"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with
power to endanger the public liberty." - - - - John Adams

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

California Considers Mandated Insurance for 'Gay Infertility'

The California Legislature is called to order.

A World Gone Mad
Insane Democrat bill would mandate group insurance coverage for so-called gay and lesbian "infertility."
  • Gay and lesbian couples would simply have to testify that they have been having sex for a year without producing a child to be considered "infertile" to get state mandated insurance coverage.

For decades, members of the left have insisted that the right is fighting a war on science. But when it comes to the issues of abortion and homosexuality, it is the left that fights a consistent and ridiculous war with reality.

The California legislature will be considering AB 460.   The bill by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) would mandate group insurance coverage for so-called gay and lesbian "infertility."

What in the world does that bizarre phrase mean? It doesn't mean situations in which two members of a lesbian couple are both infertile and incapable of conception using some third party's sperm.

It doesn't mean situations in which two gay men are both infertile and incapable of impregnating a surrogate mother. It means situations in which gay or lesbian couples can't make a baby by having sex with each other. In other words, every single gay and lesbian couple on the planet reports CNS News.

The way the law works, gay and lesbian couples would simply have to testify that they have been having sex for a year without producing a child to be considered "infertile," which is idiotic, since baby-making requires necessary components missing in homosexual activity. But nature is irrelevant here.

According to the fact sheet supporting AB 460, the trouble is that some insurance companies “are not complying with current law that prohibits discrimination” based on sexual orientation. Instead, they are denying infertility treatment benefits “based on [the policy holder’s] not having an opposite sex married partner in which to have one year of regular sexual relations without conception.” AB 460 would amend the law to add the following language:
Coverage for the treatment of infertility shall be offered and provided without discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, domestic partner status, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
But what does this blanket anti-discrimination language mean in the context of a gay or lesbian individual or couple? AB 460 maintains the existing two-pronged approach to determining infertility for purposes of requiring coverage, that is, either a “demonstrated condition” that causes infertility “or” the “inability to conceive a pregnancy .  .  . after a year or more of regular sexual relations.”

Carlos Alcalá, a spokesman for Ammiano said: “Anything that is covered by an insurance plan must be covered for everyone. .  .  . If a plan covers egg donation costs for a heterosexual couple unable to conceive without it, it would have to cover those costs for a gay male couple as well.”

Read more at Weekly Standard


Anonymous said...

Your premise only makes sense if you honestly think that gay or lesbian couples actually think they COULD have a baby if they received infertility treatments. Who would seek treatment for something that cannot be 'cured?' Why would anyone seek treatment for something they haven't even been tested for? Assuming we're on the same page and can't imagine anyone 'taking advantage' of such a situation, what is it you're afraid of? Because the only thing left is people who ACTUALLY need infertility treatment (which doesn't include one of the most expensive treatments, IVF) can no longer be discriminated against. So either you misread the situation (or just didn't think about it) or you just want to be able to discriminate.

Ross said...

What a shemozzle.

Gary said...

Follow the money trail.

By "failing" to have a child the state would force insurance companies to allow Gays to tap into insurance money for programs like surrogate parenting etc.

Gays can do what they want. They just need to pay their own way and not drive up insurance costs for everyone else.