{"id":292955,"date":"2023-06-12T16:35:22","date_gmt":"2023-06-12T21:35:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=292955"},"modified":"2023-06-12T16:07:43","modified_gmt":"2023-06-12T21:07:43","slug":"california-handmaids-tale-infertility-childrens-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/california-handmaids-tale-infertility-childrens-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"California bill redefines ‘infertility’… with disturbing implications for children’s rights"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

A new California bill aims to change the definition of “infertility” from a medical condition<\/em> to a status<\/em> \u2014 and would reportedly force insurance companies to cover in-vitro fertilization and surrogacy for gay men.<\/p>\n

According to The Post Millennial<\/a>, if Senate Bill 729<\/a> becomes law, the definition of infertility<\/em> would be changed to “a person’s inability to reproduce either as an individual or with their partner without medical intervention.” This redefining of what it means to be “infertile” would allow gay men who are actually fertile<\/em> to be classified as infertile<\/em> because they cannot biologically, naturally reproduce with another man<\/em>.<\/p>\n

“This bill is crucial to achieving full-lived equality for LGBTQ+ people, as well as advancing well-rounded and comprehensive health care for all Californians,” said co-author of the bill, Sen. Caroline Menjivar (D).<\/p>\n

Bill details<\/strong><\/p>\n

The bill states that insurance may not exclude or deny coverage “of any fertility services based on a covered individual\u2019s participation in fertility services provided by or to a third party. For purposes of this section, ‘third party’ includes an oocyte, sperm, or embryo donor, gestational carrier, or surrogate that enables an intended recipient to become a parent.”<\/p>\n

Some see the bill as a way to force insurance companies to fund third-party reproduction so that gay men can have guaranteed access to women’s bodies and children can be further commodified as products to be purchased rather than gifts that are bestowed.<\/p>\n

Emma Waters with the Heritage Foundation explained, “Under this bill, most insurance plans would be required to provide in vitro fertilization services based on someone\u2019s relationship status or sexual orientation. For single men or male same-sex couples, this means they would need to access a surrogate to carry their child. So the bill is outlining what adults have the right to, but<\/strong> nowhere does it address the needs of the child or safety concerns regarding the child either in IVF or in gestational surrogacy<\/strong><\/em>.” (emphasis added)<\/p>\n

The group Men Having Babies supports the bill, stating that it will “remove financial barriers” to surrogacy — renting women’s wombs and buying women’s eggs. However, businesses and insurance groups are opposing the bill, stating that it will cause a significant increase in insurance premiums \u2014 as much as $330 million a year, said The Washington Free Beacon<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Some are calling this latest bill the real-life version of “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Writer Libby Emmons tweeted, “Gay men have a RIGHT to women’s bodies & we must ensure they can rent & impregnate women whenever they choose! Puts The Handmaid’s Tale in a whole new light.”<\/p>\n

\n

Gay men have a RIGHT to women’s bodies & we must ensure they can rent & impregnate women whenever they choose!<\/p>\n

Puts The Handmaid’s Tale in a whole new light.<\/p>\n

California moves to provide surrogates to gay male couples in the name of ‘fertility equality’ https:\/\/t.co\/3MUpi6D6lv<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Libby Emmons (@libbyemmons) June 11, 2023<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n