OK, sure, central to the background of this is the request to abort, though.

The civil suit filed in May reportedly seeks $600,000 in damages and comes just two years after the woman refused the couple’s demands to abort their commissioned child at 22 weeks gestation over a “cleft lip and possible genetic abnormalities.”

Is that a lie? Not at all.

It is simply that these nimrods initially wanted the baby terminated. ‘After’ is still used accurately in the headline.

But you are right:

The lawsuit does not specifically mention the abortion debacle as the reason for legal action. Instead, the couple claims that the woman they paid to carry their child put the baby’s life at risk by insisting on a home birth and “failing to follow the (parents’) direction regarding decisions affecting the fetus’s medical care.”

The statement above becomes hilarious when you know that they initially wanted the baby dead.

But sure, I get the rest of the lawsuit - in normal circumstances where they previously did not advocate for the baby’s death, I would understand the controversy.