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.
