Sexual revolutionaries view nature and biological truths as an injustice, which is why they continue to untether language and policy from reality. This comes with real-world consequences, and in the case of the Equal Access to Reproductive Care Act, children are made victims.
California Congressman Adam Schiff recently introduced the Equal Access to Reproductive Care Act, which expands the definition of “infertility” to include those who cannot reproduce “either as a single individual or with a partner without medical intervention.”
This means that same-sex couples and single men would be able to “deduct assisted reproductive care, including surrogacy, as a medical expense on their tax returns, without having to demonstrate a medical/physical infertility.”
The tax deduction is typically only available to men and women in heterosexual relationships after they have been diagnosed as infertile. The diagnosis is based on “the inability to conceive after 12 months of unprotected intercourse.”
Schiff argues that failing to offer the same infertility benefit to healthy, same-sex couples is a form of discrimination. However, such men are not suffering from any biological deficiency and are therefore not infertile in the same way that a heterosexual couple would be. It’s not discrimination – it’s just biology. Infertility is not a matter of personal preference or feeling.
In a press release, Rep. Schiff said, “But right now, our tax code is sorely outdated and makes it harder for LGBTQ+ individuals and couples to afford treatments to bring children into their families, such as IVF. This bill would rectify this iniquity by allowing LGBTQ+ couples to deduct the cost of assisted reproductive treatments as a medical expense—a privilege heterosexual couples already have.”
He went on to say, “Every person regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, or relationship status deserves the same opportunity to start and expand a family.”
This view of the parent-child relationship focuses solely on the desires of adults at the expense of children’s rights. The act treats a child as “an accessory that exists to meet the needs of adults,” as Joseph Backholm of World Magazine puts it.
Providing fertility support to any individual, simply because they desire children, is both irresponsible and immoral. Adults don’t have the right to a child, but children do have the right both a mother and father. They suffer tremendously in every area of life when this right is infringed upon.
“In his view, the adults deserve the child simply because they want the child. Any disadvantage the child experiences by being commodified and denied a relationship with one or both of his or her parents is outweighed by the emotional satisfaction the adults will experience. However, if the needs of children are primary, a child’s right to be known and loved by his or her mother and father is more important than the adult desire to have a child. After all, men cannot mother and women cannot father. Children need both mothers and fathers,” continues Backholm.
Further, this legislation specifically mentions and encourages the use of surrogacy, which has serious moral implications. Surrogacy intentionally separates a child from one or both of his biological parents. By design, it severs the natural and necessary ties of children to their parents. Surrogate-born children are actually more likely to suffer from depression than children carried by their own mothers in the womb,
Unlike adoption, surrogacy laws do not require home visits or background checks to ensure a safe and loving environment for the child. As a result, heartbreaking stories of abuse toward surrogate children are not uncommon.
The issue of infertility is one that we should absolutely take seriously and address to the best of our ability. Approximately 12 percent of married couples suffer from infertility or struggle to sustain a pregnancy, which creates deep emotional, physical, and financial stress. These couples deserve care, support, and compassion as they deal with the immense pain associated with the unfulfilled longing for a child.
Fostering a culture of life in which having children is encouraged requires that we support parenthood through legislation. Whether through improving the adoption process or offering infertility support, we should work to ensure that every married, heterosexual couple who wants to care for a child is able to.
At the same time, we have to acknowledge that not every person or every couple can or should have a child simply because they want one. The limitations of nature and biology should be respected, and children’s rights must always come first.
“…making the best of difficult circumstances is very different than creating difficult circumstances on purpose, which is exactly what Rep. Schiff’s Equal Access to Reproductive Care Act would do,” concludes Backholm.
Backholm is right. The Equal Access to Reproductive Care Act creates an incredibly difficult and unjust situation for children, and good policy is never based solely on adult desires.
