Today in outdated laws we didn’t know still existed:
A lesbian couple is suing New Jersey state officials over an insane and archaic law which requires couples to have unprotected, heterosexual intercourse with a man first before being allowed medical treatment for infertility issues that have been diagnosed.
Uh, what? This is a law?!
Marianne and Erin Krupa claim that between the two of them they have had six miscarriages since the couple first tried to conceive in 2013. That’s heartbreaking enough, not to mention the treatment costs are around $50,000 and insurance has denied coverage for the treatments because, you guessed it, they’re gay:
“Right away, we were told that without having sexual intercourse, we would not be covered,” Marianne Krupa states, according to LegalScoops.
How is this even legal?!
New Jersey is one of fifteen states in the country that requires health insurance companies to offer coverage for infertility issues. So you think that’d be a good thing, and it is. The problem is the language.
The Krupa’s lawsuit alleges that the Department of Banking and Insurance “failed to update its definition of an infertile couple.” The suit claims that the definition should have been updated when same-sex marriage was legalized. We agree.
According to the lawsuit and the New York Times, two out of fifteen states have updated their definition of an infertile couple. That’s not enough.
The Krupa’s insurance company, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, meanwhile, claims “Horizon covers infertility services equally regardless of sexual orientation. We interpret the 2001 New Jersey law defining infertility in a gender and orientation neutral manner and our coverage standard complies with federal non-discrimination requirements.”
But the Krupa’s are trying to do more than get themselves covered. They want to force a change in the current regulations and recover money spent by a gay couple on treatment for infertility.
As the suit says:
“Every day that New Jersey law continues to exclude women in same-sex relationships from the protection of the infertility mandate, these women must either wait for a law change as their childbearing years slip away; or if they have any available resources, bankrupting themselves and their families in order to pay for fertility care.”
This is a tragedy of justice, and we hope the Krupas are successful in changing this law’s archaic, discriminatory language.