Posted on 04/09/2017 9:20:18 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Sean Smith and his husband paid more than $20,000 for a fertility procedure when they decided to have a child using a surrogate mother. They did not know at the time that if they were a heterosexual couple, they might have saved that money.
Now, Smith and other members of Hawaii’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community are lobbying for equal access to the financial help married, heterosexual couples enjoy under state law.
They are pushing legislation that would require insurance companies to cover in vitro fertilization for more couples, including making Hawaii the first state to require the coverage for surrogates, which would help male same-sex couples who must use a surrogate. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Homos want access to children. I’m shocked.
Why would insurance cover fertility treatment in the first place??
Should I be able to Force my Homeowners Insurance company to upgrade my house to 10 bedrooms instead of 5, because I want them???
WTF???
It was their CHOICE to be an XY and XY couple. This is a slap in the face to XX and XY couples who can’t have children.
It would just be easier for insurance companies to withdraw from that procedure all together.
Fertility or sterilization? Seems like the latter is more appropriate.
This is the core point of the “anti gay marriage” position: marriage is fundamentally about procreation, and homos are absolutely incapable of procreation without absolute violation of the union.
Should never read these articles - they are terrifying. Especially because I fear for my grandchildren.
Millions of babies are murdered in abortion facilities, which outraged, normal people are required to subsidize.
Now we are expected to subsidize fertility treatment for homosexual men who will not procreate in God’s natural parental design, a mom and a dad.
Then there are the lesbians, who buy semen from strangers in order to have ‘a family’. Poor little children.
This is the end of civilization as God intended.
Breeder mules request same.
If 'fertility treatment' only meant helping couples overcome infertility through benign methods such as diet and exercise, then it wouldn't be so bad.
But here, the demand is for payment for two evil things ... IVF, and 'surrogate' womb-hosting.
I object to any kind of forced funding of these two evils, even for heterosexual couples. Sad that both practices have become normalized.
We might not be able to stop these practices now, but those who demand them should at least have to pay for them out of their own pocket.
equal access to the financial help married, heterosexual couples enjoy under state law.
Well they are not a married heterosexual couple so it would not be equal access it would be special access.
If I have two apples and you have an apple and an orange we do not have an equal number of apples.
Real men don’t have husbands.
Absolutely not. Same-sex “marriages” aren’t normal. We should not be forced to pay for the effort of sexual deviants to masquerade as a normal family. The poor children who are victims of these ungodly arrangements don’t get a vote, of course.
I absolutely cringe when I hear a man refer to another man as his “husband.” No matter how tolerant you may be about this homosexuality thing, it just does not sound right.
What I say "artificial reproduction," I mean breeding techniques which substitute for --- rather than heal --- the natural male-female sexual union.
If married husbands and wives--- infertile because of disease, congenital malformation or injury --- need treatment to restore their natural procreative potential, then yes, such treatment is totally legitimate and there's no a priori reason to exclude it from insurance.
But the artificial reproductive technologies --- artificial insemination, IVF, surrogacy and a few others --- are another thing altogether. They are fraudulent. They do not actually treat or cure infertility.
On the one hand, most homosexual people would be fertile if they engaged in honest normal intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. They're nothing wrong with their reproductive systems per se.
On the other hand, no homosexual couples are jointly fertile unless it's a gay man married to a lesbian. (Which, strangely, does occasionally happen, e.g. Andrea Dworkin and John Stoltenberg.) In which case, have at it, give it your best shot, Mazel Tov and more power to you.
Or they want biological children without having to have heterosexual relationships to create them.
Why not buy a DOG?????
Not the same equivalency.
I know plenty of women who needed treatments fairly young in their early 30s.
Something wasn’t working correctly.
I think it’s reasonable to stop paying for them with older women that are trying to beat nature.
In a society whose operative principles are that everyone must have everything they want, and nobody must have to pay for what they want, there is no logical reason to bat an eye at this.
YES! they should not be able to “make babies”. they want to play “married”- but please leave kids out of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.