-
A GOP House candidate in Maryland opposed mandating insurance coverage for IVF for same-sex couples.
-
Then-Delegate Neil Parrott said it would create a “false sense of equality” for those couples.
-
Parrott says he supports IVF in general but was concerned about the fiscal impact of the bill.
As Maryland’s annual legislative session drew to a close in 2015, then-Delegate Neil Parrott spoke out against a bill that would require insurance companies in the state to cover in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments from married, same-sex couples.
Parrott called the bill “shockingly bad” in an email newsletter to constituents, arguing not only that it would drive up premium costs, but that it would be harmful to the children who were born into families with two mothers.
“This sort of social engineering and fiscally irresponsible law-making, solely for the pleasure of adults without any regard for the children that will grow up in these situations, is reprehensible,” Parrot wrote at the time. “What homosexuals cannot do naturally, the General Assembly has now mandated must be provided by all insurance plans, creating a false sense of equality, with little to no regard for the children who will be negatively affected.”
Parrot is now the GOP nominee for Maryland’s 6th congressional district and will face April McClain Delaney, the wife of former Rep. John Delaney, in the November election.
Forecasters generally expect McClain Delaney to prevail, but the race is likely to be competitive. The seat had been held down for several cycles by Democratic Rep. David Trone, a wealthy self-funder who unsuccessfully sought the state’s open Senate seat this year. Parrott ran against Trone in both 2020 and 2022.
Parrot told Business Insider in a statement that he is not opposed to IVF generally, but had specific concerns about the fiscal impact of the bill.
“I want to emphasize that I am a strong supporter of IVF,” Parrot said, adding that he had “serious concerns” about the bill’s “financial impact on Maryland’s already strained budget and high insurance premiums.”
“At the time, I was deeply concerned about the budget’s overall fiscal health, particularly with cuts to essential services like law enforcement and corrections, and the reduction in the state’s contributions to retirement and pension funds. In this context, adding another expensive mandate seemed fiscally irresponsible,” Parrot said. “It was not just about the cost of IVF treatments but about the broader impact on the state’s financial stability and the well-being of all Marylanders.”
Parrot did not address his 2015 newsletter comment that the bill would “negatively” affect children of same-sex couples, or that it would create a “false sense of equality.”
The bill passed both chambers in 2015 and then-Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, allowed the bill to become law without signing it. Today, Maryland is one of just seven states that mandates insurance companies cover IVF treatments for same-sex couples, though other states could soon join them. The treatment is indeed expensive, and can reach into the tens of thousands of dollars.
Parrot served in the state assembly until 2023, and during his 12 years in the state’s lower chamber, he was known as an opponent of LGBTQ+ rights. In 2020, he was one of just four delegates who voted against repealing the state’s anti-sodomy law, In 2022, he was the only delegate to vote against providing state-level veterans’ benefits to LGBTQ+ veterans who had been dishonorably discharged due to their sexual orientation. In 2012, he led the effort to put the question to a popular referendum after the Maryland Assembly passed a bill to legalize it in 2012. Ultimately, voters narrowly voted to keep the law in place.
In explaining his opposition to the IVF coverage bill in 2015, Parrott argued that children born into families with mothers and fathers are more likely to succeed economically and socially.
“By passing this law, we are intentionally putting a child into a “family” where a father will knowingly be absent,” he wrote.
He also suggested the bill could be a slippery slope toward mandating insurance companies to “cover the costs of hiring a surrogate to carry the child for male, same-sex marriages.” Such laws do not yet exist in any state, though some couples have pursued lawsuits with the intention of getting insurance companies to cover those costs.
More broadly, IVF treatments have become a partisan flash point in the last year, given that the treatment involves the fertilization of multiple embryos outside the womb, some of which may be discarded. In February, Alabama’s Supreme Court ruled fertilized embryos are people, leading to the temporary suspension of IVF treatments in the state.
That raised questions over where Republicans stood on the issue, given their general opposition to abortion and belief that life begins at conception.
A majority of House Republicans have cosponsored a “life at conception” bill stating that the term “human being” includes “all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization. The bill did not include any carveout for IVF.
Most Republicans have since moved to make clear that they support IVF, introducing bills designed to guarantee access to the fertility procedure. Roughly 2% of all births in the US come as the result of such treatments.
While Parrot says he supports IVF, he did cast a lone protest vote against extending insurance coverage for the procedure to unmarried people in 2020.
“I guess for me, going to single people instead of married people, and we are going to pay for it through our health insurance dollars, I just don’t think that’s something we should be mandating,” Parrott told WBAL. “I think it should be optional, not something we have to pay for.”
Read the original article on Business Insider
