A gay couple in New York City that filed a class-action lawsuit against the city for not letting them use a woman as an incubator to have kids has been featured yet again in a media puff-piece ahead of the decision in their case.
Corey Briskin and Nicholas Maggipinto are fighting for the right to use taxpayer dollars to pay for in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy after finding out (in 2017) that Briskin's insurance policy from his government job did not cover IVF benefits for gay men.
From NBC back in April:
Under the city's policy, an individual has to be diagnosed with infertility to be eligible for coverage of IVF or other assisted reproductive technologies. The policy — like most insurance policies nationwide — defines infertility as "the inability to conceive after 12 months of unprotected intercourse" or after 12 cycles of intrauterine insemination, or IUI, over 12 months.
The policy doesn't define "intercourse," but the couple's charge, filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleged that "the City and its insurers have interpreted it to mean intercourse between a man and a female, thereby making it impossible for Mr. Briskin and Mr. Maggipinto to satisfy the definition."
So, after learning they can't just rent a woman's womb free of charge using insurance benefits, they had to use the oldest trick in the book.
The gays who cried "discrimination."
Brisken says the government is prejudiced for not covering the costs of artificially inseminating a women's rented womb.
"The policy is the product of a time when there was a misconception, a stereotype, a prejudice against couples that were made up of two men – that they were not capable of raising children because there was no female figure in that relationship," he said.
In response to the publicization of the couple's story, a City Hall spokesperson said that Mayor Eric Adams' administration "proudly supports the rights of LGBTQ+ New Yorkers to access the health care they need."
"New York City has been a leader in offering IVF treatments for any city employee or dependent covered by the city's health plan who has shown proof of infertility, and our policies treat all people covered under the program equally, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation," the spokesperson said, adding that "The city will review the details of the complaint."
Now that a decision is expected in their case in a few weeks, The Guardian ran a long-form piece this week that highlights the "discrimination" against the two men:
Most critics were wilfully missing the point of their case: it's about access to IVF, and equal rights to employment benefits, not their right to surrogacy. But in bringing a fertility equality claim that took eventual surrogacy for granted, they had unwittingly stumbled into the line of fire of one of the great culture wars of our age: whether anyone – but gay men in particular – should be able to pay to use a woman's body.
While they wait for a decision, Maggipinto and Briskin must endure the heartache of watching the children of their wealthy gay friends grow up. We meet the day after Father's Day. "We just took care of my nephew when my sister needed help," Maggipinto tells me. "It's so awkward for me to wish my brother-in-law Happy Father's Day."
Think whatever you want about surrogacy but to demand your government insurance plan provides these services for free is going way too far.
"Not everybody wants to have children, and I get that; it's not a necessary part of one's existence on this Earth," Briskin says. "But if you are among those who do have the desire to procreate, no one wants to be told there is no way to achieve that."
Maggipinto nods. "Especially if there is."
Does anyone want to tell them?
This isn't an oversight, it's discrimination, Briskin says. "The policy is the product of a time when there was a misconception, a stereotype, a prejudice against couples that were made up of two men – that they were not capable of raising children because there was no female figure in that relationship."
Really, does anyone want to tell them?
Anyway, it's a bit entitled, don't you think?
Who are the ones trying to enact The Handmaid's Tale again?
P.S. Now check out our latest video: "Highlights from Biden's speech last night" 👇