The New York City Council's LGBTQIA+ Caucus has called on Mayor Eric Adams to take action and extend in vitro fertilization (IVF) coverage to gay male employees following a recent lawsuit. The caucus argues that gay men are being denied benefits that are available to straight couples and single women due to an outdated definition of 'infertility' in the city's health plan.
The current policy only covers IVF for employees who can prove infertility as 'the inability to conceive a child through male-female unprotected sexual intercourse,' which excludes gay men from accessing IVF treatments. The caucus demands that Mayor Adams update the health care plans to include gay male couples and reimburse those who have been denied IVF benefits in the past.
The issue gained attention after a gay male employee sued the city for discrimination when he was denied IVF coverage. The lawsuit argues that withholding IVF benefits violates protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and equal rights under the U.S. Constitution.
In response to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for the mayor's office stated that the city's health plan covers IVF treatments for municipal employees regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation, but eligibility is determined by state rules and guidance. However, the city does not cover costs related to egg or sperm donation or surrogacy.
The LGBTQIA+ Caucus letter also calls for support of proposed legislation that would require the city to cover assisted reproduction services and adoption for municipal employees without the need for an infertility diagnosis.
The issue of IVF coverage has been in the spotlight recently, with debates arising over how it intersects with abortion restrictions. A recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling led to three state fertility clinics ceasing IVF services, prompting national discussions among Republicans and Democrats about access to IVF and reproductive health measures.
IVF treatments can cost between $15,000 and $30,000 per cycle, making it a significant financial burden for individuals like the plaintiff in the lawsuit. Gay male employees, including the plaintiff, may only access IVF through surrogacy, further highlighting the need for inclusive coverage policies.
