| The following is from an April 9 posting by Wesley Smith on National Review Online.|
Leave it to my state of California to head off in radical and expensive directions. Legislation has been filed that would require group insurance to cover gay and lesbian infertility treatments just as they do heterosexual.
But, as I note elsewhere, AB 460 isn’t limited to a finding of actual infertility. Nor does it require that gays and lesbians have tried to conceive or sire a child using heterosexual means, natural or artificial. Rather – as with heterosexual couples – merely the inability to get pregnant for a year while having active sexual relations is sufficient to demonstrate need for treatment, meaning if the bill becomes law, it would require insurance companies to pay for services such as artificial insemination, surrogacy, etc. for people who are actually fecund. Indeed, since the bill prevents discrimination based on marital or domestic partnership status, theoretically every gay and lesbian in the state could be deemed infertile for purposes of insurance coverage merely by the fact that they don’t wish to engage in heterosexual relations.
That’s no way to contain health care costs! Moreover, I note that health care law is being used these days to promote social agendas other than access to a doctor, and I give examples, including the Free Birth Control Rule under Obamacare. I conclude my column with a warning:
Remembering that what happens in California doesn’t stay in California, it is easy to imagine Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius holding a press conference to announce that henceforth, all insurance policies will be required to cover infertility treatments, “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.” Indeed, it is probably a matter not of “whether,” but of “when.”
Imagine the bank busting possibilities!
To read original posting, click here.
Read here for text of the proposed legislation.
If they spent as much time on balancing the budget, perhaps they would make progress. They pay attention to social agendas and neglect their jobs. So why are they returned to office ? Just a thought.
As a native Californian who escaped to a better place, these things cross my mind. In Indiana – believe it or not – I got a rebate on my taxes because of a good sized budget surplus. In some places California is really attractive to the eye. But I would never again consider living there. That state should be expelled from the union as too messed up to be repairable. The elections seem to send a never-ending flow of lunatics to the legislature and the constitutional offices. Sane people need to leave.
Rather than eject the entire state from the Union, why not simply eject SF, Sacto, Los Angeles, and San Diego? And make them pay fees for US protection, and also fees to the new State of California because these cities love to pay taxes and restrict freedom.
Why would you want to eject LA and SD, Skai? LA voted for Prop 8, as, I think, did San Diego. Without them, prop 8 would have been defeated. Just sayin.
ALL of those cities you named (and Sacramento is NOT “Sacto”) are OUR cities! Named after the sacred elements of our Faith. WE NEED TO TAKE THEM BACK! God come to our assistance, Lord make haste to help us!
Escaping to Indiana is a better place?…ROTFLOL!…I’ve been to Indiana sport…uh-uh, not even close…California is the land of milk and honey…not Indy…
You miss the point entirely mr. Tavernier. Travelling through a place gives you no idea of the beauty and uniqueness of a place so subtle and delightful as Indiana, especially in the spring. I suppose you might feel at home in Bloomington, where they have a gay pride parade etc. but for the most part, Indiana has a quiet strength and real beauty, which is why they have so many artists living there. I remember a conceited author supposedly ‘humorous’ but I always found a pretentious boor, who described Ohio as unmemorable with a greasy sky…this from whizzing though on a cloudy day at 75 mph on the freeway. Anyway, I’m glad you feel that way. Stay in California! I know that’s what they wish in Oregon and Colorado!
The subtle beauty of Indiana…LOL!…good place for you to stay…it’s nice and subtle…unlike your comments…I’ll stick to the grandeur of the redwoods, the magnificent coastline of the pacific, with it’s palm filled vistas and majestic oaks. Aaah yes… appreciating the austere and virtuous beauty of the Mojave, with it’s unique and fascinating Joshua Trees…and the majesty of the Sierra’s…while enjoying the snow-capped peaks of her rugged grandeur…The subtle beauty of Indiana…makes me think of flat farmland…with the radiant odoriferous sent of bovine excretion…aaahh, the good-life in goshen…LOL!
Having lived in California, like Ted, I can attest to the fact that there is more to life than beautiful scenery (and lol and rofl are like soooo five minutes ago…) All nature is a gift from God and is important to our appreciation of our beloved Father, yes, but at some point in our lives it is time to grow up spiritually and focus on eternal things. Mother Theresa I’m sure, enjoyed the beauty of God’s creation, but realized that was not our purpose of our existence, to feed our insatiable sensuous natures, but to ‘seek ye first the kingdom of God’. I found when I lived in California there was just too much emphasis on external beauty and a shallow appreciation of life in general. I hope you do come to realize that God’s will in our lives is much more important than self gratification and sensuality. Redwoods and ocean breezes never got anyone into heaven that I know of, and too many out there seem to worship nature rather than seek God. I feel more comfortable where people are more authentic, if a little shabby and outspoken, and where old-fashioned values are still cherished and preserved.
It seems to me that this bill is likely to have consequences Assemblymember Amiano didn’t intend! The wording doesn’t actually force insurance companies to pay for surrogacy, egg donation and the like: “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.”
So the very best way for an insurance company not to run afoul of this new law and the utter embarrassment of paying a fertility clinic to get a male-male couple pregnant, is to offer fertility coverage strictly in conformity to Catholic Church teaching: No IVF, no payments to surrogates or egg donation or artificial insemination, no “improving” human reproductive systems. That way, there’s never any discrimination on any of the prohibited bases.
Or did I miss something in the health insurance laws?
Yes, Francis, you did miss something. You missed reality.
Your comment could be very interesting if you were able to state HOW you think I’ve “missed” reality (without resorting to schoolyard taunts). Why do you think insurance companies, who are motivated to maximize their profit, would willingly devote indeterminate money on a fool’s errand? This is analogous to the usual conservative scenario of the minimum wage, namely that employers will hire fewer low-end employees because the cost is artificially and unrealistically jacked up. Well, my point is that artificial and unrealistic demands on the insurance companies will make them not provide the insurance. They’ll simply write health policies without any infertility coverage. And that is exactly what the Church would want to see happen. The whole game could backfire.
I suspect that in the pessimistic world you call “reality,” Amiano and his gay friends always get their way and “we” are always victimized by their continual victories, aided and abetted by evil courts. And apparently, you fantasize about some kind of victory of “us” over “them” which will result in “us” being rid of “them” and “them” being forced to pay “us” for all the trouble “they” have caused. God’s victories don’t always happen the way you expect them, and they don’t glorify one political perspective or another.
haha Thanks for the reality check, Skai! Every so often we need to ‘simonize’ our watches, listen for heartbeats and make sure we’re all still breathing, or at least a few wisps of oxygen are making to our brains.
CA needs to pay its bills – per “COMMUTATIVE JUSTICE” -“without which no other form of justice is possible” – – – CCC: #2411.
Tell your Representative in Sacramento to STOP SPENDING, STOP WASTE, and BALANCE the STATE BUDGET.
According to the “California Debt Clock” on the internet – the citizens of the State of CA owe – $407, 389,627,541.00.
Actually I think CA is in a budget surplus this year, for the first time in along while, thanks to Dem super-majorities in the legislature.
But that isn’t the point. I admit, even though Ammiano is a fellow gay, in fact, I think he is a fellow gay catholic, I often scratch my head at the things he proposes. And I agree with Francis, it’s tough to see how this bill changes anything, really, unless I too have missed something.
this flag is insulting and too graphic to show here….burn it
In Oakland they fly the American Flag, the California flag and guess what other flag over city hall? yep. that one.
Wow…..Sandra that is crazy….and they are suppose to be the minority…..what I don’t get is that you have some of those rebellious kids who take down the American Flag to put up their country’s flag…..why don’t they just move that ugly rainbow flag instead….see how people have spine for the wrong things….
It’s so laughable,Abeca, I’m sorry, but it’s like when we were children and we came up with secret handshakes and elaborate codes and names for our clubs. Gee, they’ve got the flag, they’ve got the committees and club dues & all sorts of jargon indecipherable to the rest of us. Did you ever see “My Dinner with Andre”? The soliloquy about making banners in some middle European country just seems to remind me of that rainbow flag…something evil. A great film, by the way.
Does the insanity ever end in the land of the fruits and nuts? Every time you think it surely couldn’t get much worse for the California culture it winds up doing just that! All courtesy of the loony left nutjobs who infest so much of the government of California. Imagine: taxpayers (darn near all of us) must pay for a procedure that really only works for heterosexuals will probably wind up paying for it because deviants insist that they, who practice sodomy, which is against nature, on the one hand, and the practicioners of cunnilingus, generally against nature as well, on the other, DEMAND that they have equal access to “infertility treatments” meant for, once again, heterosexuals. Why do these promoters and practicioners of unnatural lust believe that they have rights that trump common sense and logic JUST BECAUSE THEY UNHINGEDLY THINK RELATIONS BETWEEN A MAN AND A MAN AND A WOMAN AND A WOMAN are / should be fruitful?! No wonder the old saw that “the gods first make mad whom they would destroy” has gained such traction in the 20th and 21st century. GOD BLESS ALL, MARKRITE
MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY MARKRITE>
Insurance for fertility problems should only cover married heterosexuals for ethical procedures. This is what IVF and all the other artificial modes of contraception have brought to us and caused. They are forbidden by the Catholic Church for many good reasons. One man admitted on a radio station that when he went to college, he sold his sperm over one hundred times in the same area. Adult children who might have been conceived from his sperm are now worried that future mates they have chosen might be too cloelyrelated, and not even know it. The chances are much more in situations such as this than from children of adoption. Children need both a good mother and a father to do well, no if’s and’s or but’s about it. Unless they see the errors of their parents and go back to traditional morality, the situations will only get worse. This is all is a result of the Me Generation, which thinks too often only of themselves (their “rights” only) and nothing of the consequences to others. One of the end results will be more abortions from children born of parents too closely related because of deformities. What a mess this country has become. Wake up my fellow Americans. Wake up!
Forgive my typos, please, but I am sure the message is clear anyway.
Add to this the fact that many babies produced in test tubes are later destroyed because the parents do not want them to come to term.
Everything today is by, for, and about sodomites.
That’s because they’re satan’s jackboots…or the troops before the final onslaught.
That’s very true. When will straight people get the right to marry? When will straights be able to share in inheritance law? When straights see equal treatment under the law? When will straights be portrayed positively on television or in the movies or be accepted into the churches?
It looks like nowadays you can get insurance to help you deal with a problem that is caused by your own behaviour. How about incarceration insurance for robbers, drug dealers, arsonists, child molesters, and murders.
Ski Ven, they already have insurance for criminals; it’s called congressional pensions.
Shame on our Democrat legislators. This will end up paying for surrogate mothers, but they will get started with sperm donations. Progressive/Socialist power leads us down a slippery slope and no one seems to care. I live in an extreme left-wing district so all my representatives, City, State and Federal are Democrats.
Why would homosexuals, the ones that routinely insult us by calling us “breeders”, want to be insured against infertility? Is it so that if turkey basters to inseminate each other don’t work they can get proper medical help to engage in these totally unnatural practices? And why should the taxpayers support such perverse efforts
in the first place? San Francisco is a sick city run by some very sick people!
Homos raising children is child abuse! In civilized societies such practices should be banned.
I find it embarrassing and ironic that you would complain about insults used by homosexuals and then in the same post you demean yourself with a much more common insult. And you apparently call yourself a Christian? In Mt 5:11, our Lord says: “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.”
Francis, you’ll have to re read Anton’s post, because your comment on it makes no sense; therefore, apparently you misunderstood what he said.
“…the ones that routinely insult us by calling us ‘breeders'”… and “Homos raising children…”
You think somehow “homos” is more acceptable than “breeders”??
Without “breeders”…we would have no more “gays”…they should thank us!…LOL!
Francis I generally do not turn the other cheek, but I guess that’s my cross to bear…..Burn the Rainbow Flag
I have no problem respecting you as a Christian because you recognize what a heavy cross it can be to live up to our calling.
Anton: I think it’s worth noting that gay people have been raising children since the dawn of creation. If a woman has a child in a marriage to a man, then discovers that she is lesbian, or bi, would you have the child put up for adoption? Would you put her in jail for raising the child, an act that you imply should be criminal?
Yes, they should be thrown in jail….
wow imagine that. jailing a mother just for giving birth. that’s pretty radical.
YFC…more disordered logic I see…We as Catholics are to love and pray for our “gay” brothers and sisters…not endorse the disordered lifestyle they have embraced…let me ask you a question…what does the child say to his schoolyard buddies when asked who is his mother and who is his father?…does he tell them “I now have two mommies”!…NO!…this is twisted and violates not only the mores of society, but violates the teaching of Holy Mother Church and the teaching of sacred scripture!
Jean-Baptiste: Please explain how the child has violated any possible canon of moral theology or scripture by saying he has to mummies.
PS: I assume this will be covered under the Affordable Health Care Act.
Getting back to basics.Sodomy/homosexuality is a rebellion and defiance against nature and the Creator of nature.Sodomy marriage is a tactic used in this war against nature and the Creator of nature to promote sodomy/homosexuality.The objective of this rebellion against nature is the destruction of the natural family:mother,father,and children.
Abortion,like sodomy, is a rebellion against nature and the Creator of nature.
Dear Larry – I can pretty much assure you, having many friends who got married and having been to a few myself, that the motivation you ascribe to these couples is nowhere close to the truth. They get married for exactly the same reasons as anyone else: to commit to a lifetime of mutual love and support and to ask the community to support them in their lives. No rebellion, no “tactics”, no attempt to destroy “natural” families. Really, these are just people who love each other.
Doesn’t matter…the Church has forbidden Catholics to live this disordered lifestyle!
Jean-Baptiste: Fine, catholics who wish to obey their church should not marry. But for the other 80% of the country, they should be free to marry, and should not have Catholic theology forced upon them. They deserve religious liberty.
Then leave the “CHURCH”…clearly you are at odds with what the church teach’s on faith and morals…follow your conviction and LEAVE!
Your Fellow Catholic: The Church is not imposing any theology on society by teaching the true meaning of marriage. The meaning of marriage is true, not because the Church teaches this meaning, but the Church teaches the meaning of marriage because it is True. It is our civil society that is trying to re-define the meaning of marriage. YFC, what other institution other than marriage can unite children with their moms and dads? Marriage is the ONLY institution that has this ability to unite children with their biological parents. Not every marriage has children, but every child has a mom and dad and re-defining marriage discriminates against children if they are prevented from being united with their biological parents. Your argument is full of holes and you are trying to twist Catholic theology to mean what you want it to mean while ignoring the fact that Catholic theology is true because it reveals God, the source of ALL Truth, Truth Himself. Truth does not become true because the Church teaches it, but the Church teaches her teachings because her teachings are True. God Love You.
Dear Your Fellow Catholic- I don’t think you understand what Marriage is, for it is not merely an institution that unites people in a committed relationship of mutual love, but the only institution that unites children with their biological mother and father. There is no institution that can do such a thing. Every person on earth has a mom and dad, and marriage is the only institution that can unite these children with their parents. There is way more to marriage than being in love or being in a committed relationship, for it is the only institution that has the ability to create life; it is a life-giving bond that unites children with their moms and dads. The notion of “gay marriage” is in reality anti-marriage and discriminatory towards children who have the right be raised by their mom and dad. Therefore, gay people in committed relationships do not have the same intentions, nor can they as heterosexual couples who Sacramentally marry because they cannot intend to unite children with their biological mother and father in a unity of Sacramental love. God Love You.
MD, the sacramental nature of Catholic matrimony has no place in civil law. Sorry. The first amendment prohibits it.
Secondly, civil marriage (indeed also sacramental marriage) makes absolutely NO distinction between couples who can produce offspring and those who cannot. It makes no distinction between those who intend to protect offspring and those who do not.
Thirdly, if marriage is TRULY about children, why do you not support the ability of children to same sex couples to enjoy the protection that having married parents would provide? Should they be punished for having been born to same sex partners?
oops, second paragraph, last sentence should say “produce”, not “protect”. Big difference.
Your Fellow Catholic: First, Civil law no authority to re-difine marriage just as the Church cannot impose religious beliefs upon society. Second, the fundamental right of the child is to be born into a family with their mother and father. Although not every marriage does not produce children, every child has a mother and father and every child has the right to know and be raised by their mother and father. As I said earlier, marriage is the ONLY institution that can unite a child with their mother and father. The reason marriage is Sacramental is due to its life-giving nature. What you are arguing is not participation in marriage, but the complete re-difining of marriage; changing the nature and meaning of the only institution that unites children with their mom’s and dads. God Love You.
Please forgive my typo: it should say Although every marriage does not produce children, every child has a mother and father. This is a biological fact that cannot be denied Your Fellow Catholic.
And I just got hit with an 18% increase of my longterm care health insurance. Do you think that 18% will cover me in my later years or do you think I’m funding these abominations? Just wondering.
I think that 18% increase is covering both your health care needs in your later years AND the funding of other people’s “abominations”…. Not to mention their health care costs in their later years. That’s the point of health insurance. By pooling the money, everyone benefits. Now, if you don’t want to pay for other people’s health care because they may engage in abominations, the best thing to do is pull out of your health insurance, and pay out of pocket.
Of course, you still pay to federally funded insurance through your taxes. Perhaps you can move to Dubai?
Using the Knox – Keene original legislation which provided easier access to health care as a means of promoting infertility treatments to otherwise fertile homosexuals is a very good example of the lengths to which legislators will go to distort a bill’ original intent. That’s the best reason to pay attention when a legislative analyst tells you a bill is bad or has the potential for malevolent mischief and do something to stop it early on.
If you study lesbian relationships, one woman always portrays the male role (the dyke)…while the other lesbian portrays the feminine, needy female, in the relationship This “aping” of gender roles should disqualify these couples from same sex marriage and same sex benefits! If one PRETENDS to adopt the male role, then these couples are merely masquerading as a ” straight couple”, with unclear gender assignments…that alone should disqualify them from any further consideration on these matters…it would seem more logical if they were really “ONLY” attracted to females… then both would behave as females…BUT THEY DON”T…nuff said!
Nonsense. What stereotypical rubbish.
NO…not NONSENSE!…this twisted aping of “gender roles”, is proof positive that these individuals have a diseased thought process! I have seen women dressed as little “rapper thugs” masquerading as the male in the relationship…according to mt cousin, this “dyke” distinction has become the “new” hallmark in identifying the “bull dyke” in the association! Sick man…really sick
And your cousin is an authoritative source on lesbian relationships?
Are you?…you sound bitter because the truth hurts…you are anything “BUT” St. Peter…Pan would be more applicable…
Homosexuality is a lifestyle that is disordered. PERIOD! Why in the world would somebody argue about this on a Catholic blog?…Nobody is going to endorse or condone this disgusting lifestyle…unless you are “gay” and clearly in violation of the Church’s admonition for this lifestyle…
Jean-Baptiste – With all respect, you seem to confuse a number of things. Homosexuality is a synonym for sexual orientation, which is a predominant sexual attraction for others of the same sex. How one lives one’s life is a lifestyle. Just beceause someone is attracted to a person does not dictate their lifestyle, any more than there is a “straight lifestyle”.
Homosexuality – that is those who have a homosexual orientation – is morally neutral according to Catholic teaching. Homosexual orientation is neither a choice nor a sin. The origins of homosexuality is a matter of science, not of morality, and science has not reached a definitive judgement about what those origins are, but it is pretty clear that it is not a chosen orientation anymore than heterosexuality is a chosen lifestyle.
It is true that the church teaches that homosexual practice is disordered. But that is not the same thing as a “lifestyle”, and the orientation, while viewed as a tendency towards a disordered end, is not in and of itself considered sinful.
But in any case, using even this language to assault people is hardly helpful in revealing the Gospel message to them. If your heart is in this to help people, please try to learn a language that will speak to them instead of a language that alienates them. If you have other motivations, please examine your conscience and prepare your soul for the days ahead for you.
YFC…nobody is going to condone or endorse your perverse and revolting lifestyle that you feel the need to champion…why don’t you send a letter to your Bishop, sharing with him your sociological and anthropomorphic understanding of “human relationships”…see if his thinking is “congruent” with your disordered and depraved mindset…then holler back…
YFC you arrogance….telling other people to prepare their souls for days ahead, while you give constant cover the sodomite lifestyle….Burn the Rainbow Flag
Quite possibly true, Canisius, that my statement was arrogant. But it’s no more or less arrogant than similar comments every single day on CCD. If mine was, I apologize.
I wonder why everyone is against gays? We are just like everyone else, we need love just like you breeders. I am sad and disheartened that so many of us are denied the same rights and pleasures as what “we” call “breeder’s, oh well, in a perfect world.
What rights are you denied, Marshall? You can vote, travel freely, live with whomever, join the army, receive all sorts of special rights and priviledges beyond many of your fellow citizens (such as goofy parades that bring traffic to a halt just to celebrate yourselves ) …the list is endless. What you can’t dictate or force is someone’s understanding of God’s laws and faithful adherence to it…something many of us are will to die to defend. You want to force people by unjust laws to like and accept what you do. That is called fascism. You sound like a sweet person but you wouldn’t want to make someone go to jail because he finds what you do objectionable, would you? But that’s where all this is headed.
Dana, can we please take a look at what you’ve written here? First, that Marshall can vote. How can you possibly know that? If Marshall is the longtime immigrant partner of an American citizen, even if they are married, it is quite likely that he does not have a pathway to citizenship and therefore it’s not so clear that “he can vote”. He would NOT, as you say, be able to “travel freely” because it is likely that if he were to travel to see his family back home, he’d risk being denied reentry.
It might be true that today he can “join the army”, but that was only legal in the last several months. Undoubtedly you opposed that option. Do you oppose it today?
They you say he can “live with whomever”. Well, actually, in many states, gay couples can be evicted for “living with whomever”. In fact, if he is transgender, in almost every state he can be evicted, and in fact almost half of transgender individuals HAVE been evicted – just for being transgender. If he’s an immigrant (see above), and even if he is married, he can be deported. So maybe it’s not so clear that he can “live with whomever”.
Lastly, he may not be able to do one of the things that every one of us takes for granted as a basic human right: to console and assist our loved ones when we are sick and especially when we are hospitalized. Just last week, news came out about a guy in Missouri who was ARRESTED for refusing to leave the bedside of his hospitalized partner. It appears that the brother of the hospitalized man tried to make medical decisions even though he had left written instructions that he had given that right to the arrested partner. And it was the brother that called the cops on the partner, and had him hauled away violently, while the hospitalized partner watched helplessly. Would that happen to you, Dana? Would you be arrested for consoling the man to whom you had entrusted life and death decisions?
good grief….Marshall…more of those types of questions……God have mercy on us all…for even having to put up with them
Yeah, reality sucks when you have to confront it Abeca?
peter we already confront them daily…but hey you got me thinking….at least our real rewards are in heaven and it is then that this sort of evil won’t be found there….our goal is to get to heaven peter…I pray you turn to that direction as well…we are all responsible for our own salvation….my prayers are with you.
So don’t feel sorry for me peter…..I have my own demons to deal with….I am just concerned that others may be mislead…I care about their salvation as well….as should you. Broken? Jesus heals and puts us back together, but we must trust in Him alone! He is my daily consolation and love….my everything…He is for you too.
Sometimes “gays” really seem to get a ‘raw” deal in society…