California moves to provide surrogates to gay male couples in the name of 'fertility equality'

So being gay is now a medical condition?

California moves to provide surrogates to gay male couples in the name of 'fertility equality'

California Bill SB 729 seeks to redefine "infertility" to be a status, as opposed to a medical condition. Changing the definition to "a person’s inability to reproduce either as an individual or with their partner without medical intervention" would classify gay men as infertile.

The bill, which passed the Senate last month, would require insurance companies to cover in-vitro fertilization procedures. With the change in definition, this would also include forcing the firms to cover surrogacy for gay males.


But isn't this unfair to lesbians?

 

First show where lesbians would not be eligible.

The argument can be made both ways. If at least one of the two in the couple can cause a pregnancy, either giving or receiving, then they are not eligible. Or in the other direction, if a specific couple cannot, then that includes heterosexual couples as well.

Was surrogacy specifically mentioned in the bill? How about citing those parts of the bill that actually say what you are claiming

 

There is a link to the actual text of the bill in the article. And yes, surrogates are in the bill.

 

Your assertion, your responsibility to support it. Cite the specific sections that support what your claims are. Also cite where lesbians are not eligible.

 

I copied excerpts for the article, provided a link to the text, and I think you're old enough to find the rest on your own.

 

Makes a lot of sense that California would extend fertility treatment to gay couples There's always the hope that a miracle could happen. You never know, stranger things have happened like virgin births.

 

This probably won't effect too many people, since I imagine there are not a lot of gay couples who want kids, but it's weird they are changing the definition of "infertility" to include being gay.

 

Ummm.......lesbians don't need a surrogate, because they can have babies of their own. Stop and think what you say before posting.

My neighbors used a surrogate because they are a male couple.

 

Well that's my point. Where's the equity?

 

So your complaint is that this is injustice because lesbians are not getting something they dont need and are not asking for?

Either way, I don't think this will pass, not even in California, because it would force insurance companies to cover surrogacy, which I don't think it covered for anyone.

 

That assumes that they are both fertile or otherwise could get pregnant. Both women in the marriage could have lost their uteruses to endometriosis, or some other cause. Or one did and the other is sterile for other reasons. As such the use of a surrogate might be needed, especially if one had her eggs removed and stored before the loss of her uterus.

 

I don't think it was a "complaint;" more like a question.

 

Still your responsibility. But sure. Went through the bill and I didn't find where it says what you claimed. So now prove me wrong by citing which parts do say that.

 

Well, surrogates do exist, so its not like its a new thing.

 

There:



Surrogate is in the bill. I'm not sure why that was so difficult for you, or why it was a sticking point, but there you go. Enjoy!

 

heterosexual couples get this, why would one deny the same service to homosexual couples?

 

You think it was illegal in California for homosexual couples to use surrogates?

 

The text could be interpreted that way. And likely would be, if we know anything about how judges have ruled in California in the recent past.


related thread: Appeals court in California says transgender can sue Catholic hospital for not removing his uterus

 

Of course they do, and a woman could need one as well. Simply because they are a woman doesn't mean they don't have a condition where they would require a surrogate.

 

Ok, now which part actually says that simply being gay is sufficient to qualify the person under this bill as being "infertile". I get that such is what someone is claiming this all means, but where does it say that? Also which part excludes the lesbians?

 

The question more goes to, if it's covered by insurance for heterosexuals then why shouldn't it be covered for homosexuals as well?

 

no, I think it insurance covered heterosexuals, now it's expanded to cover homosexuals too

the right never seemed to have an issue with it covering heterosexuals, only now do they have issues

 

OK so you are going to keep asking me to do your digging over and over without you lifting a finger? You have the bill, go for it. I can't believe you think I care that you don't want to do your own searching.

 

I would say it's not covered by insurance in California currently, however you are free to research and prove the opposite.

 

I don't believe California law currently requires insurance to cover surrogacy, or even IVF, but you are free to prove me wrong.