And demand to have a surrogate provided for them.

Two gay men who both attended law school filed a legal complaint against the City of New York arguing that not having access to a woman's reproductive potential is a form of discrimination, and that they are entitled to have the City pay for a "surrogate".https://t.co/bEvEGlyoV4 pic.twitter.com/tq8pD8UrNc

— Women's Voices (@WomenReadWomen) October 1, 2022

I would file a similar suit arguing how can I exercise my 2nd amendment rights unless I am provided an AR-15

Silian Rail said:

---

And demand to have a surrogate provided for them.

Two gay men who both attended law school filed a legal complaint against the City of New York arguing that not having access to a woman's reproductive potential is a form of discrimination, and that they are entitled to have the City pay for a "surrogate".https://t.co/bEvEGlyoV4 pic.twitter.com/tq8pD8UrNc

— Women's Voices (@WomenReadWomen) October 1, 2022

---

Can't make this stuff up

NYC would love to pass a billion dollar tax on local business and the middle class to make this injustice "go away"

Don't believe they are suing for surrogacy benefit, but for IVF procedure coverage - one of a myriad of expenses involved in surrogacy process.

Also, if the story is correct then female coworkers under same plan received some sort of coverage without having a male partner or carrying child.

Anyways…carry on with your rage and half truth thread titles/OP.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Don't believe they are suing for surrogacy benefit, but for IVF procedure coverage - one of a myriad of expenses involved in surrogacy process.

Also, if the story is correct then female coworkers under same plan received some sort of coverage without carrying child.

Anyways…carry on with your rage and half truth thread titles/OP.

---

Interesting, can you explain how IVF would work for two gay men without a surrogate?

Gay men taking the first step towards realizing the Handmaiden's Tale in real life. I bet all of the left wing women pushing that meme against conservatives didn't see this coming.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Don't believe they are suing for surrogacy benefit, but for IVF procedure coverage - one of a myriad of expenses involved in surrogacy process.

Also, if the story is correct then female coworkers under same plan received some sort of coverage without having a male partner or carrying child.

Anyways…carry on with your rage and half truth thread titles/OP.

---

Oh so it's just Dems wanting the rest of us to pay for even more elective procedures

That makes it okay

Men asking the state to force women to give birth for them….yet somehow it won't be considered chauvinistic or sexist

Seems like if you really want kids the easiest way to do it is to **** someone with a vagina. You know, like every other mammal on the planet.

They are as free as any other man to impregnate a woman.

They don't need IVF benefits or whatever.

They have the same access to female reproductive capabilities as every other man.

This is insane. The world is insane. There is no discrimination here.

Of course lawyers are the ones coming up with this BS, specifically homosexual lawyers.

Silian Rail said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Don't believe they are suing for surrogacy benefit, but for IVF procedure coverage - one of a myriad of expenses involved in surrogacy process.

Also, if the story is correct then female coworkers under same plan received some sort of coverage without carrying child.

Anyways…carry on with your rage and half truth thread titles/OP.

---

Interesting, can you explain how IVF would work for two gay men without a surrogate?

---

I doubt you know much about process (maybe you do, some of you know more about being gay than I do), but the costs associated with surrogacy aren't a one stop shop. Nothing in my post proposes they would not need both.

YouBet said:

---

Gay men taking the first step towards realizing the Handmaiden's Tale in real life. I bet all of the left wing women pushing that meme against conservatives didn't see this coming.

---

Do you know any surrogates? I don't think that's a very fair assessment of American surrogates (I will fully acknowledge there are/were foreign surrogates which were probably exploited).

ETA: I'd say pro life crowd with their current legislation and commentary from some about "supply of adoptable infants" is a little closer to that dystopian storyline.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Don't believe they are suing for surrogacy benefit, but for IVF procedure coverage - one of a myriad of expenses involved in surrogacy process.

Also, if the story is correct then female coworkers under same plan received some sort of coverage without having a male partner or carrying child.

Anyways…carry on with your rage and half truth thread titles/OP.

---

Oh so it's just Dems wanting the rest of us to pay for even more elective procedures

That makes it okay

---

Dems? I don't see that. This is between these individuals and their employer, when this comes up for a legislative vote to require plans provide this procedure let me know. You can breathe easy, seems courts are quite comfortable allowing employers to set parameters in plans.

See this recent example…

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/07/texas-HIV-ACA-lawsuit/amp/

TXAGFAN said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Don't believe they are suing for surrogacy benefit, but for IVF procedure coverage - one of a myriad of expenses involved in surrogacy process.

Also, if the story is correct then female coworkers under same plan received some sort of coverage without carrying child.

Anyways…carry on with your rage and half truth thread titles/OP.

---

Interesting, can you explain how IVF would work for two gay men without a surrogate?

---

I doubt you know much about process (maybe you do, some of you know more about being gay than I do), but the costs associated with surrogacy aren't a one stop shop. Nothing in my post proposes they would not need both.

---

I've got a degree in Biochemistry so I am at least more qualified than the most recent Supreme Court justice to discuss the matter, and I do believe that IVF requires an actual female (not just a man who thinks he's a female) to work.

Choices have consequences.

Silian Rail said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Don't believe they are suing for surrogacy benefit, but for IVF procedure coverage - one of a myriad of expenses involved in surrogacy process.

Also, if the story is correct then female coworkers under same plan received some sort of coverage without carrying child.

Anyways…carry on with your rage and half truth thread titles/OP.

---

Interesting, can you explain how IVF would work for two gay men without a surrogate?

---

I doubt you know much about process (maybe you do, some of you know more about being gay than I do), but the costs associated with surrogacy aren't a one stop shop. Nothing in my post proposes they would not need both.

---

I've got a degree in Biochemistry so I am at least more qualified than the most recent Supreme Court justice to discuss the matter, and I do believe that IVF requires an actual female (not just a man who thinks he's a female) to work.

---

Youre being obtuse. Surrogate is a separate expense (and legal agreements) from IVF, if plan covered IVF would save the individuals in this story tens of thousands in overall process . Thanks for the cute reply.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Don't believe they are suing for surrogacy benefit, but for IVF procedure coverage - one of a myriad of expenses involved in surrogacy process.

Also, if the story is correct then female coworkers under same plan received some sort of coverage without carrying child.

Anyways…carry on with your rage and half truth thread titles/OP.

---

Interesting, can you explain how IVF would work for two gay men without a surrogate?

---

I doubt you know much about process (maybe you do, some of you know more about being gay than I do), but the costs associated with surrogacy aren't a one stop shop. Nothing in my post proposes they would not need both.

---

I've got a degree in Biochemistry so I am at least more qualified than the most recent Supreme Court justice to discuss the matter, and I do believe that IVF requires an actual female (not just a man who thinks he's a female) to work.

---

Youre being obtuse. Surrogate is a separate expense (and legal agreements) from IVF, if plan covered IVF would save the individuals in this story tens of thousands in overall process . Thanks for the cute reply.

---

Once again, you're angry at biology not at me

Gender is a social construct.

TXAGFAN said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Gay men taking the first step towards realizing the Handmaiden's Tale in real life. I bet all of the left wing women pushing that meme against conservatives didn't see this coming.

---

Do you know any surrogates? I don't think that's a very fair assessment of American surrogates (I will fully acknowledge there are/were foreign surrogates which were probably exploited).

---

I don't think i do. My point wasn't a dig on surrogates and was more about gay men taking a step towards forcing others to bend to their will. It's absurd that they are approaching this as discrimination.

Silian Rail said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Don't believe they are suing for surrogacy benefit, but for IVF procedure coverage - one of a myriad of expenses involved in surrogacy process.

Also, if the story is correct then female coworkers under same plan received some sort of coverage without carrying child.

Anyways…carry on with your rage and half truth thread titles/OP.

---

Interesting, can you explain how IVF would work for two gay men without a surrogate?

---

I doubt you know much about process (maybe you do, some of you know more about being gay than I do), but the costs associated with surrogacy aren't a one stop shop. Nothing in my post proposes they would not need both.

---

I've got a degree in Biochemistry so I am at least more qualified than the most recent Supreme Court justice to discuss the matter, and I do believe that IVF requires an actual female (not just a man who thinks he's a female) to work.

---

Youre being obtuse. Surrogate is a separate expense (and legal agreements) from IVF, if plan covered IVF would save the individuals in this story tens of thousands in overall process . Thanks for the cute reply.

---

Once again, you're angry at biology not at me

---

Youre just posting to see yourself post and not responding to anything I posted, just making up a whole narrative in your head - like that somewhere in my post I said they didn't need a surrogate (I did not).

I'm not angry about anything.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Don't believe they are suing for surrogacy benefit, but for IVF procedure coverage - one of a myriad of expenses involved in surrogacy process.

Also, if the story is correct then female coworkers under same plan received some sort of coverage without having a male partner or carrying child.

Anyways…carry on with your rage and half truth thread titles/OP.

---

Oh so it's just Dems wanting the rest of us to pay for even more elective procedures

That makes it okay

---

Dems? I don't see that. This is between these individuals and their employer, when this comes up for a legislative vote to require plans provide this procedure let me know. You can breathe easy, seems courts are quite comfortable allowing employers to set parameters in plans.

See this recent example…

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/07/texas-HIV-ACA-lawsuit/amp/

---

You really think that can't happen? How many times have we heard this exact statement by the left over the last decade? This will be another classic example of incrementalism by the left when/if does.

Now that's it being broached you can almost guarantee it will become a political rallying cry for the left like every other insane policy.

The argument the dude in question is making is that not being provided a surrogate is prejudicial thus requiring a surrogate to be provided by the state. That's the entire point behind the post

how many steps to surrogate slaves

Silian Rail said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Don't believe they are suing for surrogacy benefit, but for IVF procedure coverage - one of a myriad of expenses involved in surrogacy process.

Also, if the story is correct then female coworkers under same plan received some sort of coverage without carrying child.

Anyways…carry on with your rage and half truth thread titles/OP.

---

Interesting, can you explain how IVF would work for two gay men without a surrogate?

---

I doubt you know much about process (maybe you do, some of you know more about being gay than I do), but the costs associated with surrogacy aren't a one stop shop. Nothing in my post proposes they would not need both.

---

I've got a degree in Biochemistry so I am at least more qualified than the most recent Supreme Court justice to discuss the matter, and I do believe that IVF requires an actual female (not just a man who thinks he's a female) to work.

---

Yes. Me and my ex did IVF to have my son as she couldn't get pregnant any other way from having tubes tied, then reversed, and the damage that ensued.

A uterus was a requirement.

"Briskin, 30, grew up assuming he'd have children. He came out in college. "Once I had come out to myself and others, I don't think my expectation of what my life would look like changed all that much." With marriage equality won years ago, they expected to be able to have a conventional married life."

1) so much for following the science. Uhhhh surprise buddy, sex with men wont produce a baby

Lets change it:
"John always wanted a child and marriage. He couldnt find anybody to marry him but still thought hed have a normal life with children. So hes suing to make his employer provide a surrogate and IVF"

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

"Briskin, 30, grew up assuming he'd have children. He came out in college. "Once I had come out to myself and others, I don't think my expectation of what my life would look like changed all that much." With marriage equality won years ago, they expected to be able to have a conventional married life."

1) so much for following the science. Uhhhh surprise buddy, sex with men wont produce a baby

Lets change it:
"John always wanted a child and marriage. He couldnt find anybody to marry him but still thought hed have a normal life with children. So hes suing to make his employer provide a surrogate and IVF"

---

Then he should probably not force a woman to produce a baby for them because conventional married life likely leads to divorce and mentally screwing that kid over. They have an opportunity to prevent mental anguish of a child by living the unconventional married life they've been dealt as gays.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Don't believe they are suing for surrogacy benefit, but for IVF procedure coverage - one of a myriad of expenses involved in surrogacy process.

Also, if the story is correct then female coworkers under same plan received some sort of coverage without having a male partner or carrying child.

Anyways…carry on with your rage and half truth thread titles/OP.

---

Just another ridiculous day in the life of two dudes that have chosen to live in this perverse lifestyle.

What am I missing? The city doesn't pay for biological females to have surrogate when they can't reproduce either correct?

It's never "free."

C@LAg said:

---

they are free to get a vagina the same way the rest of us actual reproductive males do.

---

bonfarr said:

---

What am I missing? The city doesn't pay for biological females to have surrogate when they can't reproduce either correct?

---

It appears they at least pay for IVF for surrogate based on the article.

TXAGFAN said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

What am I missing? The city doesn't pay for biological females to have surrogate when they can't reproduce either correct?

---

It appears they at least pay for IVF for surrogate based on the article.

---

Only if they are infertile. The men in this case are claiming they are infertile because they are gay.

Silian Rail said:

---

The argument the dude in question is making is that not being provided a surrogate is prejudicial thus requiring a surrogate to be provided by the state. That's the entire point behind the post

---

Don't interrupt his outrage. He thinks he's so smart but continuously misses the point.

AustinScubaAg said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

What am I missing? The city doesn't pay for biological females to have surrogate when they can't reproduce either correct?

---

It appears they at least pay for IVF for surrogate based on the article.

---

Only if they are infertile. The men in this case are claiming they are infertile because they are gay.

---

FWIW, my reply wasn't incorrect so not sure why you replied as if it was. Also, IVF for lesbians is also covered based on article and PLAN definition of infertility.