‘We are expected to be OK with not having children’: how gay parenthood through surrogacy became a battleground

Status
Not open for further replies.

WizardOfAges

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2021
Messages
1,980
In New York, a gay couple fighting to make their insurers pay for fertility treatment have found themselves in the middle of a culture war. What happens when the right to parenthood involves someone else’s body?
Gay men are expected to be OK with not having children. This is the kind of discrimination we’re trying to fight the most

 

rh1

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
7,310
There are solutions and there are solutions: According to the article it cost $200k for them to become parents the non-traditional way. They feel that someone else must pay for this privilege i.e. City of New York. Yes, I agree with them it is discriminatory, but I also disagree with City of New York paying for the other employees infertility treatments as that is plain stupid. Yes, it is.

This sums it up: We want free ****, and for other people to pay for it.

Side Note: Technically, if their penises are working, their are cheaper, quicker ways of becoming parents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3WA

airborne

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
18,067
It’s ridiculous but I think these dudes cottoned on that the City of New York was paying for other employees infertility treatments, which is bizarre in of itself and then realised there was a legal opening there, and the USA is all about sue sue sue..

It would appear the real problem that is allowing this madness to come about is the City of New York offering infertility treatment as an employee benefit.
 

WizardOfAges

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2021
Messages
1,980
Yet being gay is definitely not genetically inherited...
Definitely? There is a very small genetic contribution but it is not none at all.

Two of those genes correlated with same-sex sexuality in males, one of which is known to influence the sense of smell. One gene cropped up for females and two others showed solid patterns in both males and females. But their individual scores never passed this 1-percent mark — meaning they are all minor contributors to same-sex sexual behavior.

 

Lucas Buck

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
5,628
They're turning this into an anti gay issue which it isn't. The insurance doesn't cover surrogacy which is illegal in New York City for both straight and gay couples.
They're also expecting medical insurance to cover a person who is not listed as a dependent on their plan. I fail to see how they are being wronged here.

DOES MY INSURANCE COVER INFERTILITY AND IVF?
New York requires all fully-insured employer groups to cover up to 3 cycles of IVF for people with a medical diagnosis of infertility. Self-funded employer groups have the option to “opt-in” to the mandate.

WHO ISN’T ELIGIBLE UNDER THE NEW LAW?
While we ultimately hoped that all New York residents would receive coverage as needed, certain limitations do exist. The mandate leaves out anyone on Medicaid, employees of small and medium-sized companies of less than 100 employees, companies that self-insure and those with individual insurance plans.

ARE SINGLE WOMEN COVERED BY THE LAW?
Yes, if diagnosed with infertility.

IS THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY COVERED BY THIS LAW?
Lesbians are covered, if diagnosed with infertility. However, surrogacy is currently illegal in New York, so single, gay men would not benefit from the new mandate. It’s unfortunate news that will require continued advocacy.

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF INFERTILITY?
New York defines infertility as a disease or condition characterized by the incapacity to impregnate another person or to conceive, as diagnosed or determined by a physician or by the failure to establish a clinical pregnancy after 12 months of regular, unprotected sexual intercourse, or after 6 months for women 35 or older.

link

It would appear the real problem that is allowing this madness to come about is the City of New York offering infertility treatment as an employee benefit.

It's really not that mad. I can see how insurance would cover an employee and their partner/spouse but not a third party. If the insurance cover included surrogacy for hetrosexual couples, then I'd agree with their lawsuit and say that they have a strong case for discrimination.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3WA

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
35,098
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top