California Lawmakers Consider Mandating ‘Gay Infertility’ Insurance
Sacramento, California – Lawmakers in California are considering a bill that would mandate insurance companies, under criminal penalties, to offer coverage for infertility treatments for homosexuals.
AB 460 was recently proposed by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco, who notes that while insurance companies in the state currently cover infertility treatments for couples, some “are not complying with current law that prohibits discrimination.”
He says that some companies are denying coverage to homosexuals because they did not have “an opposite sex married partner in which to have one year of regular sexual relations without conception.” Current law requires that spouses try to conceive for one year, and may claim coverage if they remain barren after that time.
“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,” Ammiano’s proposed legislation declares.
However, some find the bill’s purpose confusing, as by nature homosexuals can not conceive with each other.
“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 [100% of the time], since baby-making requires necessary components missing in homosexual activity,” comments writer Ben Shapiro. “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.”
“But nature is irrelevant here,” he continues. “Even though both men and women were, to borrow Lady Gaga’s phrase, ‘born this way,’ political correctness trumps nature.”
Wesley Smith of NewsBusters was also perplexed by the legislation.
“This raises a cogent question: Could AB 460 be construed to require insurance companies to pay for infertility treatments for gay couples simply because their sexual unions cannot produce children?” he asked. “It would seem so. There is no requirement that actual infertility be diagnosed. Nor is there a requirement that the gay ‘infertile’ patient seeking coverage for treatment have tried and failed to conceive or sire a child through any heterosexual means, whether natural or artificial. Moreover, the bill would still define infertility as engaging in sexual intimacy without conceiving for one year, regardless of whether the relations were heterosexual or homosexual.”
Carlos Alcala, spokeperson for Assemblyman Ammiano clarified the bill’s intent.
“Anything that is covered by an insurance plan must be covered for everyone,” he said. “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.”
If the bill passes, failure to provide coverage to homosexuals for infertility treatments would result in criminal penalties.
Photo: Cool Ceasar