dating polish women in london - Mandating coverage

The article then goes on with the usual litany of complaints: only 27 percent of large company-provided insurance plans cover IVF; only 15 states require plans to have an “infertility coverage” component; 4 of the 15 limit mandate to IVF using artificial insemination by husband only; some policies “exclude gay couples and single women” by “defin[ing] infertility as an inability to become pregnant through sexual intercourse”; some states require a documented period of infertility or waiting periods before coverage kicks in; not covering IVF now paves the way for pregnancy complications later; and “the Affordable Care Act did little to expand infertility coverage.” Let’s consider what’s at issue: .

mandating coverage-32

Deliberately making an orphan, i.e., a child bereft of a mother and father, is in principle what IVF does.

But IVF has nothing to do with children, except as products manufactured according to parental desires. As Zbigniew Stawrowski notes in his new book, , today’s “sleek barbarians” use the language of tradition (“liberty,” “justice”) to create a new ethic where the strong gain the force of law to effect their desires on the weak, in this case, children.

The comments to The biggest paradox, of course, is that the “treatment”—in vitro fertilization—leaves the pathology intact: the woman was infertile before and remains infertile after.

This “solution” is, of course, essential to cementing the “achievement” of “same-sex marriage,” transgenderism, cohabitation, etc.: to be “human,” man has to transcend his biology.

article takes it as a given that social policy is just a little behind the curve on this issue, and that eventually—by putting money behind it—IVF will just become standard “treatment.” The article appears in a series “Your Money”—but it’s The privatization of marriage and parenthood have become so complete in American law that society is seen as having no interest in how members come into it or how society is sustained.

This is not just a question of how people are born but of the whole ethos of family life in society.

No serious social science research disputes that children need intact families to develop normally; but the current American approach to family policy avoids engaging with that truth.

The most cursory survey of the American mass media in July 2014 would have you believe that millions of women are being denied basic medical care and fundamental rights are under total assault because … Senate—whose legislative productivity this year suggests it has been the victim of an Obamacare death panel—managed to rush a bill overturning given us a glimpse of Hobby Lobby II?

they can’t get somebody else to buy their abortifacients. The July 26 issue carries a story whose gist is that government and private insurance does not adequately cover in vitro fertilization (IVF).

The story opens with the usual human interest story: a 27-year-old nurse complains, after suffering four miscarriages and her husband divorcing her, that “‘I decided I am going to be a mom, whether I am on my own or whether I had a partner by my side.’” Since “wishin’ don’t make it so”—especially when it comes to parenthood—not having that partner could pose a problem, though nothing a little withdrawal from the sperm bank can’t solve.

The bigger problem, though, seemed to be costs: a single round of IVF costs ,000-,000, and “her health insurance, through the California exchange” doesn’t pay for it.

Comments are closed.