Gay infertility. Is this coming next?

[Lemon Drop]

Yes I heard Limbaugh this morning too. This was his theme du jour, bigotry and mean spiritedness only full display.

[beagledave]

Lemon Drop wrote:
Yes I heard Limbaugh this morning too. This was his theme du jour, bigotry and mean spiritedness only full display.

I'm glad that Mr. Limbaugh has show us by example how"traditional" marriages can be successful.

[Ted King]

.

[August West]

I'm glad that Mr. Limbaugh has show us by example how"traditional" marriages can be successful.

Let alone the proper use of medicine!

[cbelt3]

FWIW... I have family members who have gone through IVF. Insurance covered nothing at all. Simple application of consistent policy will resolve this 'issue'.

New policy: Hardware don't work on its own ? Sucks to be you. Adopt or pay cash. 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.)

[davester]

Ted King wrote:
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.)

I think we all already know the answer. The reason to zero in on gay couples is because those "concerned" about this issue are bigots who want to fight the "gay agenda" of equal rights, life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[samintx]

$tevie wrote:
Can someone explain how straight couples go about proving that they've had sex for a year without conception? I'm just curious why you can't walk in and lie about that.

Women lie about xxx so I guess you could like about relations.

[Wild eep]

samintx wrote:


Women lie about xxx so I guess you could like about relations.

So what are your thoughts on this sam?

Thought so.

Nothing.

[davester]

Wild eep wrote:
So what are your thoughts on this sam?

Thought so.

Nothing.

Mission accomplished. Stirred up some shit, annoyed the lib'ruls by posting some Rush Limbaugh vomit.