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

All of which means that what you are asserting is not true. Unless you can prove it. Again, show me where lesbians are excluded.

 

There is nothing to prove with that question. The question is why should insurance not have to cover homosexuals for the same thing they cover heterosexuals for? Wow! even for an opinion question you can't answer or support.

 

This would then indicate that you are misleading us in the worry that gays are being deemed as "infertile", when it's about adding surrogacy to insurance. Either that or you are saying we should add surrogacy for heterosexuals and not homosexuals.

 

America has a reproduction problem. This is an attempt to try and give gay couples more ability to procreate since for them to do so naturally it would involve a third person. Lol

I don't think it will make up the difference.

 

No one said that. Women use surrogates all the time.

 

You said it.

 

I'm cool knowing 99% of the readers knew what I meant. Its almost impossible to get to 100%. Are there lesbian couples who are both infertile, but can still produce eggs or have frozen them prior? I guess so, but its probably a small percentage.

 

per the ops quote, they changed the definition of infertility, thus insurers that cover infertility now have to cover any couple trying to have kids that currently can't - so now it covers both heterosexuals and homosexuals

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...les-in-the-name-of-fertility-equality.611180/

"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."

 

And it is the small percentages that need that protection so they are not passed over, as you seemingly did.

 

I'm finding it amazing that only an article gets quoted,and never the wording of the bill itself. As if people are afraid that the bill won't actually support their assertion. Show me how the bill wording makes a man infertile, by legal and not medical definition, when partnered with a medically infertile person (male or female) but still legally fertile when single. Or are the legally infertile by the fact that they are single since they don't have a partner to conceive with?

 

if you disagree with the article, show us, simeple

they are a married couple, just like any other married couple, trying to have children, and they can not without medical assistance

 

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the article. I'm asking for the supporting evidence of the claim, for which the claimant is responsible for providing. I've also asked repeatedly for the evidence of lesbians being excluded as per the OP claim and is still nowhere to be seen. There is nothing in the bill to support that either. Nor in simply reading the bill can I tell what another is basing their claim on. For all I know they are misreading something or taking a section out of context. Thus it is upon them to support their claim. Then at least I have something to look at and either agree or form a counter argument around.

 

I can only say what the article we are discussing says, if you have more, feel free to add to it

 

Did I claim that lesbians were excluded?

 

How am I misleading you? Be specific.

 

Yeah. You said, "But isn't this unfair to lesbians?"

 

Thank you! You noticed I was asking the question!

 

In your OP

 

And in doing so, put forth that they are excluded. If they weren't excluded then why would you ask if it was unfair to them? Now if you asked, "Are lesbians included in this or not?", that would be an inquiry indicating you not knowing the status.

 

Why did you think it was unfair to lesbians?

 

You didn't read it carefully. See post #42

 

So I shouldn't have asked the question?

 

The article didn't address them, so it seemed natural enough question to ask.

 

Does California force insurance companies to cover surrogate pregnancies for hetero couples? I don't want to pay for any surrogate pregnancies. It's not necessary and adoption is always available. Pay for your own.

 

You inquiry as now claimed is valid, but was worded incorrectly to ask what it was you intended to ask. IOW< your question asked something other than what you intended to, assuming you are not making a goal post shift.