What People Think
 |
 |
79% For, 21% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 697, The Family Building Act of 2009 (14 comments ↓)
H.R. 697 would amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to require coverage for the treatment of infertility.
()
[157 views]
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
N.Harmon
May 1, 2009, 12:50pm (report abuse)I bristled when several years back "infertility" was deemed a "disability". No, it isn't...blindness, being para or quadriplegic, having severe neuromuscular disease (think MS)...*those* are disabilities. I have even been told that, as (essentially)the definition of a disability is something which deprives one of a necessary life function, or some such, which anyone can see with blindness, being paralyzed, etc., as you *can't* go get another set of eyes or replace dead nerves (in paralyzed people). But...infertility??? THAT'S not depriving anyone of a "necessary life function", because if they want to have and raise a child/children, they can adopt..."But nooo", the hordes protest...”that's not *my* own flesh and blood"...which, to me, proves it's not *a* child they want to raise, are yearning/ hurting for, but rather the propogation of their OWN DNA...which is a terribly selfish reason for having a child in the first place.
no infertility coverage
May 2, 2009, 4:32pm (report abuse)Advocates of full birth control coverage by health insurers contend that reimbursing women for the cost of birth control, an average of about $30 per month, is much cheaper than paying for a unplanned pregnancy or an abortion down the line. Some analysts estimate the full coverage of contraceptives in large plans would only amount to about $16 extra per person. One of the most persuasive arguments for contraceptive coverage is the fact that the overwhelming majority of insurers will pay for drugs that treat impotence, but they refuse to pay for birth control pills. The fact that erections warrant insurance coverage but oral contraceptives for women don’t is a sexist notion, in the view of some advocates.
no infertility coverage
May 2, 2009, 4:35pm (report abuse)In other words - insurance companies don't want to prevent pregnancy which would save them money.
Infertile Woman
June 8, 2009, 2:31pm (report abuse)It seems rather unfair that insurance companies will pay for illnesses due to obesity or smoking, but not infertility treatments. People can choose not to smoke, and they can choose to live a healthy lifestyle that prevents obesity. A person cannot do anything to change their infertility; it is a horribly painful medical condition that should be covered by insurance.
Infertility Sufferer
June 11, 2009, 1:43pm (report abuse)For those who have never experienced the pain of knowing that you need all the help in the world to conceive your own child, but yet can't afford it, will never truly understand why this is important.
Just with any other "condition" infertility is expensive, you have Ultrasounds, MRI's, CTScans, blood work, medications, conventional and unconventional treaments. Then there's the whole inventro aspect of it once you've exhausted everything else.
Us crazy "populate the world with our DNA ladies" could buy a house, three cars - yet, we choose to spend the money, time and heartache on conceiving a baby.
I'm so tired of hearing "adopt" if health insurance companies were so great about contraceptives we wouldn't have 16 year old's having babies and throwing them away in dumpsters!!!
No one, unless they have experienced it, or are experiencing it, will EVER understand what we go through on a daily basis and how hard it is to have something as simple as a period!!!
Infertility Sufferer Too
July 6, 2009, 9:55am (report abuse)Infertility is a medical condition NOT a disability. It should be acknowledged as such by the insurance companies. Anyone who thinks infertile couples should just adopt and get over it are those we refer to as DO NOT HAVE A CLUE individuals. Should you tell a diabetic to just get over it and eat sugar???!!! It's a normal function of the human body to be able to reproduce, when something goes awry with it, one should be able to receive treatment and coverage just like any other medical condition.
Dreaming of Becoming a Mother
July 13, 2009, 1:48pm (report abuse)To stay healthy, I eat and excersise regularly. However, due to fertility issues my husband and I are seeing a Reproductive Endocrinologist. Right now, we are 50% covered by the insurance. But we still spend a lot of money. Inability to have a natural conception hurts mentally, physically, and financially.
I think people like us should get a lot of help because it takes a tall on our quality of life.
Infertile and Frustrated
July 21, 2009, 10:36am (report abuse)N. Harmon go ahead and "bristle" all you want, but you are wrong to say that those of us who are infertile should just adopt. Infertility is quite expensive for both treatment and adoption. In fact, adoption is often much more expensive than treatment including IVF. I would accept my own child or an adopted one, but I cannot afford either. People who do nothing receive financial aid for needs all of the time. Having a child is a very deep seeded need in one's life. We deserve to have some assistance in fulfilling that need.
also infertile
August 26, 2009, 2:47pm (report abuse)I have known all my life I wanted to be a mother, now that is the one thing I cannot do. My husband was recently laid off, but when he had his old job we were paying 300 a month for infertility treatments. My friend with the SAME issue and same treatments pays 15 dollars a month. How is that fair? We live in the same state and both have health insurance. I have found that people who are not experiencing this have no clue the heartache caused by infertility (particularly when being a mother is the one thing in life I've ever wanted). Its hard when you're alwyas told, you're in America you can be whatever you want. I want to be a mother, and I cannot.
Such a terrible price to pay to want to be parents
September 17, 2009, 12:23am (report abuse)Endometriosis left my fallopian tubes blocked. Now my husband and I are faced with the cost it will take to bring our children into the world. We are talking the same amount of money as purchasing a new car! We are middle-class with our money going towards bills and retirement. We used to feel assurance in having our health care coverage with Blue Cross Blue Shield, supposeably a good plan from my husband's employer. Now we are learning that in our time of medical need, we are straight-out rejected! This is a dilemma because nothing will stop us from our goal of having a family of our own.
Infertilie for 5 years and counting
September 22, 2009, 7:31pm (report abuse)Infertility is a MEDICAL condition, no one asks for it. No one truly understands the heartache that comes along with it. We deserve to be bale to get AFFORDABLE treatment for the disease that plaques us. Just as a cancer patient should be able to get chemotherapy. N.Harmon you are inconsiderate and rude, someone who has obviously has no clue what infertility is like.
Trying to conceive for 6 1/2 years
October 2, 2009, 2:47pm (report abuse)For those who have never been through the pain of infertility should just keep to themselves. It is a disability. The pain that we have to face day in and day out of not being able to have a child of your own. Yes we can adopt but just like fertility treatments it cost thousands of dollars upfront. None of us had a choice. This is the painful hand we were dealt. Walk a mile in our shoes before you make stupid comments. My hope for those who oppose this bill is that one day they or someone they know will have to suffer the way that we all have.
JD
November 15, 2009, 2:07am (report abuse)I am floored by some of the comments on this blog. I was taken advantage of by a grown man when I was young teen. The man infected me with Chlamydia, which scarred my fallopian tubes. For those who have posted heartless responses on this blog....ask yourself, if you had a daughter, would you want her to have to be reminded daily that someone had stolen her innocence and her ability to have a family. Fertility is to women.....as an erect penis is to men! Should we tell cancer patients and diabetics to just get over it and prepare to die? If not, then we shouldn't tell a woman who desperately wants to feel the flutter of a growing baby in her belly to just get over it. reproduction is human nature and human nature dictates that it if a woman chooses not to have children or to adopt, then it is her choice. But it is never ok for the choice to have children taken away from someone.
Hopeful Father
November 16, 2009, 4:16pm (report abuse)As the husband of a woman diagnosed with PCOS, I have been brought face to face with the realities of infertility in the US.
1) The costs of infertility put effective treatments beyond the reach of almost all infertile people.
2) The costs of adoption don't make that a much more accessible option.
3) The 'means-testing' that infertile couples therefore face in trying to raise children is de facto discrimination.
4) Infertility does not mean you cannot RAISE a child. It means you cannot HAVE a child. That is a disability (as defined by ADAA) and one that should be recognized. IT IS NO MORE 'SELFISH' FOR A WOMAN TO WANT TO BEAR A CHILD THAN IT IS FOR HER TO WANT TO WALK OR SEE OR BREATHE.
5) Infertility profoundly affects people's self-worth. Males with infertility are 'impotent'; females are 'barren'. Think about what those words mean - 'powerless'; 'empty'; 'useless'.
I applaud this bill.