Have you ever wondered how infertility definitions impact same-sex couples trying to conceive? Well, in New York, same-sex couples don't meet the criteria. Jack and Kyle Maurelli, a gay couple living in New York State, shared their challenges with NBC News when it came to covering the substantial costs of surrogacy and In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) to make their dreams of fatherhood come true. Since taking out a loan against their home and working two jobs each hasn’t quite brought them to their financial goal, the couple reached out to their community through a GoFundMe Campaign.
Source: NBC News
The estimated cost of surrogacy can range from about $150,000 to $200,000. The Maurelli's assumed that their insurance would cover the expenses related to creating embryos, as is typically the case in most fertility coverage plans. However, they were mistaken. Their insurance provider informed them that they did not qualify for such coverage. Similarly, the couple did not meet the criteria for infertility coverage because, according to New York State law, infertility is defined as the inability to conceive after 12 months of unprotected sex for people under 35 and after 6 months for those over 35. Being a gay couple, neither of them has the ability to get pregnant, making them ineligible for infertility coverage. This law not only discriminates against same-sex couples but also impacts transgender individuals and single individuals trying to conceive.
On a broader scale, 21 U.S. states have laws requiring coverage for couples diagnosed as infertile, with 16 of them mandating coverage for In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). Many of these states, including New York, use infertility definitions that exclude many LGBTQ+ individuals, making it discriminatory and a national accessibility issue.
Molly O'Brien from the International Infertility Law Group expressed her concern: “They’re not going to change unless the employers who are purchasing the insurance policy make them change.”
Compelling couples like the Maurelli's to take on the burden of extensive effort and personal sacrifices solely because society attaches a stigma to two fathers raising a child is simply unjust. In a society growing towards more inclusivity and accessibility, it is imperative that we take the necessary action to continue fostering inclusivity. In cases where individuals excluded from fertility and infertility definitions are unable to bear the significant financial costs associated with this societal bias, it underscores the need for an urgent transformative policy change.
Sources:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/Making-Maurelli
Image #2:
6 comments:
Based on the map you have provided of insurance coverage by state, I find it interesting that there seems to be a relatively low number of states that provide insurance coverage for IVF or fertility preservation at all. This also includes the blue states that would presumably be more likely to provide these services to their citizens. Additionally, the fact that the states that have these programs in place, including the Maurellis' home state of New York, grant citizens coverage based on their ability to become pregnant is certainly outdated and discriminatory. Situations like this make me curious about other portions of government programs and social institutions that still follow practices that are discriminatory to the LGBTQ+ community. Is anyone aware of other examples of discriminatory practices that remain in institutions like healthcare?
I certainly think this law is denying people the coverage they need. It's unfortunate that the wording clearly applies to straight cis couples, disadvantaging all of the gay people who want children. Because the policy forces same sex people to spend extreme money or go to extreme length to have a child, hopefully this topic will gain more attention. It seems sort of behind for the times that the blue states do not have much policy in favor of covering gay couples, but hopefully that practice will change. Having children feels like it should be an inherent right, and the government goes far to protect straight couples, yet excludes the LGBTQ community. Even if the exclusion is unintentional from a dated law, gay people certainly fit the requirements for infertility, as conception is pretty much impossible. This discrimination is clearly unjust.
I think that policies often exclude marginalized and minority groups. The limitations imposed by New York State's infertility definitions affect not only same-sex couples but also transgender individuals and single parents-to-be. The financial burden highlights a significant societal injustice, making it hard for individuals to start a family due to the current framework's failure to acknowledge their reality. Molly O'Brien emphasizes the importance of updating policies and broadening their scope to cover both majority and minority groups within society.
Sarah,
I agree with your point that government policies tend to exclude marginalized groups of citizens. In this case, as Joel mentioned, the law is outdated and should be caught up with the current times. I find it interesting that some states are aware that their limitations are discriminatory, yet, they keep it so that LGBTQ+ identifying people aren't able to have kids, demonstrating they're failure to accept same-sex marriage as a normal concept.
I think it's disheartening to see that gay couples are still being denied the aid they need to start a family. The exclusion of gay (or any members of the LGBTQ community) citizens has been too common, and change needs to start happening now. According to the Human Rights Campaign, over 520 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced into state legislature (over 220 of those bills specifically target transgender and non-binary members) and a record of 70 anti-LGBTQ laws have been enacted. This is a movement in the wrong direction, we, as a country, should be shifting to a more inclusive attitude, but it feels like we're going backward. Cases like these are so heartbreaking because the denial of a loving family to be able to experience having a child feels so inhumane and entirely outrageous. In deciding which couples are capable of parenthood, sex or sexual orientation should not be such a strict criterion. The main judgment should be those people's capability to be a parent. It makes me wonder how many other couples are facing a similar issue. I can only hope that policies are changed so that more couples like these can begin to create a family.
https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/roundup-of-anti-lgbtq-legislation-advancing-in-states-across-the-country
Starting a family and having a child is a basic need. The fact that insurance won't cover that need is alarming. Having to pay $150,000 to $200,000 just to have a child puts so much of a burden on LBGTQ families. Additionally, the fact that this is the first article that I've come across that addresses this issue demonstrates how underrepresented it is in the media-- to echo several of my classmates, government policies ought to be re-examined for instances like these.
Post a Comment