“Gay Infertility” is the New Mandatory Health Insurance Frontier

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


In California, I could have your baby.

It’s interesting sometimes to read about the last days of past civilizations. It’s hard not to notice during these readings that those last days were filled with completely irrational ideas and behaviors that could not be explained in any way outside of a mass collapse of reason.

In entirely unrelated news, there’s a new proposal to mandate coverage for Gay Infertility. The problem is that Gay Infertility is just biology. Two men and two women are not infertile. They’re just not capable of impregnating each other. This isn’t a medical problem. It’s a mental problem.

Infertility is meant to cover natural couples who would be capable of conceiving a child if not for medical problems. Gay rights activists will predictably argue that couples in which one partner has deeper medical problems may also be covered, but that is only as part of a larger set of natural couples. Unnatural couples cannot ever have children without medical intervention. They’re not infertile. They’re biologically incompatible.

But now that we’ve decided that gay marriage is a real thing, biology be damned. Gay infertility must also be a real thing. And you must also pay for it.

 Should health insurers be legally required to offer infertility treatment for gay couples? Yes, according to a bill (AB 460) filed in the California legislature by assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco). In fact, refusing to do so should be a crime.

Current California law requires group health plans to offer coverage for infertility treatments with the exception of in vitro fertilization (IVF). If such coverage is purchased, benefits must be paid whenever “a demonstrated condition recognized by a licensed physician and surgeon as a cause for infertility” has been diagnosed—or upon “the inability to conceive a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to a live birth after a year of regular sexual relations without contraception.” Thus, under current law, diagnosis of a physical reason for the inability to conceive or sire a child is not required. It is enough that a couple tried to get pregnant for a year and failed.

According to the fact sheet supporting AB 460, the trouble is that some insurance companies “are not complying with current law that prohibits discrimination” based on sexual orientation. Instead, they are denying infertility treatment benefits “based on [the policy holder’s] not having an opposite sex married partner in which to have one year of regular sexual relations without conception.” AB 460 would amend the law to add the following language:

“Coverage for the treatment of infertility shall be offered and provided without discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, domestic partner status, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.”

But why stop there?

Once we’ve determined that 70-year-olds and gay men are equally entitled to infertility treatments, not to mention people paralyzed from the waist down and 3-year-olds… it’s time to extend the civil right of a medical treatment meant to help biologically compatible couples to people trying to impregnate sheep and coffee tables.

If we’re going to treat biology like a bad joke, why stop at the human species line? Why stop at biology at all.

Object Sexuality is a condition in which people are attracted to and fall in love with objects. There is an Object Sexualist woman in the UK who is in a gay marriage with the Statue of Liberty.

It’s up to someone to help them battle the boundaries of biology and sanity by getting someone in this relationship pregnant. Possibly the Statue of Liberty.

Anything else is the vilest kind of bigotry no different than apartheid and segregation. Just ask Congressman John Lewis who for $8.95 and a jelly donut will declare anything to be the new civil rights movement.

New Yorkers love the Statue of Liberty – but maybe not as much as Amanda Liberty. The 27-year-old British woman, whose real name is Amanda Whittaker, has literally fallen in love with the monument: She has “objectum sexuality,” which means she is attracted to objects. “I’ve lost 4 stone in weight because I’m so happy with her,” Amanda said on a news program recently.

Erika Eiffel, an object-sexual, married Paris’s Eiffel Tower in 2007 while Eklöf Berliner-Mauer is believed to be the first person to go public with the condition, when she announced her love for a Swedish red fence.

Under AB 640 which protects the right of anyone to infertility treatment regardless of ” gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information… sexual orientation”… Objectexualists have the same rights to infertility treatment with the statues, buildings and red fences of their choice.

And stop laughing. You’re a bigot. You’re an Objectosexualophobe.

The upshot of gay rights is that the real cost never ends. How can it? If every homosexual coupling is entitled to infertility treatment at the cost of mere tens of thousands of dollars and other people are entitled to pay for it… then the health insurance system creaks ever closer to collapse as it is forced to indulge the impossible whims of people who want to defy biology with imaginary relationships and get someone else to foot the bill.

  • Toni_Pereira

    Also completely unrelated, in 1453 when Contantinople was under siege by the Ottomans, the great issue that divided the passions of the city wasn't the enemy horde outside the walls, but the sex of the angels…

    It is a mental problem alright,and not only of statue lovers…

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "It is a mental problem alright,and not only of statue lovers…"

      I don't care if she marries a statue. Really I don't. I just don't want her walking in to a court and demanding equal rights to adopt children to avoid the claim that she's been a victim of illegal "discrimination."

      Not all discrimination is illegal or immoral. We discriminate when we examine evidence to prosecute criminals…etc. We discriminate when we choose the best policies for children. We discriminate when we make choices about what to eat and who to hire.

      That's what we do. Life is all about making choices; which require constant discrimination.

    • tom mcbride

      Constantinople held the entire fanatical Islamic world at bay protecting western Europe for 700 years. You should crawl on your knees to eastern church headquarters and kiss the feet of every priest you see you ungrateful, hateful, loser.

  • Edward Cline

    People thought I was joking when I predicted that if the Supreme Court sanctions gay "marriage," the next thing you know we'd be hearing demands from pedaphiles to sanction man-boy and woman-girl relationships (with full benefits and coverage, of course), and then bestiality relationships (women and their male Great Danes, men with their pet sheep). As I remarked before, one can't satirize the insanity that seems to be reigning.

    • Mary Sue

      Don't laugh, there WILL be men getting into GAY marriages with their dogs.

      And don't even get me started on the men that will be gay marrying stallions. You'll have to pay for their perforated rectum.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Don't laugh, there WILL be men getting into GAY marriages with their dogs."

        I think the ultimate end is that people need to have rights only to marry themselves. Anything else leads to problems and supposed victims.

        Maybe we allow people to make public declarations about virtual spouses without any reference to gender. Or they can marry avatars.

        Just stop wrecking our country. Please? We don't need any marriage at all if that's how you want it. Just leave us the F alone already. We have work to do.

    • Spikey1

      "men with their pet sheep"
      In Islam can this be performed as a temporary marriage?

      An Islamist walks into his bedroom with a sheep under his arm.
      His wife is lying in bed reading.
      Man says; "This is the pig that I have sex with behind your back."
      Wife replies; "That's not a pig you jihadist."
      Man replies; "I was talking to the sheep."

  • Fook Yew

    Obummer and his merry band of fools won't rest until they've finished completely effing up what used to be a great country. If he gets to nominate any more Supreme Court justices, it's over – that's the only salvation to stopping his insanity. Hope all you welfare queens that voted for his sorry ass are enjoying your OBummer-phones and handouts.

    • MTinNC

      I don't dispute B.O.'s intentions, but I have to point out that the SCOTUS (indeed, the federal government in general) is a really long shot – not to mention FAR removed from the people's influence – so far as remedies go. If you want to do something truly effective to turn this country around, study up on constitutional federalism and the tenth amendment (nullification), and get active advocating that solution. Check out the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC – http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.org), read and learn, then spread the word: focus on the state and local level, and nullify, nullify, nullify. That's the only way we, the people, can have any significant impact. If we take back our states, we take back the country.

  • F.K. Juliano

    As Fook said above, this country will be finished if Obama gets one more of his nominees into the Supreme Court. While that's true, there is a larger issue at play here. When a country lives at the whim of the next liberal lunatic in black robes, it's no longer a republic or a democracy but a weird kind of dictatorship. It's time for radical change, and if it can't be done constitutionally then it should be done by other means.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "As Fook said above, this country will be finished if Obama gets one more of his nominees into the Supreme Court."

      But we're already fooked as it is. Not that we should stop fighting, just saying…

    • Racist

      IF? What do ya mean, if? Anybody with a mustard seed of common sense, who has been honest with themselves, has known for a while now that "IF" a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his arse when he jumped! But alas, he ain't, and we ain't either… If has been mortally wounded and it's all down to "WHEN" now !!!

    • Ava

      "When a country lives at the whim of the next liberal lunatic in black robes, it's no longer a republic or a democracy but a weird kind of dictatorship."

      As opposed to "when a country lives at the whim of the next [conservative] lunatic in black robes, it's no longer a republic or a democracy but a weird kind of dictatirship."

      Right? The same "rules apply" whether it is from the left or the right. And that is aside from the reality that we actually grow ever closer to becoming an oligarchy. (Our crazy-complicated tax code that *both* parties are afraid to overhaul–aren't you ever curious why NEITHER party has the stones to tackle it?)

      I highly doubt people are going to start receiving wedding invitations for a man/woman and his/her inanimate object of choice. But there WAS a time, and historically not that long ago when interracial marriage was banned.

      It is equally true that self-described conservatives want to legislate the morals and personal beliefs of ALL Americans. Want the reproductive rights of ALL American women to be decided by this same group. Why doesn't that totalitarian form of governance not disturb you equally as much?

      True, it IS time for radical change. Those fringers on the far right and far left should not be able to shove their beliefs down the throat of the rest of the population. We ARE supposed to practice, believe in, democratic principles, aren't we?

      As for Obama, you are just going to have to put on your grown-up pants and deal, just as those who didn't like Bush Jr had to deal with him for 8 years. But if it is all just too much for you, well, you can always move to another country …

  • J. P. Day

    Abraham Lincoln was in a debate (when they were REAL debates) with his opponent when, in response to his opponent redefining a word, asked, "if I call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have?" His opponent, somewhat condescendingly answered, "why, five, of course," to which Lincoln replied, "the dog would only have four legs; just because you call a tail a leg doesn't make it one!"

  • Jean Burlamaqui

    Same-sex marriage is an injustice, a tyrannical ploy being perpetrated upon our society, the pernicious consequences of which are simply mocked and laughed at by its supporters. Ignorance and prejudice have taken the place of knowledge and reason. Caprice and passion substituted for prudence and virtue. The happiness of society, the good of all families, and the welfare of mankind fall victim to the injustice of selfish love, which calculates every thing for itself while taking no notice of a child's best interest or the public advantage of the government promoting ONLY the traditional family.

    In the eyes of a child, same-sex marriage appears adulterous by nature. Someone is not present in his/her home who is his/her true mother or father. No good can come from adultery, only broken homes and broken hearts. At best, an adoptive virtuous heterosexual man and woman can soften the evil sustained by children of adultery, but same-sex proponents want their adulterous families to be considered normal and "equal" to a monogamous heterosexual marriage — which study after study has proven to be the best environment for child-rearing. There is simply no virtue in ignorance, or in denying truth.

    Here are two truths regarding marriage: (1) A man creating a family with another man is not equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.

    Same-sex marriage in unconformable to the state of a rational social being, it is defective in principle, and has ONLY a deceitful appearance to young and old because it denies Natural Law. All babies grow up to eventually figure out that it takes a man and a woman to bring a new life into the world.

    At school, those kids who have two mothers or two fathers will be different, and the other children will notice that the child of a same-sex couple is different in many ways. Besides the obvious exclusion of either a mother or a father at home, a same-sex-marriage child is deprived of one necessary gender role model at home, and will undoubtedly interact differently than other children of his/her gender, and especially with regards to interacting with the opposite sex of his/her same-sex parents. It is without a doubt that these children will be recognized to be different by the children who have a mother and a father at home, and especially when they have both of their biological parents at home.

    In order to protect the child of a same-sex marriage from any perceived harassment, that child will become a special protected class in the eyes of the government. School officials will have to punish and "re-educate" any child who "offends" the protected-class child by simply expressing that it is strange that the child of the same-sex marriage is missing a mother or a father, or that the child acts in a manner unusual to his gender contemporaries.

    This unjust punishment to subvert the natural understanding of children is evidence enough that same-sex families do not follow core principles of Natural Law, and because same-sex marriage defies Natural Law, pernicious consequences will inevitably happen. To punish a child for saying what he knows is true (all children have a mother and a father) is nothing less than a tyrannical oppression to children who instinctively rely upon Nature's Laws to help them understand life and natural consequences. Children will be coerced to accept as "natural" what are unnatural behaviors, and this challenge to their instinctual knowledge of right and wrong will result in confusion. A morally-confused child is more susceptible to evil and perversion than one who is confident in his knowledge of right and wrong. Evil-doers know this, and will thrive in a society that indoctrinates its children to see no inherent evil in disregarding Natural Law. Alas, those who support same-sex marriage have apparently fallen too far into the depravity of tolerating licentiousness themselves to realize or acknowledge the harm and injustice same-sex marriage imposes upon our children and thus our society. Society institutionalizes marriage to enforce the natural rights and responsibilities of the organic family unit.

    Marriage was instituted to protect the Natural Rights of children. Same-sex marriage ignores nature and tramples those rights in the name of "equality".

    • Don Southworth

      Jean, do you mind if I copy and repost this? Of course, I will put your name at the bottom of it.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Gee, where are those leftists from just a few days ago who scoffed when we mentioned this? I thought it would start after the federal laws ensured their "equality" according to new leftist definitions. They might have moved too soon.

    Then again even I am known to often underestimate how stupid and indoctrinated the American people have become.

  • ThatOneGuy

    I love being forced to live under a theocracy implanted by a bunch of ignorant morons who have the childish "if throw a big enough fit I'll get my way" attitude. Gay marriage affects no one but the two gay people getting married. Get over yourselves. And just because gays are getting their civil liberty, the American Public is in no way being oppressed under tyrannical power. You're just having a fit. I love reading these comments, because it really helps me with my self esteem. I thought I was stupid, but then I saw these comments and my faith in myself was restored. Thank you for the laugh and the self-esteem boost.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Gay marriage affects no one but the two gay people getting married."

      Apparently you can't read either.

    • Jessica

      But, all gay marriage amounts to it the homosexuals of America throwing a fit. Right? And honey, there is no civil liberty in choosing to ignore simple biology.

    • Jay McHue

      Wow. You must be exhausted! I bet that took a lot of effort to be so wrong on so many things.

      No, we don't live in a theocracy. You clearly do not know what that word means. It literally means "rule by God." That we DO want, but it's not going to happen in this lifetime. It can also mean "rule by those believed to be divinely inspired." Do you honestly think Christians believe the boobs in Washington are divinely inspired? Sorry, but that's solely the realm of you Obumbler worshipers who frame halos around his head in photographs.

      Gay "marriage" WILL affect more than just the two people getting married. We have already seen proof of this in Europe, Canada, and the handful of states that have enacted it. In those places, while gays by and large do not get "married," they do find that they have a brand new weapon to use in silencing Christians. Just ask Swedish pastor Åke Green, who was persecuted for teaching about homosexuality straight out of the Bible. Or ask the Christians in Canada who are suddenly finding themselves being dragged before "human rights" tribunals on charges of "hate speech."

      Gays already have their liberties in the fact that they have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just like everyone else. That's equal.

      You still are stupid. The fact that you had to pontificate at length about your "self esteem" proves it.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "And just because gays are getting their civil liberty, the American Public is in no way being oppressed under tyrannical power."

      0'Bama-care will not be affordable and not offer the full range of health services to people who need them to live healthy long lives but will pay for gays to have children that are biologically impossible without medical intervention and third party donors.

      This makes sense to you and you think it is not tyranny. You are a communist who thinks the successful people are "rich" because they stole all the money trees and that 0'Bama is going to find a big plantation full of them (and nationalize them of course) that will crank out infinite wealth to share with all the people who till now are just a bunch of victims.

      People wonder why I occasionally inform them that they are delusional. Well how else can it be described with more diplomacy than that without losing all meaning?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Thank you for the laugh and the self-esteem boost."

      That's why the federal government was formed. That's why it evolved in to the state it is today: to achieve perfect social justice according to the needs of your self-esteem. And if you're a good Democrat with connections, you might as well have found that proverbial money tree.

    • Ar'nun

      "I thought I was stupid, but then I saw these comments and my faith in myself was restored."

      Just a matter of time when some opressed sexual orientation minority purposes to marry your infant child (neice or nephew if that fits better) or some other guy or gal wants to be the third in your current union, or you come home to another poor opressed person spooning your dog. Then you will come back to the realization that you really are that stupid.

    • beachkrp

      “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams.

      Sorry, but your concept of 'civil liberty" is demented.

  • antisharia

    Society that rejects truth is doomed We're doomed.

  • Joseph

    Quite simply it's time for we conservatives to get together and organize our own political system. It's time to govern ourselves. Enough competing with these psychos. I don't care if we have to go find an island somewhere to found a whole new society. Who's with me?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Quite simply it's time for we conservatives to get together and organize our own political system. It's time to govern ourselves. "

      That's what we used to do. Now we're just trying to slow the slide in to communist tyranny. It seems like it's pretty much ready to drop on our heads for the final death blow.

  • cxt

    Have no problem what-so-ever with gays–as I see it it is none of my business what 2 (or more) consenting adults do in their bedroom.

    I do however find it distasteful in the extreme when people start reaching into my pocket to fund their activties.

    Having friend that struggle with the pain and loss of being unable to conceive I can ( sort of) understand the pain of being unable to have a child………but that does not mean that we can somehow "undo" the problems with same sex pair bondings and reproduction.

    Mark Styen spoke of simlar problem overseas–after telling people for generatons that men were really not needed. they had a "crisis" where there was not enough donated sperm to handle the demands of various couples for children.

    There are also a whole bunch of people that are dying to be adopted–perhaps they could start by adopting such children.

    • beachkrp

      I didn't know that the marriage license office was located in anyone's bedroom.

  • Ar'nun

    "And stop laughing. You’re a bigot. You’re an Objectosexualophobe."

    Ya know, I have no problem admitting to this one. I am proudly an Objectosexualophobe.

  • Christine

    I have a question I have been pondering, As a single parent, I have been told numerous times, that a child benefits best when they have a relationship with both Mom and Dad. Why are Homosexuals told the same thing. Their children either have two dads or two moms. But not a relations with both a mom and dad. But It was been drilled in my head, a hetorsexual that my child needs and must have a relationship with both mom and dad. I am just wondering, why the difference

  • megapotamus

    I got to this by googling 'gay infertility'. The first returns were for clinics addressing this malady. So this is no joke and I favor it. Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out! Postponing the collapse only increases the costs. Give the commies exactly what they claim to want. Let them claw each others' eyes in a final dogfight over scraps.

  • xsnake

    Once you've given legitimacy to sodomites, why would you not expect participants to milk the system for all they can?

  • j. Kok

    infertility is when a real couple( a man and woman) is not capable of conceiving a child… how can they use the same word for two men or two women living together. two eggs will never produce a child as two sperms…. this is really ridiculous.

    • tom mcbride

      Beware!! This is going to come to pass. How? The insurance will be used to pay for the cost of ADOPTION. There will be so many tears cried over orphans that the main stream media and half+ the population will demand it.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        That's now how it works. Insurance pays for medical treatment not adoption.

  • Lan Astaslem

    I'm getting tired of these homosexual stormtroopers and their hissy – or should I say 'sissy' – fits. You can never do enough for these freaks.

  • r310lambert

    As a gay man in my early 40's, I feel the need to comment. This is ridiculous! I realize my sexual orientation is not the norm. I don't feel bad about it but I certainly do not support gay marriage or this crazy article AB 460. Like Michael Savage says "Liberalism is a mental disorder". This is getting way out of hand, we have a president focusing on gun control when we are broke and our national security is at risk e.g. North Korea, Iran and illegal immigration. Any person with common sense would not think of sexual orientation needing federal protection of any kind. What about jobs, infrastructure, our seniors!

  • tom mcbride

    What do you people have against orphans? The insurance money can be used by homosexual couples to pay the cost of adopting a kid.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      That's not how it works. Insurance pays for medical treatment not adoption.

  • tom mcbride

    What do you people have against Adoption? The insurance could be used to finance an adoption by a homosexual couple.

  • http://juliagasper.blogspot.co.uk/ Frank StraightRights

    This is insanity.
    just like same sex "marriage " is insanity.

  • Angel

    Well since nothing can be out of bounds after this, why don't we just pass a law that stipulates that a representative for same-sex couples be allowed to set up a recruiting table at the entrance of Dr's office, Clinic or Facility that offers abortion services.

    There by the representative can be given first crack at the not-mother to-be and try to arrange a private adoption in lieu of the girl having the procedure.

    Heck, we might make the same-sex and pro-life movements happy with a single stroke implementing something like this.

    OMG, where has sanity gone??????????????????????????????????/

  • dave625

    Here is a solution to this brand new problem and the abortion problem.

    When a gay couple wants to have a kid they put their name on a list.
    Then if you go into an abortion provider to abort your baby you draw a lottery number.
    If your number comes up you have to bring your baby to term and give the baby to the top name on the gay couples having infertility problems.

    Solution: complete.

  • Jamie88

    Everyone's talking here but how much action are you putting into this in you community, city, state or country? ija

  • LAne

    Crazy stuff! Here is a solution for the gay people. How about all the thousands of abortions that women have instead be allowed to come to full term, and then if they don't want the dear baby they can adopt to the gay community (but then why would your child raised that unnatural way anyway). See how wrong this all is. Where does it stop? It WILL only get worse and worse….as in the days of Noah…What happened? A flood! As in Sodom and Gomorrah (where homosexuality was rampant). The city burned! Then the gay community want to adopt marriage into their lives – An institution ordained of God (that being said, why would they want to attach themselves to that anyway since they quite clearly do not believe God or their bibles). Create a new institution which clearly associates itself to a gay marriage and not one ordained by God between man an woman!! We are headed down the same track as previous wiped out people!

  • Linda

    I just pray that the Lords return is soon! Very soon!

  • kelli

    Insurance doesn’t even cover regular infertility. I can’t get the medical procedures I need to have a baby with my husband because I can’t afford it out of pocket.

  • Cathy

    The world has gone mad….

  • JohnHoward

    We need Congress to enact a Natural Marriage and Reproduction Act that would protect the right of marriages to reproduce together using their own genes and prohibit creating people by any means other than joining a man and woman’s natural gametes. This would void all same-sex marriages in America and stop this slippery slope to free IVF for people who want to mate with objects.

  • ssshucks

    gezzus there’s some hatred and ignorance in this post