New York City is facing legal action from a gay male employee who contends that the city’s policy of limiting in vitro fertilization (IVF) coverage to women is discriminatory.
Former assistant district attorney Corey Briskin and his husband filed the lawsuit, citing financial constraints that forced them to postpone their plans for IVF.
Currently, city policy provides IVF coverage only in cases where the employee or their partner is infertile. However, the lawsuit coincides with ongoing discussions in the New York City Council about potential legislation that would mandate IVF coverage for all employees, irrespective of marital status or sexual orientation.
Peter Romer-Friedman, representing Briskin and his husband, highlighted that there hasn’t been a legal ruling on whether gay men can be denied IVF benefits compared to other employees.
The lawsuit argues that withholding IVF coverage violates the city’s anti-discrimination guarantees based on sexual orientation, as well as equal rights and due process protections under the U.S. Constitution.
The spotlight on IVF has intensified recently, particularly concerning its relationship with abortion restrictions. A ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court resulted in three state fertility clinics halting IVF services. This ruling prompted varied responses, with some national Republicans expressing support for IVF, while others suggested leaving the issue to individual states. Democrats seized upon the ruling as a political tool, accusing Republicans of potential nationwide crackdowns on IVF access and reproductive health measures, a claim refuted by the right.
The costs associated with IVF treatment are significant, ranging from $15,000 to $30,000 per cycle, depending on factors like the clinic and medical history. For Briskin and other gay male employees, IVF access is limited to surrogacy, further complicating financial considerations.
