Gay infertility. Is this coming next?

[Ted King]

I think the parent article the OP linked to gives a better account of the reasoning behind disagreement with the bill:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/h...14569.html

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? For example, might the law require that insurance pay for an insured lesbian’s artificial insemination, even if she is fecund, based solely on her choice not to have heterosexual intercourse?

- - - - - - -

Would the law require a health insurance plan covering infertility treatment to pay for a surrogate pregnancy for a male couple? How about the costs of egg donation? The legislation is silent. But using egg donors and surrogates is common in the treatment of infertility. Since a birth mother is required for a man to have a baby, couldn’t the law be construed as requiring a gay man’s health insurance to pay for a surrogate pregnancy?

I think those questions get to the crux of the issue. But don't these questions equally apply an infertile, unmarried heterosexual woman who wants a child? Wouldn't all the same reasoning apply to her? Why zero in on gay couples? (Rhetorical question.)