, Crystal Kelley signed a contract to bear a baby for a couple in Connecticut, where she also lived. She agreed to terminate the pregnancy if a serious birth defect........

© Slate