Trump admin warns Texas hospitals against denying baby Gabriel life-saving care over disability

DALLAS, TEXAS: The Trump administration has stepped into the dispute over a Texas newborn with a severe heart defect, warning two hospitals that federal disability rights laws prohibit withholding medically necessary treatment because of the child's disability.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights told Fox News Digital on Thursday, August 13, that it had sent letters to Children’s Medical Center of Dallas and UT Southwestern Medical Center outlining their obligations under federal disability civil rights laws.

The intervention comes as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is also fighting to ensure the newborn, identified as baby Gabriel, receives life-saving treatment.

HHS warns hospitals over baby Gabriel's treatment

HHS said federal law prohibits withholding medical treatment based on a person's disability, including decisions based on the belief that a person's life has less value because of a disability or that the person would be a burden on others.

The protections also extend to decisions involving life-sustaining treatment.

The agency said it is monitoring Gabriel's case and providing technical assistance to both hospitals as doctors determine his care.

HHS also urged the hospitals to seek an infant care committee review if doctors consider withholding or withdrawing medically indicated treatment.

The agency said life-sustaining treatment should continue while such a review takes place.

The federal intervention follows Paxton's efforts to secure care for Gabriel after a dispute involving his surrogate and intended parents.

Ken Paxton fights for baby Gabriel's treatment

Gabriel was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome at around 20 weeks of pregnancy. The condition means the left side of the heart is severely underdeveloped.

According to Ken Paxton's office, the diagnosis allegedly prompted the intended parents, identified as Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed of California, to ask surrogate McKenna West to have an abortion.

West reportedly refused and traveled to Texas, where Gabriel was born and admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit. 

Paxton later secured an emergency order from the 301st Judicial District Court in Dallas County on August 11.

The order allows Gabriel to remain in Texas for treatment and prevents hospitals and medical providers from refusing necessary care or removing the child from the state while the case proceeds. A hearing is scheduled for August 25.

Court filings state that the intended parents have not agreed to the life-saving surgery. Paxton's office said it was concerned they could attempt to take Gabriel out of Texas before treatment is provided.

Paxton's office also notified UT Southwestern and Children’s Medical Center Dallas that doctors had recommended the Norwood procedure, the first of three stages of surgery used to treat Gabriel's heart condition.

"My office utilized every tool at our disposal to protect life, and we will not back down in continuing to support baby Gabriel’s well-being," Paxton said. "Every child in our state deserves to be cared for and protected, and that’s exactly what I’ll fight for."

Baby Gabriel case raises questions over medical care and surrogacy

The case has drawn support from conservative and pro-life groups, including Turning Point USA and Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents West.

Andrew Kolvet, a Turning Point USA spokesman, called West a "hero" on X and said she "saved this baby's life."

ADF Senior Counsel Erik Baptist praised West's "courageous stand" and said "every child deserves a chance at life."

Live Action also praised West but raised concerns that a court order prevents her from having contact with Gabriel, saying the newborn "needs the comfort of the only mother he's ever known."

The dispute has also raised questions about the role of surrogacy agreements in decisions involving a child's medical treatment.

Anthony Sirven, a Catholic Florida-based attorney who has written about surrogacy, said the case could determine “whether we’re going to decide custody based on a contract.”

“The [surrogacy] contract is about a human life,” he said. “So the question is: How do you enforce a contract over a human life? The answer should be ‘you can’t’ because of the 13th and 14th Amendments.”