Did you know MD's IVF coverage statute excludes single women, women using donor sperm, and lesbians?

[Anonymous]

How horrible is this? I guarantee this is due to the Catholic Church's lobby (sorry, don't mean to offend anyone, but when it comes to depriving me of thousands of dollars, I've just had enough of this crap).

(2) the patient's oocytes are fertilized with the patient's spouse's sperm;

(3) (i) the patient and the patient's spouse have a history of infertility of at least 2 years' duration;

[Anonymous]

Yes. And it is terrible, isn't it? Seems very dark ages to me. I am single ttc. People should really fight it. Including me. Change has to begin somewhere. Thanks for starting this thread.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like donor egg is excluded too. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

I've known it for some time, as a single woman trying to conceive who has insurance based in Maryland. Slate has also written about it:

http://www.slate.com/id/2248051/

I'm not sure that this could be pinned on the Catholic church specifically, though. There are a lot of groups that are squeamish about single women and gay people conceiving children. It is unfortunate.

Of course, we could live in a state that doesn't mandate IVF coverage at all, which would be most of them. Only 15 states require that insurers have an IVF mandate. If my employer were based in Virginia or D.C., I very well might be in the same boat. Or if I worked at a company with fewer than 25 or 50 employers, I'd also be out of luck. So I can't feel too sorry for myself.

http://www.fertilitylifelines.com/payingfortreatment/state-mandatedinsurancelist.jsp

[Anonymous]

Give me a break -you are trying to blame this on the Catholic Church...which is against IVF. Get your facts straight before you sling mud.

[Anonymous]

I don't know who to blame, as frustrating as it is (that said, you are lucky to live in MD-- at least there are people to blame for the guidelines... in VA, there are no requirements to have guidelines for!) but I doubt it's the Catholics- aren't they against IVF in the first place? Or maybe this was a concession to a larger lobby?

[Anonymous]

PP 21:44 here: I, too, think that its unnecessarily inflammatory to wrap the Catholic church in this. Maybe there was Church lobbying at the time, but Maryland IVF mandate was created more than 20 years ago. We have an evolving idea now of what kind of people would make good parents, but at that time, the idea that gay people and single women would go through IVF probably just seemed "wrong" in some way.

It's a shame that the law hasn't kept up with the time. It surely is affecting me in a negative way. But I just have to remember again that in 35 states, there is no IVF mandate at all. I am no worse off than I would be if I were one of the millions of women who don't have any health insurance at all, or who live in states where insurers are not required to offer that benefit.

[Anonymous]

As a MD political insider, I'm sure the Catholics were involved (they are such a significant presence in MD politics and the state house) and this may have been the compromise that they could stomach when they realized that IVF was going to pass. I am sure that many were to blame, just like in the gay marriage defeat in MD last session. People really fight hard for conservative values and to put their values on others and to control the behavior of others. With gay marriage, the churches were THE reason the bill did not pass. Certain churches (and a few synagogues too) are VERY in tune with every bill in the state house that relates to the values issues they hold dear and they JUMP on that and have their congregants go hardcore, whereas most of us are not tuned in and watching like that.

That this IVF statute specifically calls out the sperm of the spouse is very telling!

I too wish the laws would catch up with time but the reality is that once it's in the law it gets lost and the minorities trampled upon do not have the power to get traction on this or get anyone to pay attention to a little law like this.

[Anonymous]

having children is not a right.

[Anonymous]

Ok that last post was moronic! The posts are not about the right to have kids (which is a RIGHT that we ALL have - duh) but about a monetary benefit that Maryland affords in a discriminatory manner.

[Anonymous]

having children is not a right.

By that argument, I assume you're suggesting that no insurance company should cover fertility treatments at all, for anyone. Correct?

[Anonymous]

OP, why aren't you mad at your employer, as well?

They are always welcome to go above and beyond state mandates.

You may have solid reasons behind your statements, but you come across as just another tiresome DCUM poster who has an ax to grind against the Catholic Church.

[Anonymous]

insurance companies shouldn't have to cover any infertility treatments for anyone. The should provide basics like birth control, prenatal care and labor and delivery, that's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:insurance companies shouldn't have to cover any infertility treatments for anyone. The should provide basics like birth control, prenatal care and labor and delivery, that's it.

What's your reasoning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:insurance companies shouldn't have to cover any infertility treatments for anyone. The should provide basics like birth control, prenatal care and labor and delivery, that's it.

What about cancer treatments, especially ones for cancers with a low survival rate?