Connect with us

Opinion

Judge orders 2-year-old IVF baby to be given to biological parents despite being raised by birth mom

Published

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Nancy Flanders

With the rising popularity of IVF, egg donation, sperm donation, and surrogacy, Americans have been fed the marketing line that biology isn’t what makes a family. Yet in cases like Sophia’s, it becomes obvious that biology certainly matters when the adults say it matters.

According to Haaretz, an Israeli court on Sunday ordered that, following a lengthy legal battle over an IVF mix-up, a woman who gave birth to a daughter and raised her for two years must now give the girl to her biological parents.

The woman and her partner underwent IVF treatment at Assuta Medical Center in Rishon Letzion, but as she neared the end of her pregnancy, she underwent testing after it was discovered that the preborn baby had medical concerns. During that testing, it was revealed that the baby she was carrying had no biological connection to her or her partner. She had been implanted with someone else’s embryo.

report on the situation found that the error was likely due to the heavy workload staff are facing at the fertility clinic following the government’s decision to move fertility treatments to private hospital settings – a move considered a financial benefit to the Health Ministry, hospitals, and doctors, but one that put patients at risk of errors.

Now, two years later, a judge has ordered the woman to hand the child, Sophia, who has a heart condition and developmental delays, over to her biological parents.

Benefits vs. damage

Judge Oved Elias of the Rishon Letzion Family Court said the girl should be given to her biological parents on the recommendation of Dr. Daniel Gottlieb, a psychologist appointed to the case, but against an affidavit from Welfare Ministry social workers and the head of Israel’s Child Protective Service. That affidavit advised that the girl should remain with the woman who gave birth to her, and her partner who have been raising her.

Elias determined that being given to her biological parents was in the child’s best interest because they are her natural parents. “The benefits that will arise from handing the girl over to her genetic parents and her life with them overcome the damage that will be caused by disconnecting her from the parents who have been raising her. The benefits of life with the genetic parents are, among others, in her future identity, connecting her to the family’s genealogy, a shared family story, and matching psychologies and family values,” he said.

He’s not wrong. Research has shown that children who live in a home with their married, biological parents are healthier both physically and mentally.

However, the removal of the child from the only parents she has known both inside and outside of the womb is likely to cause significant trauma. Studies have shown that taking babies from their birth mothers – whether they are biologically related or not – causes immense trauma for the child and can permanently alter her adult brain function later in life. While adoption seeks to heal the trauma that results when a birth mother feels unable to raise her child and lovingly selects a family to raise her baby, artificial reproductive technologies (such as surrogacy) deliberately create a trauma, with a child knowingly created and intended to be separated from his or her birth mother.

Birth parents and biological parents speak out

“Given that there was a major error in the IVF process, and given that, with cooperation and in a planned, monitored way it can be rectified with minimum harm, I cannot accept the stance that what’s done is done,” the judge wrote.

The birth parents argued that the biological parents do not know how to care for the child and her health needs properly, and that the situation should be left as is because “the family unit embraces the baby.”

“As a mother, I don’t understand how they can tear my daughter from me after I birthed her with blood, sweat, and tears? She is the fruit of my womb and I’ve been raising her for more than two years. As far as I’m concerned, I’ll wait until justice is done at the High Court of Justice,” said Sophia’s birth mother, who feels as though she’s been reduced to the status of a surrogate.

“I am Sophia’s mother, and she is a sweet girl who only months ago underwent a third life-threatening surgery. I’m not a womb for rent, and with all my grief for the woman who gave the egg, she didn’t make the child. I was implanted with the embryo, carried her, and gave birth to her, and I will not allow my daughter to be uprooted from me. It’s inhumane. I won’t lend a hand in risking my daughter’s life.”

Sophia’s biological parents, however, said that Elias’ decision “rectified” the mistake made by the IVF clinic. That mistake was determined to be that both women were at the clinic at the same time and had been called back for an embryo transfer in the wrong order.

“She is coming home to live with the family she was supposed to be born into. Everything was done to try to protect her privacy and allow her to be raised in peace. We are overjoyed and waiting for the moment we will finally be able to hug our daughter and be hugged by her, which is something we’ve been waiting for for so long,” they said.

Sophia’s birth parents have appealed the decision to the District Court.

Sophia’s case shines a light on the potentially serious harms of IVF and sperm and egg donation. The fertility industry treats children like commodities to be created and destroyed at will with adults as the clients, making decisions that are in the adults’ best interest, not the child’s. With the rising popularity of IVF, egg donation, sperm donation, and surrogacy, Americans have been fed the marketing line that biology isn’t what makes a family. Yet in cases like Sophia’s, it becomes obvious that biology certainly matters when the adults say it matters.

“[…] #BigFertility routinely implants someone else’s biological children into an intended mother or surrogate via donor sperm, egg, or embryos,” said Katie Breckenridge of the organization Them Before Us. “When adults choose to separate a child from their biological parents at conception, we shower those adults with congratulations and often call it ‘progress.’ Only when it’s a case of an IVF mix up is it a problem that babies go home with genetic strangers. In other words, biology matters only when adults want it to matter.”

Reprinted with permission from Live Action.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

US Under Secretary of State Slams UK and EU Over Online Speech Regulation, Announces Release of Files on Past Censorship Efforts

Published on

logo

By

Sarah Rogers’ comments draw a new line in the sand between America’s First Amendment and Europe’s tightening grip on online speech.

Speaking during an appearance on The Liz Truss Show, Rogers said Washington intends to respond to the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom after it sought to bring the website 4chan under its jurisdiction.
She said the situation “forced” the US to defend its constitutional protections, warning that “when British regulators decree that British law applies to American speech on American sites on American soil with no connection to Britain,” the matter can no longer be ignored.
Rogers called it “a perverse blessing” that the dispute is forcing a renewed transatlantic conversation about free expression, observing that “Britain and America did develop the free speech tradition together.”
Rogers announced that the State Department will soon publish a collection of previously unreleased internal emails and documents describing earlier US government involvement in social media moderation efforts.
The release is part of what she termed a “truth and reconciliation initiative” that will include material linked to the now-defunct Global Engagement Center, which she said had coordinated with outside organizations to identify content for takedown.
That operation was “immediately dismantled” after she assumed her current post.
She argued that foreign governments have moved from cooperation to coercion in their dealings with US companies. “Europe and the UK and other governments abroad are…trying to nullify the American First Amendment by enforcing against American companies and American speakers and American soil,” Rogers said, referring to the EU’s fine against X and Ofcom’s recent enforcement campaigns.
On domestic policy, she criticized the UK’s Online Safety Act, saying that it is being sold as child protection legislation but in practice functions as a speech control measure.
“These statutes are just censoring adult political speech is not the best way to protect kids and it’s probably the worst way,” she said.
Rogers noted that under such laws, even parliamentary remarks about criminal networks could be censored if regulators deem them harmful.
Turning to Ofcom’s ongoing 4chan case, Rogers said its legal position effectively claims authority over purely American websites.
She offered a hypothetical: “I could go set up a website in my garage…about American political controversies…and Ofcom’s legal position nonetheless is that if I run afoul of British content laws, then I have to pay money for the British government.”
Rogers said she expects the US government to issue a response soon.
Throughout the interview, Rogers framed the current wave of global online regulation as an effort to suppress what she called “chaotic speech” that emerges with every major communications shift.
“People panic and they want to shove that innovation back in the bottle,” she said, warning that such attempts have “never worked.”
Her remarks mark one of the strongest rebukes yet from a senior American official toward the growing European model of compelled content moderation.
Rogers suggested that this model not only undermines open debate but also sets a precedent for governments worldwide to police political speech beyond their borders.
Continue Reading

Business

“Magnitude cannot be overstated”: Minnesota aid scam may reach $9 billion

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Federal prosecutors say Minnesota’s exploding social-services fraud scandal may now rival nearly the entire economy of Somalia, with as much as $9 billion allegedly stolen from taxpayer-funded programs in what authorities describe as industrial-scale abuse that unfolded largely under the watch of Democrat Gov. Tim Walz. The staggering new estimate is almost nine times higher than the roughly $1 billion figure previously suspected and amounts to about half of the $18 billion in federal funds routed through Minnesota-run social-services programs since 2018, according to prosecutors. “The magnitude cannot be overstated,” First Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson said Thursday, stressing that investigators are still uncovering massive schemes. “This is not a handful of bad actors. It’s staggering, industrial-scale fraud. Every day we look under a rock and find another $50 million fraud operation.”

Authorities say the alleged theft went far beyond routine overbilling. Dozens of defendants — the vast majority tied to Minnesota’s Somali community — are accused of creating sham businesses and nonprofits that claimed to provide housing assistance, food aid, or health-care services that never existed, then billing state programs backed by federal dollars. Thompson said the opportunity became so lucrative it attracted what he called “fraud tourism,” with out-of-state operators traveling to Minnesota to cash in. Charges announced Thursday against six more people bring the total number of defendants to 92.

Among the newly charged are Anthony Waddell Jefferson, 37, and Lester Brown, 53, who prosecutors say traveled from Philadelphia to Minnesota after spotting what they believed was easy money in the state’s housing assistance system. The pair allegedly embedded themselves in shelters and affordable-housing networks to pose as legitimate providers, then recruited relatives and associates to fabricate client notes. Prosecutors say they submitted about $3.5 million in false claims to the state’s Housing Stability Services Program for roughly 230 supposed clients.

Other cases show how deeply the alleged fraud penetrated Minnesota’s health-care programs. Abdinajib Hassan Yussuf, 27, is accused of setting up a bogus autism therapy nonprofit that paid parents to enroll children regardless of diagnosis, then billed the state for services never delivered, netting roughly $6 million. Another defendant, Asha Farhan Hassan, 28, allegedly participated in a separate autism scheme that generated $14 million in fraudulent reimbursements, while also pocketing nearly $500,000 through the notorious Feeding Our Future food-aid scandal. “Roughly two dozen Feeding Our Future defendants were getting money from autism clinics,” Thompson said. “That’s how we learned about the autism fraud.”

The broader scandal began to unravel in 2022 when Feeding Our Future collapsed under federal investigation, but prosecutors say only in recent months has the true scope of the alleged theft come into focus. Investigators allege large sums were wired overseas or spent on luxury vehicles and other high-end purchases. The revelations have fueled political fallout in Minnesota and prompted renewed federal scrutiny of immigration-linked fraud as well as criticism of state oversight failures. Walz, who is seeking re-election in 2026 after serving as Kamala Harris’ running mate in 2024, defended his administration Thursday, saying, “We will not tolerate fraud, and we will continue to work with federal partners to ensure fraud is stopped and fraudsters are caught.” Prosecutors, however, made clear the investigation is far from finished — and warned the final tally could climb even higher.

Continue Reading

Trending

X