Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought some politicians said men can get pregnant? They are saying they can’t in this case and should be covered?
Well that's it in a nutshell isn't it?
To sane and rational persons, no "males" cannot become pregnant nor give birth.
However, in these pro "equality" and "inclusive" times we live in all sorts of sanity and rationality are being thrown out the window.
Basically gay guys are saying since city covers IVF for females, they too should be as well because otherwise it's discrimination. Either city or state government has "inclusion" and "equality" or it does not I suppose.
Can't wait to hear arguments made by city's legal department in defence of status quo. Considering how often city simply caves in and settles cases when sued (often for quite large sums), wouldn't be surprised if that's how things go. City simply says "uh-huh, um-hmm, that's right, ok" and agrees to provide coverage requested.
Although gay couples know it's impossible to have a 100% biological child and IVF is definitely a medical procedure outside the realm of treating a male's medical issues, I can't argue either way.
As a piece of related real life experience, I had someone in New York city who was receiving medicaid benefits ask free legal services to sue the state because he/she/they could not have their chosen pronoun on their benefit card. Wha?
"The city categorically denies IVF benefits to gay men because it requires employees to meet its definition of infertility in order to qualify, the suit argues. The city defines infertility as the inability to conceive a child through male-female unprotected intercourse in a consecutive 12-month period or through intrauterine insemination, or IUI. Under this definition, single women and lesbian couples can qualify as infertile and receive IVF benefits if they undergo IUI and don’t become pregnant, according to the complaint. "
and:
“But gay men, although equally incapable of conceiving a child without IVF, are always denied access to IVF under the City’s healthcare plan,” the complaint states. “By defining ‘infertility’ in this exclusionary manner, single female employees, female employees with male partners, female employees with female partners, and male employees with female partners are always potentially eligible for some IVF benefits under the City’s healthcare plan, but gay male employees—whether individually or with male partners—are never eligible for any IVF benefits.”
These guys are *NOT* infertile, they just chose a lifestyle that precludes relations with females. Sadly for them nature has so designed human race in common with other animals to require something "female" in order for reproduction to occur. That's why God created Adam and Eve and why Noah brought two sexes of each species onto Ark.
What happened to adoption or fostering? Being a parent is more than having the same DNA. If you really feel your calling in life is to have a child, it shouldn't matter how that child comes into your life.
Oh wait we live in a society where it's all about me, me, me and my wants and needs and to h3ll with anyone else.
I wish them much success in their lawsuit. The federal government is the same way, defraying the cost of IVF treatment for women, but not for men (to include gay male couples). Based on current case law, this should be an easy case.
I wish them much success in their lawsuit. The federal government is the same way, defraying the cost of IVF treatment for women, but not for men (to include gay male couples). Based on current case law, this should be an easy case.
You're probably correct, based on current case law. But I rather hope this lawsuit results in ending the practice of medical insurance of any type covering the cost of IVF or IUI procedures for anyone. Treating infertility is one thing, but treating childlessness should not be a burden of the healthcare establishment. It's a choice whether to have children, and there are other avenues available. The medical procedures involved in IVF should be covered only to the extent that they might increase the chances of a man or woman conceiving a baby naturally--e.g., increasing sperm production, regulating a woman's cycle or hormones, etc. But when it comes to heroic measures like implantation and all the costs involved, that should be on the family privately, IMO.
Childlessness is not a medical condition, and should not be treated as such. I feel that way no matter who the would-be parents are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
