Infertility Insurance Coverage For Gay Couples? SERIOUSLY?
We Might As Well Have Been Pelted By Tomatoes And Attacked By Lions In Our First Live Broadcast. Honestly.
April 14, 2013
GLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!
April 15, 2013
Sigh. Is it just me, or does anyone else out there look at the news each day and think, "Our society is getting stupider on a daily basis?"
Check out this article.
"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."
Right now, CA law requires group health plans to offer infertility treatment coverage with the exception of in vitro fertilization. So, you get benefits whenever a doctor diagnoses you with infertility according to this definition: “the inability to conceive a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to a live birth after a year of regular sexual relations without contraception.” So, no evidence of an actual physical problem is required – you just need to be part of a couple who has tried to get pregnant for a year and failed.
And now, AB 460 would amend the law to add the language above, so that if you're in a gay relationship, and you're therefore not able to conceive naturally because it's a physical impossibility, you're considered infertile and eligible for insurance benefits/infertility treatment.
It doesn't matter that gay people CANNOT PHYSICALLY IMPREGNATE ONE ANOTHER. Democrats don't care about things like logic and physical science.
Gay couples are not infertile, as the sourcelink points out. They are biologically incompatible when it comes to creating a child. And so now insurance companies, and taxpayers, need to pay to fix that. So, it's entirely possible, for example, that an insurance plan would have to pay for a surrogate pregnancy for a male couple. The 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.”
THAT IS FREAKING PREPOSTEROUS. A heterosexual couple unable to conceive due to medically validated legitimate infertility is simply NOT THE SAME as a gay couple who just wants to have a kid because their reproductive parts don't naturally work together. It's every bit as preposterous as the example given in the sourcelink – when someone falls in love with an OBJECT instead of a person. If you're the weirdo in this video, for example, and you're in a romantic relationship with your CAR, and you can't get your car pregnant, should you really qualify for infertility coverage?
AB 460 "protects the right of anyone to infertility treatment regardless of 'gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information… sexual orientation'" so seriously – who's to say that people in love with their cars don't have the same rights to infertility treatment?
This is what we've come to.
GAWD.
