FOLLOW US

In a dramatic courtroom battle, an Illinois federal judge has ruled against Health Care Service Corp., operating as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, denying their motion to dismiss a lawsuit that alleges unlawful discrimination against same-sex couples. The lawsuit, spearheaded by plaintiff Kelsey Murphy, claims that the insurance giant unfairly burdens LGBTQ couples with exorbitant out-of-pocket fertility treatment costs, violating the Affordable Care Act.

Judge Denies Blue Cross Blue Shield's Bid

U.S. District Judge LaShonda A. Hunt, presiding over this LGBTQ bias lawsuit, made a resounding decision on Tuesday, rejecting Blue Cross Blue Shield's attempt to have the case thrown out. Their argument was centered on their policy, which they claimed provided multiple avenues for LGBTQ couples to qualify for fertility benefits. However, Judge Hunt's response was as sharp as it was firm.

"The policy is written in such a way that a significant portion of the LGBTQ community—healthy women capable of achieving and sustaining a pregnancy—cannot meet the definition of infertility without incurring substantial out-of-pocket costs, while their heterosexual counterparts are exempt," Judge Hunt proclaimed.

Blue Cross LGBTQ Bias Suit :  A Battle of Definitions

Blue Cross contended that their policy allowed customers of all sexual orientations to access fertility benefits by meeting specific criteria. These criteria included having a year of unprotected sex that didn't lead to pregnancy, being diagnosed with a fertility-affecting condition, or being unable to achieve or maintain a viable pregnancy. However, Judge Hunt noted a glaring disparity when these criteria were applied to both straight and same-sex couples.

In an analogy that underscores the injustice, Judge Hunt pointed out, "A person in a same-sex relationship cannot demonstrate inability to conceive a child after a year of unprotected sexual intercourse because the Blue Cross policies define that term as sexual union between a man and a woman."

The judge further clarified that if a person in a same-sex relationship had not received a diagnosis affecting their fertility, they would be required to show that they couldn't conceive even after a year of medically supervised conception methods—a process laden with substantial out-of-pocket costs.

Thus, Judge Hunt concluded that while a straight person could qualify for fertility treatment without incurring additional expenses, a person in a same-sex relationship would be compelled to pay for at least a year's worth of conception treatments due to their sexual orientation.

Blue Cross's Defense Unraveled

Attempting to defend their position, Blue Cross argued that a person in a same-sex relationship could be considered "unable to attain a viable pregnancy" under their policy, thus becoming eligible for fertility treatment coverage. However, Judge Hunt pointed out that this exemption was not specified in the policy's terms.