California SB 729: Gay Couples Have a Right to Surrogates

[Carborendum]

https://trackbill.com/bill/california-senate-bill-729-health-care-coverage-treatment-for-infertility-and-fertility-services/2373757/

The language of the bill simply states that insurance companies are required to cover surrogacy and in-vitro fertilization as fertility treatments for gay couples.  Because of the language regarding surrogacy, this has a disturbing implication.  A woman who "offers services" as a surrogate will now be required to offer those services indiscriminately.

IOW, this has the potential for surrogate mothers to be forced into renting out their wombs.  And the left thinks that Christians are closer to Gilead than LGBT?

It was really hard to find statistics on surrogacy.  They list a whole bunch of numbers that can't be used for meaningful calculation.  I could not find out how many surrogates are commercial (someone who decides to do this professionally, gets paid) vs. personal (i.e. a friend or family member who was willing to help out.)

One thing is for certain, when insurance is forced into covering something, either the costs go way up, or people have to be forced into doing something against their will.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Carborendum

[Just_A_Guy]

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

https://trackbill.com/bill/california-senate-bill-729-health-care-coverage-treatment-for-infertility-and-fertility-services/2373757/

The language of the bill simply states that insurance companies are required to cover surrogacy and in-vitro fertilization as fertility treatments for gay couples.  Because of the language regarding surrogacy, this has a disturbing implication.  A woman who "offers services" as a surrogate will now be required to offer those services indiscriminately.

IOW, this has the potential for surrogate mothers to be forced into renting out their wombs.  And the left thinks that Christians are closer to Gilead than LGBT?

I was really hard to find statistics on surrogacy.  They list a whole bunch of numbers that can't be used for meaningful calculation.  I could not find out how many surrogates are commercial (someone who decides to do this professionally, gets paid) vs. personal (i.e. a friend or family member who was willing to help out.)

One thing is for certain, when insurance is forced into covering something, either the costs go way up, or people have to be forced into doing something against their will.

This is interesting. When California legalizes prostitution, will it also require prostitutes to offer their services to clients irrespective of gender?

[Carborendum]

On 6/24/2023 at 8:33 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

This is interesting. When California legalizes prostitution, will it also require prostitutes to offer their services to clients irrespective of gender?

They already tried to get Hooters to exercise affirmative action and hire men (heterosexual men) as servers.  Only due to a widespread PR campaign did TPTB finally give up.

So, no.  It is not beyond this generation to go through with it.

[NeuroTypical]

Handmaid's tale is a show I wish I could watch, but the content is too explicit for me.

But it's interesting to think about such news stories in light of the aging population, and nations facing issues of their birthrates falling below replacement levels.

[LDSGator]

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

it's interesting to think about such news stories in light of the aging population, and nations facing issues of their birthrates falling below replacement levels.

It’s a major problem, and I’m afraid it’s unsolvable. The moment most (most, not all) women had the ability to have fewer children they immediately took it. That’s not an insult or a moral judgement. It’s just a fact. 

[Traveler]

There seems to be a misconception about insurance.  Insurance is about risk.  Insurance is the house, and though I am not a gaming expert, it seems unwise to bet against the house.  The only risk someone should pay to avoid are the risks that they cannot afford and in no way possible, avoid.

LGBTQ+ is an unsustainable lifestyle which means, in essence, that the risk is high, and the return is minimal.  But even of more concern is that the more invested in LGBTQ+ the less there is possible ROI (return on investment).  There is no human alive (or possible in the future) that is born as the result of LGBTQ+ behavior.   The more humans that embrace complete LGBTQ+ lifestyle the less possibility there is that any human society will exist beyond the current generation.

The other important principle is that of trend.  I was taught in my youth to never invest with the thinking that a trend will change – and not continue.  Like an insect infesting a forest – live trees are needed to sustain the infesting insects.  To survive in increasing numbers the insects of necessity must continue to infest healthy trees.  This is not sustainable, unless something limits the increases of the infesting insects and contributes to the increase of healthy trees.

If natural elements that limit LGBTQ+ increasing in society are removed – there is no balance and symbolically both the forest and the infesting insects are doomed.  This is the same argument utilized by the climate activists that claim that uncontrolled increases in CO2 can destroy all life on earth.  There is one possible difference – in that plant life on earth needs and requires CO2 that is a natural limit to atmosphere CO2 and causes a decrease in CO2.  LGBTQ+ society puts forward the claim that any incentivizing of exclusive human heterosexual behavior is an evil phobia that must be opposed – which looks a lot like climate activists destroying all possible plant life.

 

The Traveler