California Bill Redefines ‘Infertility’ to Include Gays
Liberals have been increasingly active in changing definitions and, thus, the meanings of commonly known words for furthering their political agenda. An upcoming law in California hopes to change the definition of the term “infertility” to make gay men eligible for health insurance covering the costs of their surrogacy.
Bill SB 729, titled “Health care coverage: treatment for infertility and fertility services,” passed California’s Senate last month.
Introduced by Democrat Senator Caroline Menjivar, the bill changes the essential definition of infertility by adding the word “status” to its meaning. Infertility has originally been defined as the inability of a male or female to conceive by mating with the opposite sex. But the new definition in the bill calls it “a disease, condition, or status” that would apply to not only couples but individuals. Thus it would cover same-sex couples as well as singles.
The bill further includes insurance coverage for in-vitro fertilization procedures that gay couples who want children use to become parents. The bill’s text says:
The bill would revise the definition of infertility and would remove the exclusion of in vitro fertilization from coverage.
Since men are naturally unable to get pregnant and/or give birth, gays necessarily need a woman’s body to have a child. The sperm from a gay male can be fused with an egg from a woman in a test tube to create a test-tube embryo that is planted in a woman’s uterus to grow into a baby. After the woman gives birth, the gay man can take and raise the baby as his biological father. In the case of partnered gay men, the baby is raised with the biological man’s gay partner without the baby’s mother, who carried and delivered the baby.
Conservative news site The Washington Free Beacon quoted the website of a gay advocacy group, Men Having Babies, arguing the need for gay men’s right to reproduce.
They, too, might feel anguish over not having biological offspring due to circumstances outside their control — not medical but social circumstances.
The group calls for gay men’s right to reproduce as similar to one’s right to a job, housing, and medical treatment, and underscores that such a right “must be universal if equality is the goal.”
At the same time, the bill has caused concern for those who believe in traditional families and their values. Greg Burt, director of the California Family Council, was cited by The Post Millennial calling it an attack on the nuclear family as we know it:
This bill seeks to erode further the father, mother, and child nuclear family and make everyone in society pay for it to further a make-believe cause named ‘fertility equality.‘
One conservative voice on Twitter called out California’s Governor Gavin Newsom “absolutely wicked” for giving gay men the right to use women’s bodies in the name of fertility equality.
In an opinion piece published in The New York Post, Daniel McCarthy wrote that this bill socializes family. McCarthy wrote that this law potentially replaces the natural law of family, where fertility is based on procreation via sex.
He pointed to the government’s role in procreation by asking rhetorically: “Why expropriate anything else when you can seize the factories that make men and women?”
The world has gone to HELL in a hand basket, as my mother use to say
LOL California once again proves that it IS the state of fruits and nuts!! Kind of interesting in that this is an acknowledgement that the natural order God created IS the best way for man! Kuddos to gay men for figuring out corn holing does not produce children (which is the a big reason God does not like it) and that God’s way is definitely superior! And with regard to LGBTQ, particularly the T, it sure does define what a woman is!!! Take that Lia Thomas!!! LOL
Tom, you got repressed memory issues man. You just gotta find a way home…. Corn, really? Is that the birth control method of choice for you? How do you know God does not like a good ear of corn? He invented it, right? Maybe God likes all things, all ways, maybe God even likes you and me.
Meanwhile, back on planet reality: I wonder about insurance paying for hetero couples for this treatment. Why do we have to pay for what, as Tom might conclude, is God’s will? What else are we paying for that sure looks like a luxury?
How do the gays pick the male donor — coin toss? bed toss? who’s on top? alphabetically?
Personally, I find this “in his own image” stuff for the birds; let all these infertile people adopt. The South is getting fuller everyday with unwanted rape babes, incest babies, babies from ten year old slaves, as well as unwanted babies of all shapes and sizes. DeSanctimonious and Hey-Abbbbbottttttttt might even bus em out to California for free, new parents can pick em up at Pelosi’s house, or Swalwell’s, or even Maxwell’s.
Not everything has to be a right. Some things can be privileges, like fertility. Or driving.
Well Frank you and I will always differ on the homosexual issues. I have no repressed memories, just honest feelings. I only know of three ways homosexual males can get their rocks off, and one of them is called corn holing (yes it is a word). Interesting point about hetero’s getting this same treatment covered under insurance. For many of them it’s probably because they are married and the spouse in on the same health policy. And if it is related to a medical condition or disease, it’s probably covered. With regard to the corn holers, they have willfully put themselves into an infertility situation that is not a disease or medical condition, its simply a corn holer. And if they want to claim it is a disease or medical condition, then they are saying homosexuality is a disease, maybe a mental disease. Either way, one of them would have to be the donor and then find another one, the incubator. But the incubator would not be married to them nor covered under the donor’s health policy. And there is the risk that the donor will pull out of the contract before implant. Again, homosexuals trying to get around the process that God has already designed to have children, which would be hetero, proper equipment that mates, marriage, love, children. Pity the spirit that has to go into that child; momma’s a paid incubator and daddy is a corn holer. Ughhhh. Poor kid. We may have had rough childhoods but at least we did not have that to deal with on bring your parent to school day! :>)
Hey, I noticed you did not comment on the light it sheds on the tranny issue and definition of a woman. Seems like the homosexuals have figured it out that a woman is the one who has the right equipment to incubate. So it looks like men can’t be women after all. Uhh oh, back to the gender dysphoria definition in the APA DM-10!!! Yup, they are sickos too!
Hey Stupid shit Newsom,,,these are facts: Men do not menustate, Men cannot have children and no matter what men do like dressing up as women or acting like women they are NOT WOMEN…THEY ARE FEMINIZED MEN….
Actually Max, they are not feminized men. I know men with feminized characteristics that are married and have children and love their wives like crazy! There is nothing wrong with a feminized male. God makes men all across the spectrum from hard males that charge machine gun nests or get beat up on the football field weekly, or WWF dudes, and then he makes soft males like we see in Kings with King David playing the harp (traditionally a woman’s instrument, yet King David slew many hard men, and soft males that make great waiters, nurses, counselors, care givers, etc. They type of men you are referring to have a mental disorder called Gender Dysphoria, which simply means a psychological confusion over which gender they are, or putting it another way, their assigned birth gender does not match their mind and how it feels about their gender. There is a big disconnect. It is treatable though. The issue is that these males you are talking about would rather be like women and dress like them rather than get their mind healthy. In a way, I kind of pity them but not to the point where I am going to lie about them, use their pronouns, and think they are just like me, because they are not! Check out the APA DM-10 under Gender Dysphoria.
Oh Tom my little troglodyte….again, it’s OK for you to fear, even irrationally, without cause, whatever you like. But to rationalize a number of serious misconceptions because of it, that’s just does not seem to be you, thus I wonder about some trauma perhaps.
Whatever, it’s OK, I would say it makes you unique and interesting, but you sort of get a mean edge in your funny, old-style stereotyping. Perhaps a Pride Parade attendance might illuminate….
You say: “from hard males that charge machine gun nests or get beat up on the football field weekly, or WWF dudes, and then he makes soft males like we see in Kings with King David playing the harp (traditionally a woman’s instrument, yet King David slew many hard men, and soft males that make great waiters, nurses, counselors, care givers, etc.” You seem to see such black n white that male nurses are fem, hard men charge machine gun nests but there are no stereotypes like that. And you continue, even upon correction, to blame it on mental health. You know it, but keep playing with it. You seem fascinated with their sexual practices, I would suggest you focus on your own, perhaps for improvement……
On the mental health, you are living in the past, try: *https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender-people-gender-identity-gender-expression* where the APA has removed the stigma that you cling to. There still is a dysphoria element, but as I told you, it’s more rare than plain ole trans. And perhaps even more illuminating, it what international experts, via the WHO, roll on top: *https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/gender-incongruence-and-transgender-health-in-the-icd*
Again, feel free to cling to your outmoded ideas, you seem to need them to be complete. But really, gays, trans, whatever, people are people, generally. And good and bad come in all flavors, but not sure that statistically, any group is any better or worse than another. Anytime this puts you in a position to treat people unequally, as you do, seems wrong IMO. At one level, any two people in a monogamous relationship deserve to be equal with others in the same group. Any two people. IMO, at the same level, we can question whether ANY two people deserve something, as a right, is appropriate which, in this case, I do not. But what these two people do in their bedroom is really none of your freaking business.
That said, my feeling is, and especially heightened given our current “choices,” in much of the country, is perhaps this should be seen as a privilege, not a right, for all citizens. There are plenty of kids needing love and family waiting to be adopted, and soon, many more. I find the need to breed is secondary to the need to succeed for all of America’s children. Give the unwanted a chance is my mantra. So, IMO, let them all adopt and let’s take the cost/price cut in our health insurance. I wonder what else they cover that sure looks like a perk?