Gay couple sues New York leaders over denial of IVF benefits in landmark case - Corey Briskin and Nicholas Maggipinto say state’s definition of infertility discriminates against same-sex couples

1.png
By Jenny Kleeman Article Archive

A former New York assistant district attorney and his husband on Thursday filed a class-action lawsuit against New York City, Mayor Eric Adams, former mayor Bill de Blasio and other city leaders in a landmark case for the rights of gay men who want to conceive children in the US.

Corey Briskin, 35, and Nicholas Maggipinto, 38, allege that New York’s definition of infertility discriminates against same-sex male couples, violating federal and state civil rights laws.

The lawsuit follows Briskin and Maggipinto’s 2022 complaint to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). If they succeed, they will set a legal precedent that defines all gay men as infertile regardless of their medical history, and employers across the US will be under pressure to offer the same fertility benefits to gay men as they do to women and heterosexual couples.

Briskin began working for the city of New York in 2017 – a year after his marriage to Maggipinto – and both he and his spouse were entitled to healthcare coverage with EmblemHealth through the city’s comprehensive benefits plan. When they began researching their reproductive options that year and read the wording of the EmblemHealth policy, they discovered that, as gay men, they were the only class of people to be excluded from IVF coverage. They were not seeking for the cost of surrogacy to be covered.

2.png

The policy defines infertility as the inability to conceive a child after 12 months of unprotected heterosexual sex, or through intrauterine insemination. Straight people, lesbians and single women employed by New York City’s government are therefore eligible for infertility benefits covering the cost of IVF, but same-sex male couples can never qualify.

Maggipinto and Briskin’s complaint uses the revised definition of infertility adopted by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) in October 2023, which characterises infertility as “a disease, condition or status” which “requires medical intervention – including donor gametes” to achieve a successful pregnancy.
Under this definition, all gay men and lesbians are infertile.

“If our legal position in this case is upheld, it will mean that the inclusive definition of infertility that the ASRM has set forth would be the law of the land,” their lawyer, Peter Romer-Friedman, said. “It will send a strong and resounding message to employers across the country that they have to provide these benefits, and they could be on the wrong side of enforcing action if they refuse.”

The advocacy group Men Having Babies estimated that the total cost of conceiving a child for gay men using IVF and surrogacy in 2023 was $177,950 – $261,550 for domestic intended parents in the US.
Briskin was earning $75,000 a year as a New York assistant district attorney and Maggipinto, a corporate lawyer, was saddled with student debt.

“There is no reasonable alternative to IVF for gay men seeking to conceive biological children,” their complaint reads. “When benefits are not available from an employer or a healthcare plan to cover the cost of IVF for people who are unable to conceive through male-female sexual intercourse, that substantial financial burden ordinarily forecloses their opportunity ever to have biological children.”

“New York City employs over 300,000 people,” Maggipinto said. “These are the people that keep one of the greatest, largest and most progressive cities in the world running. And these are the same people that are now effectively having the government decide whether they can have children or not.”

In their complaint, Briskin and Maggipinto argue that the city’s position furthers prejudice against gay fathers, advancing “sex- and sexual orientation-based stereotypes that gay male couples and single gay men are not fit to be parents, while single women, women in different-sex or same-sex relationships, and men in different-sex relationships are”.

The legal anti-discrimination framework for LGBTQ+ people has evolved over recent years. In the 2020 Bostick decision, the US supreme court ruled that Title XII protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination. The same year, group health insurers in New York were legally required to cover three cycles of IVF, and in 2021 the New York department of financial services informed insurers this coverage had to be offered regardless of an employee’s sexual orientation.

In a statement made after Briskin and Maggipinto filed their complaint to the EEOC, a city hall spokesperson said: “New York City has been a leader in offering IVF treatments for any city employee or dependent covered by the city’s health plan who has shown proof of infertility, and our policies treat all people covered under the program equally, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.”

“There have been ample opportunities for the city to have changed the policy over the past two years and they haven’t, without explanation,” Briskin said.

Briskin has moved to work in the private sector, he said, “for the primary purpose of being able to bring in additional income that I knew we would need to get ourselves through this process”. Since changing jobs, he and Maggipinto have become able to fund IVF treatment and find a surrogate. They have frozen embryos that they hope to transfer this month. “Even with my private sector salary combined with Nicholas’s, it still proves to be a challenge for us.”

“This is one of the most important civil rights issues that could be heard at this time,” said Romer-Friedman. “A bill that changes policy going forward would be fantastic, but it would not address the harm that has occurred in the past. Part of what we’re trying to achieve is compensation and an apology for all the families and single gay men who have been impacted by this blatantly discriminatory policy.”
 
Honest question: What the fuck is the point of having a child if you are gay? If you want to raise a child, all you have to be is "not gay" and fucking make one yourself. The only reason a gay would want to raise a child would be to abuse it either physically (Male gay) or psychologically (Lesbian).
Faggots are unwilling to talk about the massive scale of child abuse they get up to, so we have to pretend they are normal and not literal rape demons.

They always want money.
 
Lesbians can still get pregnant because they are women and have uteruses and wombs. Gay men do not and cannot.
Riiiight, but the dyke's goal is still the same as the fudge packers, to get pregnant without touching or getting involved with the thing that actually gets you pregnant.

I don't like faggots, but seems to me they have a fair argument here.
 
And gay men still have sperm capable of causing pregnancy. Both groups have chosen lifestyles which prevent natural reproduction. Why should one group be covered and not the other?
You're missing the forest for the trees. Yes, gay men do possess sperm which can be used to impregnate a woman, and if they so desired they could ship their sperm off to a clinic to have a baby via surrogacy. However, In Vitro Fertilization requires a subject to be fertilized and last I checked you can't fertilize a gay man. IVF benefits don't apply to men because they can't be fertilized. We have yet to make advancements in mpreg technology.

Lesbians possess wombs. These wombs can foster children through IVF. Pregnancy can come with serious health issues which can potentially result in the death of the mother. A gay man shipping his cum off to be mixed with an egg in a test tube is not going to experience any of these potential health risks whereas a dyke having her egg mixed with sperm in a test tube and shoved back up her fanny is.
 
You're missing the forest for the trees. Yes, gay men do possess sperm which can be used to impregnate a woman, and if they so desired they could ship their sperm off to a clinic to have a baby via surrogacy. However, In Vitro Fertilization requires a subject to be fertilized and last I checked you can't fertilize a gay man. IVF benefits don't apply to men because they can't be fertilized. We have yet to make advancements in mpreg technology.

Lesbians possess wombs. These wombs can foster children through IVF. Pregnancy can come with serious health issues which can potentially result in the death of the mother. A gay man shipping his cum off to be mixed with an egg in a test tube is not going to experience any of these potential health risks whereas a dyke having her egg mixed with sperm in a test tube and shoved back up her fanny is.

You've yet to make a coherent argument as to why government benefits should include lesbians getting IVF. No one is debating that lesbians are capable of getting pregnant.
 
You're missing the forest for the trees. Yes, gay men do possess sperm which can be used to impregnate a woman, and if they so desired they could ship their sperm off to a clinic to have a baby via surrogacy. However, In Vitro Fertilization requires a subject to be fertilized and last I checked you can't fertilize a gay man. IVF benefits don't apply to men because they can't be fertilized. We have yet to make advancements in mpreg technology.
Gay men get surrogates (women with wombs) to carry their children. Why shouldn't this gay couple be allowed to access state provide benefits for their surrogate? While gay women are allowed to access such benefits. Lesbians are just as naturally infertile as gay men.

Lesbians possess wombs. These wombs can foster children through IVF. Pregnancy can come with serious health issues which can potentially result in the death of the mother. A gay man shipping his cum off to be mixed with an egg in a test tube is not going to experience any of these potential health risks whereas a dyke having her egg mixed with sperm in a test tube and shoved back up her fanny is.
This is literally arguing no man has a right to his children because he can't get pregnant and face the risk involved. Please tell you don't believe that should be the case. And none of this has to do with who is and isn't entitled to benefits provide by their government.
 
I would think the bigger issue is that IVF benefits for gay couples would mean extending benefits beyond the beneficiary and their spouse to a random third party who is not covered - which isn't discrimination. At least with lesbians, IVF would apply to the beneficiary or their spouse, which is standard.

The precedent they'd set wouldn't be discrimination- it would be "can my insurance benefits be used on some person who is not, and never was covered by my benefits."
 
Either way, the more men who can have children without putting up with modern western women the better.
But you need a nasty horrid woman to bear the child. Then that awful creature is the child’s mother and the child needs her. You need two parents, and mother and a father to make a baby and both should be around to raise the child. If a man is not capable of finding a willing female partner then no, he shouldnt have a child. I think the same the other way around to be fair, but nature has set things up so that a woman can get pregnant if the man disappears so that’s that. Still better to have another and father around. A single man or two men has no right to buy and commission a baby
This is literally arguing no man has a right to his children because he can't get pregnant and face the risk involved.
A man in a partnership with a woman has equal rights to the child they create together. A man/men alone have no right to buy a child. Surrogacy is wrong and immoral, it creates a market to buy children. That is wrong.
 
IVF for gay couples is something that is innately kinda evil to me. IVF and surrogacy is something where the most I can understand it for is women who had cancer that takes away their fertility. I don’t like it still, but that the area where if I was the God King in charge of society would compromise. Dykes can literally just get knocked up with a squirt gun and semen if they need to.

Riiiight, but the dyke's goal is still the same as the fudge packers, to get pregnant without touching or getting involved with the thing that actually gets you pregnant.

I don't like faggots, but seems to me they have a fair argument here.
I find it amazing how religiously offensive dyke pregnancy is. Most cultures refer to coitus as two becoming one when referring to sex. It wasn’t simply pleasure seeking, it had a purpose. Even if just for a heir people still romantized it. Now it’s stealing sperm like a spiteful witch to create a homunculus or abducting a child like Rumplestiltskin.
 
It’s almost as though millennia of experience and knowledge have decided that a man and a woman in a loving relationship is the best way to raise a child, in the midst of extended family, isn’t it?

Surrogacy is wrong. It’s absolutely tragic if someone has lost fertility to cancer or injury, genuinely it is. It doesn’t give anyone the right to commission and buy a baby. If we allow it for anyone it creates the infrastructure for it and thus the demand and the scope creep. Nobody should be reproducing via surrogate. It’s wrong
 
Men who want to buy a motherless child should just be hanged right up front, save us the trouble of investigating the string of rapes and CSAM later.

Women who want to turkey baster each other to make a fatherless child should be put in asylums for the good of themselves and their cursed offspring.

See- an important component of reinstituting patriarchy will be this "double standard" which understands male perverts and female borderlines are two different types of social problem.
 
IVF doesn't work if you mix cum from two guys and put it up one guy's butt.

It’s almost as though millennia of experience and knowledge have decided that a man and a woman in a loving relationship is the best way to raise a child, in the midst of extended family, isn’t it?

Surrogacy is wrong. It’s absolutely tragic if someone has lost fertility to cancer or injury, genuinely it is. It doesn’t give anyone the right to commission and buy a baby. If we allow it for anyone it creates the infrastructure for it and thus the demand and the scope creep. Nobody should be reproducing via surrogate. It’s wrong

I'm not Catholic, but I do think there's a point at which you just have to accept you're infertile, and that point is somewhere before you're batch creating embryos in a lab, let alone hiring someone to carry your baby. Homosexual couples aren't "infertile" anyway. Infertility is when your normal fertility isn't working together. The men involved are perfectly fertile, they just don't want to have sex with women. That's not infertility, that's just being a fag.
 
I'm not Catholic,
I’m not either. I do really feel for couples who experience infertility. I know a few who would have been great parents and it feels so unfair that they can’t be, especially when so many people have kids they do t want. But surrogacy is simply wrong. Children cannot be seen as a commodity, the implications are terrible. Imagine the future with artificial wombs and eggs created from somatic cells. Kids could be born to order, for anything, and you know there will be a trade in children destined for very bad things. It’s just wrong and it shouldnt be allowed.
 
A single man or two men has no right to buy and commission a baby
A man in a partnership with a woman has equal rights to the child they create together. A man/men alone have no right to buy a child.
To buy something is to say you have no right to it. To say a straight or gay man or two gay men is "buying" a child via surrogacy is to say they have no inherent right that child even if said child is made with their DNA. Does a man buy a baby when he spends money to take a woman on a date in an attempt to sleep with her? Given that's how the majority of us are created nowadays and most men express an interest in having children. Or is that different because their is a degree of separation between the quid pro quo? Does that man have rights to his child? Even if he and the mother will never be together, never marry, never live together for any length of time?

See- an important component of reinstituting patriarchy will be this "double standard" which understands male perverts and female borderlines are two different types of social problem.
You should look into Marion Zimmer Bradley who sexually abused her daughter and several other children. If your gonna hang the boys, might as well hang the girls along side them. The borderlines and the perverts are one in the same when it comes to homosexuals.
 
To say a straight or gay man or two gay men is "buying" a child via surrogacy is to say they have no inherent right that child even if said child is made with their DNA

They don't. You don't have the right to pay a woman to act as a host for for your seed. A woman doesn't have a right to rent out her uterus up as a Pregnancy-as-a-Service offering.

Given that's how the majority of us are created nowadays

Most of us aren't niggers. The majority of white children are, despite the best efforts of feminism, still born to married parents.
 
I would be interested in how many gold star lesbians have IVF, which for a woman involves rounds of hormones, egg harvesting, etc. Complex lab shit. Versus finding a male friend and going the turkey baster route.

For men who want a kid, adopt one. Powerlevel but I have gay friends who adopted two "crack babies" and they're great dads with successful, well-behaved daughters.

But I guess there you don't get the ego boost of having your own genetic kid. Or the entitlement of making the taxpayers pay for it.
 
You've yet to make a coherent argument as to why government benefits should include lesbians getting IVF. No one is debating that lesbians are capable of getting pregnant.
I feel like we're having two different conversations here, which leads me to believe that maybe I'm missing something. I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong and stupid. Are IVF benefits literally just "the taxpayer will pay for your test tube baby"? I was under the impression these benefits covered the potential medical costs as opposed to the initial payment to create your own little Nick Fuentes.
This is literally arguing no man has a right to his children because he can't get pregnant and face the risk involved. Please tell you don't believe that should be the case. And none of this has to do with who is and isn't entitled to benefits provide by their government.
It's really a philosophical question as to whether or not one has a right to a child when their only contribution to their creation was jerking off into a cup, but it's not a question I asked and I have no idea how you could've interpreted it that way.
Again, I think may be approaching this with incomplete or incorrect information. If IVF benefits are quite literally just "a free homonculus" then that's retarded and nobody should have access to said benefits unless they genuinely can't conceive a child through regular means.
 
Back