Article in the Guardian. Fertility discrimination.

I can't see how it wouldn't mean the NHS would be required to do so, in the sense of paying for those things.

Lady Hale's judgment in re: purchasing surrogacy services in the US for a UK woman has made me very apprehensive.

policyexchange.org.uk/unlicensed-law-reformer-lady-hale-and-the-law-of-surrogacy/

Stonewall’s apparent involvement in this rings alarm bells. After all, this is ostensibly an issue affecting only those old fashioned same-sex lesbian couples that they don’t really like to talk about anymore.

What this is really about is changing the meaning of infertility from being a medical problem to a social issue. Why would Stonewall want to do this? Well they’re lobbying for childhood medical transition which causes infertility.

If we can say that infertility is not a result of something going wrong with a person’s body but is in fact caused by a lack of access to resources - surrogates, gamete donors and so on - then it becomes not a personal tragedy for those young people but instead a societal failure to provide for them. Which lets Stonewall off the hook.

If we are that accepting the material reality of healthy sexed bodies is discrimination, then what difference would it make if they were male or female?

Reproductive injustice may well work towards the provision of surrogacy on a number of grounds.

It’s an interesting dilemma that does need some kind of legislation, one for ethics committees to consider but hindered by local commissioning priorities and lack of available donated sperm and possibly Brexit? People used to travel to other EU countries and the comparator would presumably be a single woman who wanted to bear a child or a couple where the man’s infertility has been clinically proven

I see it as a separate issue to infertility treatment. Perhaps it should be funded Perhaps it shouldn't? But I don't see the equivalency they are claiming. It'll be interesting what the courts say.

I expect the legal bills could well have paid for cycles of IVF, this is a profile raising exercise.

However gay and lesbian couples pay taxes too, so maybe we need a rethink on how these resources are allocated. It’s only fair, but it’s not the same problem is it? I mean maybe one or both of them have fertility issues, however surely it’s not a like for like comparison?

I’m afraid I’ve read the article, and feel I must be missing something crucial.

I think these lesbian stories are a Trojan horse paving the way for couples where neither is a "uterus-haver" to claim their "rights" to parenthood.

There are already rumblings about NHS or state funding for surrogacy (aka putting women's lives at risk to carry babies for strangers) and calls for organ transplants for would-be parents born with the "wrong" body-parts.

It's a variation on "I want what they're having and I want someone else to pay for it."

Unless they can say that they have been trying to get pregnant (with male involvement somehow) then how can they say that they have problems getting pregnant or carrying a baby to term?

They are complaining that a male/female couple has to try to have a baby for two years. They do know how this works don’t they? If a (gay or single) woman has been trying to have a baby in a ‘non traditional’ way (‘friend with benefits’ or sperm bank) then they would have an idea if there is something physically not working? Then they they can try fertility treatment (although the male element will still need to be acquired).

Such entitlement, such bloody entitlement. Isn’t it also possible for gay male couples to get surrogates on the NHS in Scotland? Did I imagine that?

And as for the flipping guardian and it’s ‘women and people with wombs’ and c*, they can get lost.

Not being able to conceive a child the traditional way because of your sexuality is not the same as being infertile though, so infertility treatment isn't necessarily appropriate. Sorry to be crude but the 'turkey baster' method would not need all the drugs and medical support that goes with IVF unless the woman who planned to carry the child had known fertility issues.

This isn't about infertility though, mainly it's about wanting the NHS to supply them with sperm so they can produce a child who will never know 50% of their own biology.

I this is successful, could it path the way for two men to argue that they also have a right to be provided with an egg and host to gestate a baby for them?

I don't get why they think it's a case of discrimination? Neither of them is male. Therefore it's not the case if being "infertile" as it is with the heterosexual couples. It's a case that two women can't make a baby. It's not a medical isse to treat, so why is it something that the NHS should deal with? This just seems really entitled.

I saw this earlier - I’m not sure they can say the rules discriminate against lesbians, the same rules apply to a single woman.

apparently, it hasn't worked so far...

Isn't there some middle ground between having to prove infertility and needing ivf? Presumably most lesbians aren't actually infertile, so shouldn't there be some other option to help them get pregnant?