Lesbians Sue to Challenge New Jersey Fertility Treatment Law for Only Pertaining to Male/Female Couples

Erin-compressedTRENTON, N.J. — Four lesbians have filed a federal lawsuit to challenge a New Jersey law that they say inhibits them from obtaining insurance coverage for infertility treatments because it only pertains to male/female couples.

Erin Krupa and her partner Marianne decided five years ago to have children through a donor, but soon found that Erin was infertile. While her doctor vowed to help her become pregnant, Krupa found that her insurance provider, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, couldn’t cover any treatments due to a state law that requires couples to prove their infertility through “two years of unprotected sexual intercourse.”

As those of the same sex were not created to reproduce with each other, naturally Krupa could not demonstrate what the law required.

She is now therefore suing the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance as she believes the requirement violates the Constitutional rights of lesbian women by making them pay out-of-pocket while male/female couples can receive coverage.

“Despite having a medical diagnosis of infertility, because, as a lesbian in a committed relationship, Erin could not show that she had unprotected sexual intercourse with a man for the requisite period, the Krupas were not protected by the mandate,” the lawsuit states.

“Every day that New Jersey law continues to exclude women in same-sex relationships from the protections of the infertility mandate, these women must either wait for the law to change as their childbearing years continue to slip away or, if they have any available resources, bankrupting themselves and their families in order to pay for fertility care that is automatically covered for straight women,” it continues.

Also joining in the suit are Sarah Mills and Sol Mejias (in separate homosexual relationships), who also take issue that they have had to pay for treatments out of pocket.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Sarah is currently seeing a psychotherapist to deal with the psychological and emotional impacts of this situation, as well as the strain it places on her relationship with Gloria,” the legal challenge outlines.

The women are seeking an injunction against the law, as well as compensatory damages and emotional damages. They are also requesting that the court declare the law a violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution.

Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield has denied any wrongdoing, remarking in a statement that it handled “infertility services equally, regardless of sexual orientation.”

“We interpret the 2001 New Jersey law defining infertility in a gender and orientation neutral manner and our coverage standard complies with federal non-discrimination requirements,” an unnamed spokesman said in a statement to NJ Advance Media.

“Members unable to conceive due to medical or biological reasons are covered for the specific infertility benefits included in their policy,” the company stated. “Horizon is committed to equality, values our LGBTQ members, and is sensitive to their unique healthcare challenges and needs. We regularly review our standards and procedures to ensure parity and fairness for all of our members.”

As previously reported, in 2013, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that mandates insurance companies in the state to provide coverage for infertility treatments for homosexuals. But some were perplexed about the wording of the legislation, and interpreted it conversely of how the plaintiffs in the New Jersey  suit read their state’s statute.

“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,” commented writer Ben Shapiro.

“It doesn’t mean situations in which two gay men are both infertile and incapable of impregnating a surrogate mother,” he continued. “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.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • D Sims

    This is what happens when you kick against the original design of male and female. While they are spending their time suing insurance companies to redefine the obvious, Erin and Marianne should go ahead and add to their lawsuit all the “male with male” couples. No doubt sometime in the future a male couple could have the desire to have a female womb implanted so they can be fertilized and have babies.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      I know you’re being sarcastic, but the specific performance requested in this suit is to alter the law so that it includes a provision allowing same sex couples to get coverage.

      • sangrita

        You know he’s being sarcastic? I wish I had that kind of faith in humanity.

      • Amos Moses

        All they have to do is prove they are infertile …. and they have not done the things REQUIRED to conceive ………….

        • Jalapeno

          They have been medically diagnosed as infertile.

          You can be infertile without ever trying to conceive.

          • Amos Moses

            “They have been medically diagnosed as infertile.”

            Despite having a medical diagnosis of infertility, because, as a lesbian in a committed relationship, Erin could not show that she had unprotected sexual intercourse with a man for the requisite period, the Krupas were not protected by the mandate,

            i have personally met numerous couples who “have been medically diagnosed as infertile.” and they had children ……………. want children ….. try doing the things that are REQUIRED to have one ……….

          • Jalapeno

            “Erin could not show that she had unprotected sexual intercourse with a man for the requisite period”

            That’s what they’re trying to change. Something like letting a doctor bypass the unprotected sexual intercourse in SOME cases, when it’s not relevant.

          • Amos Moses

            No ………. what they are trying to change is taking responsibility for their choice …….. and to make it everyone elses problem that they made choices that made conception inconceivable ………….

      • D Sims

        I understand what these two ladies are attempting to do. We have redefined what marriage is and now this is the results of doing so. It opens up other rights now that goes along with the new right of same sex marriage. There are no doubt many more laws on the books that will have to change because some men in black robes decided to redefine marriage.
        There was not a hint of sarcasm in what I wrote. You can take it to the bank that in the future there will be many things that will be changing to compensate for certain groups and their personal desires. There will not be much left to legislate except maybe the speed limit for most everything will be legalized and approved by society.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I don’t see a problem with that. I hope LOTS of things change to accommodate LGBT people.

          • D Sims

            You can count on it. Trans, Zoophilia, Bi, Pan Sexual, even A-sexual and every other practice of mankind will infiltrate our society until we destroy ourselves from the inside out.

          • sangrita

            The legality of those practices would have no bearing on how often they take place, which is rare. I think you would have a very hard time proving that they are working to “infiltrate our society”. To whatever extent they’re already here, there’s not going to be a huge increase in any of them.

          • D Sims

            Just a generation ago people felt the same way about same sex marriage. Back then they would have laughed you out of the city for even thinking that one day a man could actually legally marry another man.

            Today in Europe Zoophilia brothels are popping up everywhere especially in Germany. Never say never .

          • sangrita

            That too has not increased. Same-sex couples exist in the same proportion they always have. The laws allowing them to marry may have changed, but the couples themselves have not suddenly skyrocketed.

          • D Sims

            I do not want to beat a dead horse but you need to research the stats. There has been a steady increase. The latest stats puts the LGBT population at around 12 million in the U.S., which suggests that the gay population is growing. One telling statistic is the percentage of homosexuals among poor,
            uneducated, nonwhite populations is higher than among educated
            middle-class whites.

            My own Grand-daughter asked my wife, “why do so many kids at school think it is cool to be gay or bi?”

            The culture around us has always paved the highway of our future. This is why Jesus said over forty times, come and follow Me.

          • sangrita

            The “steady increase” you talk about could be people more comfortable coming out of the closet and admitting they are gay. But the proportions are always going to be about the same. Ten percent is a figure I have heard, it doesn’t sound out of line to me.

            As for it being “cool to be gay”, it’s not something people decide to be. You are or you aren’t, and it’s neither cool nor uncool.

  • bowie1

    A few years ago there was a young woman who wanted no male sperm donations but wanted to conceive a child simply through prayer. Naturally, it did not work.

  • james blue

    Seems like government getting between patient and doctor. Are you against that when it comes to yourself, but fine with it when it comes to others?

    • Amos Moses

      Seems like the lesbians did that when they chose to sue ………… direct government involvement …..

      • james blue

        Realizing who I’m talking to so not expecting much, When a law infringes on your rights what course of action should you take.

        For this exercise let’s take the lesbians out of the equation and say the state requires you to have birth control coverage.

        • Amos Moses

          It does not infringe on their rights ………….. they cant conceive because they chose a relationship that made it inconceivable ….. and the path to conceiving is WIDE OPEN to them ……….

          • james blue

            Why do they not have a right to conceive artificially? What right does government have to prevent insurance companies from covering such?

          • Amos Moses

            “What right does government have to prevent insurance companies from covering such?”

            The government is not …….. the insurance company seems to have a policy on their policy … a policy based on the law ………… Re: “Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, couldn’t cover any treatments due to a state law that requires couples to prove their infertility through “two years of unprotected sexual intercourse.”
            As those of the same sex were not created to reproduce with each other, naturally Krupa could not demonstrate what the law required.”

            and as the article points out ……….. “the same sex were not created to reproduce with each other” ……… because they are lesbians ………. DUH! ……… Biology 101 …… law of natural consequences ……….

          • james blue

            You are not dealing with the question asked. Why is government making laws about what insurance can cover and cannot cover or who it can or cannot cover. Why is government mandating insurance can only cover fertility/insemination procedures after the couple has shown no success after 2 years?

            What business is it of government at all? This is big authoritarian social conservative government getting between you and your doctor. It is exactly what they claim to be against.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I wish I could like this comment ten times.

            “You are not dealing with the question asked.”

            I wish I could say that surprised me.

          • Amos Moses

            “Why is government making laws about what insurance can cover and cannot cover or who it can or cannot cover.”

            Because insurance is a regulated activity to protect the public ….. just like the SEC and agencies control other financial activities …………. DUH! ………..

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Why is it minority groups want all laws changed to their benefit or they scream fowl?

          • james blue

            Not all laws, just the ones that deny them the same rights as everyone else.
            However in this case I’m arguing against government making laws that get in between the doctor and patient no matter who the patient is?

          • Amos Moses

            NO ONE has a “right” to artificially conceive …………..

          • james blue

            Says who?

          • Amos Moses

            Show me where it says anywhere it is a “right” …………

          • ComeOnPeople!

            We as free men only have the rights given to us by GOD. The right to life, to be free and to pursue happiness. Yet there are those who think everyone owes them everything. That they are somehow privileged to whatever they want. Needs are one thing and wants another. Rights are the right to work and provide for the things you desire. The government and any other establishment owes you nothing. The same people who are screaming about this being about the government coming between the patient and doctor are the same people who think obamanightmare is ok. Hmmmm let’s seeeeeee government HEATHcare. We are no longer a sovereign nation but an obamanation. And folks an abomination stinks in the nostrils of GOD.

          • Amos Moses

            “The same people who are screaming about this being about the government coming between the patient and doctor are the same people who think obamanightmare is ok. Hmmmm let’s seeeeeee government HEATHcare.”

            So much self-contradiction ….. but it escapes them ….. the reprobate mind ……

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Yes the conscience denied becomes numb does it not? Sad when grown men and women can not see the forest for the trees and refuse to use their own minds but only parrot the propaganda fed to them by UNholywood and paid off news medias. Without excuse in the end because even nature teaches the truth in regard to male female procreation, gender and sexual orientation . Nature which only uses instinct gets it but for some odd reason some humans who are suppose to be able to reason… think a square peg will fit into a round hole. Should what they are trying to do not work … they blame the puzzle not themselves and refuse to admit the TRUTH. Throw a tantrum and demand a puzzle that will allow them to believe deception. Not only that they demand that even those who can reason see the square peck now sitting inside an enlarged round hole being okay and normal now. NOPE…. no mater how they spin it, people who can reason will never accept a distortion of TRUTH and nature itself.

          • james blue

            Explain why it isn’t? Explain who decides what rights YOU have and what rights YOU do not

          • Amos Moses

            No ………. you have asserted a “right” …….. it is up to you to show where that “right” comes from and why ………..

          • james blue

            Freedom, liberty…. Who gave you the right to limit them?

          • Amos Moses

            Ok ……… that says nothing about a right to procreate artificially and to have others pay for it …… fail ….. try again …………. BTW ,,,,,,,,, no one is stopping them from procreation artificially ….. all they have to do is pay for it …… OR …… all they need it the proper equipment ….. that would be ….. Sorry …. did you need the check list …..

          • james blue

            “and have others pay for it”? Where is the right to procreate naturally and have others pay for it?

          • Amos Moses

            They want to have others pay for their artificial procreation ……. that is not a right ….. if you want to speak to a group …. it is not up to others to rent the hall for you ….. if they want to procreate naturally it costs them no money …… but they have no right to make others pay for it artificially …..

          • james blue

            “if they want to procreate naturally it costs them no money” so insurance doesn’t cover pregnancy and birth?

          • Amos Moses

            “so insurance doesn’t cover pregnancy and birth?”

            i dont know their insurance …. most do …… not the cost of GETTING pregnant …….. sorry to tell you …… life does come with some responsibilities ……….

            so its not about having a child ….. its about money …… really ……….

            BTW, the requirements of getting pregnant …… a penis, a vagina, an egg, some sperm, a womb, ………… now tell me ….. how do two lesbians make a baby when they lack the most basic of the requirements …… does stupidity count ……….

          • james blue

            So Viagra isn’t covered by insurance? Do lesbians get free insurance or do they pay like the rest of us?

          • Amos Moses

            They pay like the rest of you …. not me …. and they have to follow the same state regulations for that ………………. i think they call that EQUAL TREATMENT …..

          • james blue

            Which brings us back to why is the state getting between you and your doctor or you and your insurance company?

          • Amos Moses

            and you support obamacare …. am i right …..

            the state has an interest in stopping insurance fraud …. it is a crime …… and it also protects the public from insurance companies defrauding them …. there is a vested interest …. as has been stated time and time again ……….

          • james blue

            My comment history is open for public view, other than stating what the ACA does and does not do if you can find any post where I’ve described it as anything other than a “S**t sandwich” please feel free to link to that comment.

            This isn’t about fraud, it’s about medical conditions.

          • Amos Moses

            BTW, FYI ……. Viagra does not get you pregnant ….. and again …. i dont know their insurance …. and i am pretty sure you dont either ………..

          • james blue

            Viagra helps men with ED get women pregnant. Should it be covered by insurance or not?

          • Amos Moses

            No ……… it gives them a boner ……. it gets no one pregnant ……….

          • james blue

            Have you not had the talk? What do you suppose happens? Why would he need the “boner”? It’s not to stop him rolling off the bed in his sleep.

          • Amos Moses

            and if they are not only impotent but sterile ………….. sorry charlie …….. just a boner pill ….

          • james blue

            Should it be covered by insurance? The purpose of sex is to procreate,

  • Josey

    As those of the same sex were not created to reproduce with each other, naturally Krupa could not demonstrate what the law required.

    There is your clue homosexuals, you were not created to procreate with same sex, such irony.

    • Amos Moses

      If only common sense …. were common ………..

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Assuming anyone was “created” to do anything, what does that have to do with whether the law in question discriminates against gay couples?

      • Amos Moses

        They are not infertile because they are homosexual ………. they cant conceive because they chose a relationship that made it inconceivable …….. stupid is as stupid does …..

        • Ambulance Chaser

          That doesn’t even come within a hundred miles of answering my question.

          • Amos Moses

            No …. you do not come within a hundred miles of hearing the truth …………

    • uninvitedguest

      sorry but being in love and getting married has nothing to do with procreation.

      • Amos Moses

        So then why did these two …. who chose a relationship DEVOID of procreative ability …. insist it is now a right they claim ….. when their whole relationship rejected it from the start ………

  • axelbeingcivil

    It’s a reasonable request to change the law; just require the two years OR a doctor’s diagnosis of infertility. If a licensed physician can give sufficient evidence that the person likely cannot conceive, that should satisfy the requirements. If anything, it should be more convincing than the two years requirement, since there’s no real objective way to demonstrate that.

    • Amos Moses

      “It’s a reasonable request to change the law;”

      No …….. it is not …. especially when the path to conceiving is WIDE OPEN to them ……….

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Why not? The Supreme Court held in Romer v. Evans that laws discriminating against LGBT people have to serve at least some kind of governmental purpose beyond simply making life more difficult for them. What purpose is served here?

        • Amos Moses

          And the governmental purpose ………. is procreation and the advancement of a family with a male and a female role in the form of a mother and father …….. not some bastardized redefinition of it in the form of a lie about which of them is which …………

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Except that in Obergefell v. Hodges, it was ruled that families don’t need a male and female parent, and that same sex parents were equal to traditional parents in every way relevant to the law. So, there goes that argument.

          • Amos Moses

            Except that ruling not only DISREGARDED the law ………. it disregarded common sense and BIOLOGY ……… as these two lesbians seem to want to do ….. and because they wont do what they should to have children …. somehow that equates to “we done them wrong” ….. when they did it to themselves …………..

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And yet, it’s still the law.

          • Amos Moses

            And yet ……… it is not law as it violates the law ……… so no ………

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What law does it violate?

          • B1jetmech

            If you are going to call it a law then read article 1 section 1 of the Constitution.

            Hint: SCOTUS can’t make laws.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Fine, they make binding interpretations of laws. Is that really all you have? Nitpicking semantics?

          • B1jetmech

            I ask because no one knows civics anymore. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of some liberal ideal then it’s “settled law”. But when it actually upholds a Constitutiona matter, it’s constantly challenged by liberals.

            Since congress can only legislate, why is the court legislating from the bench?

            Can’t play the “interpretation” game because even SCOTUS is under certain jurisdiction of it’s powers. It just can’t take any case…there is the 10th amendment (that it too is being ignored)

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “I ask because no one knows civics anymore. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of some liberal ideal then it’s “settled law”. But when it actually upholds a Constitutiona matter, it’s constantly challenged by liberals”

            Challenged? How do you challenge a Supreme Court ruling? I’ve never seen liberals “challenge” a Supreme Court ruling, but I have seen plenty of conservatives twist themselves into knots trying to explain how a given ruling doesn’t have to be obeyed. Not that it matters either way. A ruling is law and must be followed, whether you or I like it or not.

            If you disagree with a ruling, feel free to start working on a Constitutional amendment.

            “Since congress can only legislate, why is the court legislating from the bench?”

            It’s not.

            Can’t play the “interpretation” game because even SCOTUS is under certain jurisdiction of it’s powers. It just can’t take any case…there is the 10th amendment (that it too is being ignored)

            I have never heard of the Tenth Amendment being ignored but either way, it doesn’t say anything about limiting SCOTUS’ power to hear cases.

          • B1jetmech

            Challenged? How do you challenge a Supreme Court ruling?

            Congress and/or states.

            I’ve never seen liberals “challenge” a Supreme Court ruling,

            Does citizens united ring a bell? Chuckie Schumer wants to amend the Constitution to overturn the ruling…and that would be the constitutional path to take rather an illegal executive order or a future court ruling to over turn.

            but I have seen plenty of conservatives twist themselves into knots trying to explain how a given ruling doesn’t have to be obeyed.

            Well yeah, when the court oversteps it’s jurisdiction and takes on the role of legislature…then their rulings are to be disregarded and congress needs to intervene.

            Why shouldn’t SCOTUS be accountable?

            A ruling is law and must be followed, whether you or I like it or not.

            No, Congress passes laws.

            If you disagree with a ruling, feel free to start working on a Constitutional amendment.

            hey, I got an ideal…I do what liberals do. Bypass the constitutional process and use SCOTUS to pass laws and call them interpretations!

            It’s not.

            So where did abortion law come from?

            Homosexual marriage?

            Did congress legislate them into existence?

            I think you know the answer…

            I have never heard of the Tenth Amendment being ignored but either way, it doesn’t say anything about limiting SCOTUS’ power to hear cases.

            Of course you never hear of the 10A being ignored..because you don’t pay attention, let alone don’t understand how the 3 branches of government are structured.

            Since you don’t understand the 10A it clearly states that what is not covered in the Constitution is left to the states.

            So why is SCOTUS acting as social engineers through taking on all these state issue cases?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “Since you don’t understand the 10A it clearly states that what is not covered in the Constitution is left to the states.
            So why is SCOTUS acting as social engineers through taking on all these state issue cases?”

            They’re not “state issue cases” just because they involve a state law. State laws cab very easily violate the Constitution.

          • B1jetmech

            So why is SCOTUS acting as social engineers through taking on all these state issue cases?”

            Think about it…these so called justices feel they have all this power to decide cases that are left to the states. I guess if I was a liberal and not held to account to anyone I would do the same thing…take the decision making away from the electorate and sates and decide it for them so as long as I had 4 more justices to rule with me.

            State laws cab very easily violate the Constitution.

            Says who? 5 justices? 5 justices can decide for tens of millions of people? Sounds tyrannical…it is.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You’re still not hearing what I’m saying. I’m not arguing that the current system is good, bad, the best we can have, indifferent, or expressing any other opinion about it.

            I’m simply saying that it IS. I have no other opinion beyond that. The system is the way it is, regardless of your feelings about it.

            You as a taxpayer are certainly free to try to change it, but you haven’t yet. And until you do, you can’t pretend that it works some other way than it does.

          • B1jetmech

            Does it bother you in the least that the so called system of now is operating outside the Constitution?

            If so, then maybe, just maybe you can do your part in helping to restore it back to where it’s suppose to.

            Other then that, There’s nothing to change because what is needed is restoration.

            Are we governed by a representative government or by 5 unelected, un accountable justices?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Again, I’m going to ask you to please stay on topic. You need to make up your mind. Does the system work the way you want it to or not? Because here you are admitting that it doesn’t, but the other half the time you seem to expect rulings to come down differently as if the system worked your way.

            So make up your mind. Which is it? The system needs to be reformed or the system works your way but rulings aren’t coming down in agreement with your way?

          • B1jetmech

            Because here you are admitting that it doesn’t, but the other half the time you seem to expect rulings to come down differently as if the system worked your way.

            So how is the “system” suppose to work if the court keeps operating outside it’s constitutional bounds???

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Again, I’m not taking any position on how the entire legal system functions or doesn’t function. That’s above my pay grade and I’ll leave it to the professors and philosophers to debate and the politicians to deal with. I’m sure there’s a lively debate to be had about whether each Supreme Court ruling was handled correctly or incorrectly, or whether our entire system of laws works properly at all. However, it’s a debate I choose not to engage in.

            I have no interest in what the legal system *should* be, only how it is. That is, I simply don’t care whether a given SCOTUS ruling is “correct” or not. It’s been handed down, therefore we have to follow it. There is no other option unless or until such time as the system is torn down and restructured.

            So when I come here and say what the ruling should be on any given case, I’m stating the law as it is, not how it should be under some other hypothetical legal system that we don’t operate under.

            I’m not saying that other hypothetical system is worse than the one we have, or less constitutional or less closely aligned with the way the founding fathers wanted it. For all I know it could be better. It could be a thousand times better. All I’m saying is it doesn’t exist yet, and therefore, I don’t care what it says.

          • B1jetmech

            That’s above my pay grade and I’ll leave it to the professors and philosophers to debate and the politicians to deal with.

            That’s the problem is some people have surrendered their understanding of the Constitution to elites…which the framers never intended of. The Constitution is easily understood…maybe that’s why anyone can be a judge on the supreme court. No law background required.

            But since the beloved federal government isn’t operating by the Constitution like they should. WE care getting many illegitimate laws coming from the courts and the “Forth” branch of government which doesn’t exist in he Constitution…( the EPA, DOE, HUD,ect) Why then should we respect those illegitimate laws then?

            So when you all come here to defend the new law of the land like homosexual marriage, what’s there to defend since it never passed congress and signed by the president? Then we argue over illegitimate laws then.

            So should the federal government abide by the Constitution or not?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “WE care getting many illegitimate laws coming from the courts and the “Forth” branch of government which doesn’t exist in he Constitution…( the EPA, DOE, HUD,ect)”

            Those are executive agencies, not laws. Are you trying to argue that the Cabinet is a modern invention?

            “Why then should we respect those illegitimate laws then?”

            They’re not laws.

            “So when you all come here to defend the new law of the land like homosexual marriage, what’s there to defend since it never passed congress and signed by the president?”

            If I’m parsing your confusing grammar correctly, you’re asking what authority Obergefell is based on. The answer is the 14th Amendment. Are you going to argue that the 14th Amendment is invalid?

          • B1jetmech

            Those are executive agencies, not laws. Are you trying to argue that the Cabinet is a modern invention?

            Okay, so where in the Constitution that the alphabet agencies can issue laws without congress? I know they have been doing it for decades but where is there constitutional authority?

            They’re not laws

            Yep.

            you’re asking what authority Obergefell is based on. The answer is the 14th Amendment. Are you going to argue that the 14th Amendment is invalid?

            Correct that using the 14th amendment is wrong because it is a reconstruction era amendment that was ratified to give former slaves standing to use in court. The fact that SCOTUS to “equal protection” words out of it is misusing and mis-interpreting the 14thA.

            The 14A has nothing to do with homosexual marriage.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “Correct that using the 14th amendment is wrong because it is a reconstruction era amendment that was ratified to give former slaves standing to use in court. The fact that SCOTUS to “equal protection” words out of it is misusing and mis-interpreting the 14thA.
            The 14A has nothing to do with homosexual marriage.”

            That’s one view. The Supreme Court believes otherwise. Between you and the Supreme Court, only one of you is the ultimate authorityon the law. And I’m pretty sure it’s not you.

      • axelbeingcivil

        … But it isn’t. This woman was diagnosed with infertility. It doesn’t matter how many men she has sex with, it won’t change that. If your follicle count is too low or you have some congenital defect, your sexual orientation doesn’t matter.

        Remember, we have plenty of technology that lets us fertilize ova and implant them. We can even just get a donor and a metaphorical turkey baster, as the joke goes. Getting the right ingredients into the right location is not that difficult. Heterosexual intercourse isn’t necessary for conception anymore.

        The problem here is structural defects that could potentially be corrected by treatment, a treatment that would normally be available and covered by insurance but isn’t.

        • Amos Moses

          “This woman was diagnosed with infertility. ”

          i know many “diagnosed” infertile couples who have conceived ……… they have not done what is required to conceive ………..

          • axelbeingcivil

            Given that they’ve already tried with a donor, I’d say they’ve done what’s required.

            Infertility isn’t usually a black-or-white diagnosis; it can be in some circumstances but, in others, it may be that the couple just has a very low fertility rate; so low as to make conception exceptionally difficult.

            Heterosexual couples under these circumstances would be granted access to fertility treatments, rather than just told “Keep trying”.

          • Amos Moses

            “Infertility isn’t usually a black-or-white diagnosis;”

            Yeah ……….. it is a MAN WOMAN diagnosis ………. not a TWO WOMEN diagnosis …….. and if you want to rebel against good order ….. then DEAL WITH YOUR REBELLION ……………

          • axelbeingcivil

            If you’re not going to take this seriously, I’m not going to discuss it with you.

          • Amos Moses

            i have taken it seriously ………. you have tried to interject false facts and propaganda from the alphabet deviants …… and since you see that you are failing ….. and cannot refute the truth ………… you want to take your marbles and go home ….. SEE YA …………

          • axelbeingcivil

            Amos, believe it or not, we live in a world where it is no longer physically necessary for intercourse to occur to conceive. When you refuse to acknowledge that fact, and treat a medical diagnosis of infertility as mere vapour instead of a crushingly difficult diagnosis, you’re not actually addressing reality.

          • Amos Moses

            “Amos, believe it or not, we live in a world where it is no longer physically necessary for intercourse to occur to conceive.”

            So what? ……… if you want others to pay for it ………… then meet the requirement of proof by law ……….. using the required equipment …… kind of a given as proof ………..

    • james blue

      Why is government setting timelines for fertility treatment to begin with? Shouldn’t that be between the patient and doctor? Why is government setting time limits before private insurance can pay for it? Shouldn’t that be between the patient and the insurance company?

      • axelbeingcivil

        The government may set the timer as a compromise with insurance companies to mandate coverage. That is, insurance companies may be reluctant to cover what they see as “optional”, so the government mandates it but with a time limit compromise.

        That’s my best guess.

  • ComeOnPeople!

    Big difference in a male and female who try to have a child and cannot and two females who cannot even attempt to reproduce. Not to mention that fertility procedures are expensive & to allow everyone to just say hey I want a baby but don’t want to go threw a process to prove they are infertile is going to cost american tax payers a load of money, this is why they have a proving time to ensure that the couple is indeed infertile. Two females are infertile without a male. DUH! But should we all have to pay for lesbians to have children , when they have no way of proving they are indeed infertile. I’m sorry that two of the same sex do not desire a relationship with the opposite sex but that is what GOD designed to populate the earth. 1 male + 1 female = 1 or more babies & if that don’t work go threw the waiting process to prove you are infertile like everyone else.

    • Jalapeno

      ” when they have no way of proving they are indeed infertile.”

      Do you think doctors can’t figure these things out or something?

      • Amos Moses

        Do you think the two lesbians cant figure out what is required to conceive? ……

        • Jalapeno

          I’m sure they’re fully aware that men and women both participate in the conception.

          One of them IS infertile though. Having sex with a man still wouldn’t let her get pregnant.

          • Amos Moses

            “I’m sure they’re fully aware that men and women both participate in the conception.”

            BRILLIANT …………. then all they have to do is DO IT …….. the path to conceiving is WIDE OPEN to them ………. i have personally met numerous couples who “have been medically diagnosed as infertile.” and they had children …………

          • Jalapeno

            I get it. Doctors are stupid. Having lesions and cysts all over her uterus means absolutely nothing, I’m sure.

          • Amos Moses

            No ……… what you don’t get ………. is doctors CAN BE WRONG and FREQUENTLY ARE ……….. and two lesbians CANT CONCEIVE ……… fertile … infertile …. or EVER ………….

          • Jalapeno

            No, no, I’m sure you’re right. She probably doesn’t even have endometriosis.

          • Amos Moses

            i dont care if she had a McDonald stitch and they went too far and sewed it all up …… two women cannot procreate …………. if she does have endometriosis …. then she should not have IVF to begin with …… it was probably from HPV …. wonder where that came from ……….

          • Jalapeno

            Got it.

            Doctors are dumb, you’re smart and all lesbians have stds.

          • Amos Moses

            Doctors are not perfect ……… not even close ………….. i are smart ………… and lesbians CANNOT CONCEIVE ….

          • Jalapeno

            You should go offer to look at her scopes so you can tell whether or not she actually has that condition.

            They’re probably wrong and I’m sure you’re better versed than the people who actually went to school for these things.

          • Amos Moses

            She should try to have a child with the REQUIRED EQUIPMENT before she makes outlandish claims about her “infertility” ………..

          • Jalapeno

            She has a condition which entails infertility.

            If a woman didn’t have a uterus at all, but never had sex either…do you think she’d be out of line in saying that she couldn’t have kids?

          • Amos Moses

            “do you think she’d be out of line in saying that she couldn’t have kids?”

            No ……. but without a uterus ……. what is there to fertilize and yet keep it going ……. kind of a silly question …..

          • Jalapeno

            “She should try to have a child with the REQUIRED EQUIPMENT before she makes outlandish claims about her “infertility” ………..”

            I thought that she couldn’t claim that she was infertile if she hadn’t tried to have sex and impregnate herself?

          • Amos Moses

            “Marianne decided five years ago to have children through a donor, but soon found that Erin was infertile. ”

            This is what none of them seem to have figured out …… why does Marianne not carry ……….. with the proper equipment ………

          • Jalapeno

            Can a woman claim that she is infertile if she’s never had sex before?

          • Amos Moses

            She can “claim” she is whatever she wants …… no evidence to back up the claim …. again …. i know many “infertile, doctor diagnosed” couples who procreated and gave birth …..

          • Jalapeno

            You think that doctors are wrong about a woman with no uterus not being able to carry a child to term?

          • Amos Moses

            Have you worked in medicine ……….. i have …. personal experience …. day in and day out …… if doctors were perfect ….. they would not need malpractice insurance ……. cant you figure that out …..

          • Jalapeno

            Okay..so you have enough medicine experience to understand that a woman without a uterus can’t give birth?

          • Amos Moses

            and you seem to have enough education to know that TWO WOMEN cannot and are not meant to procreate together ………… but you keep hiding from that basic truth and lying to yourself about the reality of that fact ……..

          • Jalapeno

            A doctor knows that a woman had a total hysterectomy and tells her she can’t have kids.

            Is it fair for her to say that she’s infertile? Is the doctor wrong about her total hysterectomy or is he wrong about the fact that she can’t?

          • Amos Moses

            Sure …….. which one is in that situation ………

          • Jalapeno

            Didn’t you say that doctors are wrong about infertile people and you can’t say you’re infertile without having sex?

          • Amos Moses

            Nothing in the article about either of these two not having a uterus …………. that was your deflection from the topic ……. and even if what you say is true ….. a uterus is a REQUIREMENT for conception …………..

          • Jalapeno

            You set the standard that you needed to have sex in order for a claim of infertility to be valid.

          • Amos Moses

            No ……… the insurance company and the state did ……. but nice try ……. why would a woman with no uterus seek infertility treatment ………

          • Jalapeno

            “She should try to have a child with the REQUIRED EQUIPMENT before she makes outlandish claims about her “infertility” ………..”

          • Amos Moses

            Again ……….. So What? ……………. that is why there is a requirement for unprotected sex for a year ……………. and as far as the information in the story ……… both have all the required female equipment ….. just no male equipment …………..

          • Jalapeno

            You said that she couldn’t claim that she was infertile if she hadn’t had sex with a guy.

            Now you’re saying that someone can claim they’re infertile even if they haven’t had sex with a guy.

          • Amos Moses

            THE LAW says that …………. and THE LAW requires proof ……… in their state at least ……………. and they both have uteruses ……..(Uteri?) ……..

          • Jalapeno

            I understand the law.

            YOU made the claim though, not just the law.

            So..which is it?

          • Amos Moses

            i was stating the laws standard ………… got a problem with each state regulating the insurance industry against fraud ………

          • Jalapeno

            So..YOU’RE okay with a woman saying she’s infertile even if she’s never had sex with a man?

          • Amos Moses

            ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

            Its a semifree country ….. she can “say” whatever she wants ……….

          • Jalapeno

            Do you think it’s a reasonable claim?

          • Amos Moses

            i think she can “claim” anything she wants ……… does not make it true and a claim does not meet the state in questions standard of proof …. because OBVIOUSLY ….. the state doesn’t necessarily believe the physician diagnosis EITHER …… as well they should not …

          • Jalapeno

            Do you think it’s a legitimate claim? Not for the purposes of meeting the law as its written down… Just in general.

          • Amos Moses

            “Krupa found that her insurance provider, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, couldn’t cover any treatments due to a state law that requires couples to prove their infertility through “two years of unprotected sexual intercourse.”
            As those of the same sex were not created to reproduce with each other, naturally Krupa could not demonstrate what the law required.”

      • ComeOnPeople!

        I repeat … Fertility procedures are expensive & to allow couples to just say they want a baby but they don’t want to go threw a process to prove they are infertile would cost american tax payers a load of money. This is why they have a proving time to ensure that couples are indeed infertile. Two females cannot prove infertility without a male. They do not have the necessary means to procreate or to go threw a proving period to see if they are fertile. To give them special treatment, when many many couple are in line for fertility treatments is wrong. All couples go threw a proving period and have to wait, trying and trying for years to procreate and many end up finding out they where fertile , it just took time to tell and many many attempts . That process isn’t possible without one of each sex. If two men or two women what children they need to do like everyone else, prove they are infertile or pay for it out of pocket. Most heterosexuals are willing to do anything if they find themselves infertile and what a child. Children are valuable and well worth the cost. But hey we live in a freebie society that does not value life and thinks everything is owed to them. NOPE sorry having children is a privilege and any person not willing to give everything to have that privilege doesn’t want a child but a possession, trophy or trinket.

    • james blue

      This isn’t about tax payers paying for it. This is about government regulation saying PRIVATE insurance cannot cover it.

      • Amos Moses

        PRIVATE insurance is subject to state regulation for any number of reasons …….. mostly for the protection of the public …….. as it should be …….

        • james blue

          So you agree with all regulations?

          • Amos Moses

            You asked a question ……….. you have your answer ……….

          • james blue

            You can make an argument for some regulation, that’s not the same as saying all regulation is justified.

          • Amos Moses

            Two women cannot procreate with each other ………. they are not exempt from the regulation to prove they are infertile ………. doctors are wrong frequently ….. infertility treatment is VERY expensive ….. it is not an undue burden to have evidence before others are asked to pay ……. they CHOSE an infertile relationship ………… and as was pointed out ………….. Two women cannot procreate with each other ………..

          • james blue

            Anyway….I’m a sane mature adult, and you are just trolling…so have a good day and don’t let the big billy goat butt you too hard.

          • Amos Moses

            i am here everyday ……. this is a christian site ….. and the only troll here is you ….. and not very “mature” at that ………….

          • Amos Moses

            BTW ………. i notice absolutely no refutation of the TRUTH that was posted to your nonsense …………… and so does everyone else ……….

    • Ambulance Chaser

      How will it cost any taxpayers any money?

      I’m not sure you’re clear on what this story is about.

      • Amos Moses

        Obamacare ………

        • Ambulance Chaser

          That’s not an answer. It’s not even a complete sentence.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Obamanightmare is not free folks, no welfare is free it costs working men and women a lot for every freebie given away. Are some needy yes but some are just lazy and allow hard working americans to put food on their tables and pay their medical costs. It use to be all Americans had pride but Obamanightmares have caused many to live in shame with a constant hand out instead of a hand up. The bible says the borrower is slave to the lender. Sad that 40% of America is slave to their government . I’d have to be very very low before I would take a hand out.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’m thinking you’re not really clear on what Obamacare is.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            I’m thinking those who are free loaders listen to & believe what the media and government throws their way because if they actually think for themselves they may have to actually work to pay their way & they will be confronted with the truth that they are not free men but slaves to their master who hand them their provisions .

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And now I’m sure of it because none of your rant has anything to do with what the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the actual name of Obamacare) actually holds.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            And now I’m sure of what you stand for and that you are not a free thinker but one who believes everything you are fed.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yeah, you gotta hate those dummies who get their false information from such biased sources as “reading the original text of the law.”

            What handouts do you think the PPACA offers?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Oh oh oh to funny.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    If they wanted children, they should not have been living in immorality. Children deserve a father and a mother. Exposure to homosexuality is a child-abuse. Children have rights to God’s truth, innocence, and natural normality.