© 2023 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
They’ve already deconstructed gender, villainized motherhood, and made up some fun new pronouns, so why not go ahead and add “redefine infertility” to the list?
Allie Beth Stuckey and guest Katy Faust, founder and director of Them Before Us, discuss exactly what the Alphabet Mafia is doing to undermine and redefine infertility.
“California and other blue states are trying to redefine infertility to include gay couples that cannot have a child biologically so that insurance companies would then be forced to cover things like surrogacy for two men who want a child,” says Allie.
“The medical definition of infertility is unprotected heterosexual sex for 12 months that doesn't result in a pregnancy or live birth,” Katy explains, “and now what they're saying is … no matter how much unprotected sex the same-sex couple has, they are never going to be able to produce a child” and “what biology cannot accomplish, the law needs to provide.”
The indisputable truth is that same-sex couples “will never medically be able to be diagnosed as infertile because they're not participating in the activity that would lead doctors to conclude that infertility is the problem, and yet they want the same kind of access, and they want the same insurance coverage,” Katy tells Allie.
According to the feelings > logic state of California, “it's discriminatory for heterosexual couples to be able to be designated as infertile and then receive coverage from their insurance companies,” so in the name of DEI, they intend to “redefine what infertility means.”
“So now the California bill and similar other bills across the country are seeking to define infertility as not a medical status but really a relational status,” says Katy, so people can be deemed infertile because of “the relationship [they’re in] or…because [they’re] not in a relationship at all.”
“What are some of the repercussions of green-lighting a bill like this?” asks Allie.
“The California bill specifically said insurance companies can't discontinue services and there is in essence unlimited supply of IVF transfers,” says Katy, “and we already have a situation in this country where we've got one million frozen embryos in storage right now, and oftentimes the only thing that keeps that in check is cost.”
However, with “insurance funded IVF transfers … why limit the number of embryos that you're going to create?”
“It is only going to increase the amount of children who are suffering indefinitely in a freezer or who are going to perish in the gauntlet that children have to undergo between freezer and implantation and then ultimately birth,” says Katy.
Further, “it is going to massively increase the number of children that are screened for sex or for … potential genetic markers that don't seem as desirable to the adults; in essence, it is going to contribute to the increased commodification of children where they are thawed and discarded, donated to research, or spend their life forever in a freezer,” she explains.
To hear their full conversation, watch the video below.
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Want to leave a tip?
We answer to you. Help keep our content free of advertisers and big tech censorship by leaving a tip today.
News, opinion, and entertainment for people who love the American way of life.