Thanks for the tag @DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong
I missed it before so sorry for not replying earlier.
"Melissa Brisman, an attorney who specializes in surrogacy, told CNN that following the dispute over aborting the unborn child, similar disputes are "less likely" to occur now."
I think it means contracts have been tightened up. 
I heard Jennifer Lahl talking on a webinar recently. She said that contracts typically include an abortion clause and will say the commissioning parents (CPs) don't have to give their reasons.
If the surrogate mother refuses she will be liable to pay back all money spent so far, not just her own "wages" but the medical costs, attorney and agency costs etc. As well as being expected to keep a baby who might have complex health problems. In other words they can't possibly afford to refuse.
In the UK contracts are unenforceable so we don't have that problem and even with the Law Commission plans, they say contracts will still be unenforceable so no risk of this happening here. Also I do believe the NHS has a strong culture of safeguarding and simply wouldn't allow it.
However, where I foresee problems is that agreements, albeit unenforceable, are made, and of course no one thinks these things will happen to them, so tend to sign up without really expecting to have to follow through. So when they do happen there will be big fall outs between the parties. It could be that the baby had some deformity that the surrogate mother would think wasn't bad enough to merit abortion but the CPs are pursuing their perfect baby? Thanks to the NHS no one will end up bankrupt.
I'm so glad Seraphina was loved and cared for and had a happy life.