GOP House candidate opposed IVF protections for same-sex couples, once saying it would create a “false sense of equality”

• A GOP House candidate in Maryland opposed mandating insurance coverage for IVF for same-sex couples.

• Then-councillor Neil Parrott said it would create a “false sense of equality” for these couples.

• Parrott says she supports IVF in general, but was concerned about the bill’s tax implications.

As Maryland’s annual legislative session drew to a close in 2015, then-Councilman Neil Parrott opposed a bill that would have required state insurance companies to cover in vitro fertilization treatments for same-sex couples.

Parrott called the bill “shockingly bad” in an email newsletter to constituents, arguing that it would not only increase premium costs, but would be harmful to children born into two-mother families.

“Such social engineering and fiscally irresponsible legislation, solely for the pleasure of adults without considering the children growing up in these situations, is to be condemned,” Parrot wrote at the time. “What homosexuals cannot do naturally, the General Assembly has now mandated that all insurance plans must offer it, which creates a false sense of equality without regard for the children who are adversely affected.”

Parrot is now the GOP candidate for Maryland’s 6th Congressional District and will face April McClain Delaney, wife of former Rep. John Delaney, in the November election.

Prognosticators generally expect McClain Delaney to win, but the race is likely to be competitive. Democratic Rep. David Trone, a wealthy self-funder who unsuccessfully sought an open state Senate seat this year, had held the seat for several terms. Parrott ran against Trone in both 2020 and 2022.

Parrot told Business Insider in a statement that he was not against IVF in general, but had specific concerns about the tax implications 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 overall fiscal health of the budget, particularly the cuts to essential services such as law enforcement and corrections, and the reduction in payments to state pensions and pension funds. In this context, adding another expensive mandate seemed fiscally irresponsible,” Parrot said. “It wasn’t just about the cost of IVF treatments, it was about the broader impact on the state’s economic stability and the well-being of all Marylanders.”

Parrot did not address a comment in its 2015 newsletter that the bill would “negatively” affect children of same-sex couples or create a “false sense of equality.”

The bill was passed in both chambers in 2015 and the then-Gov. Republican Larry Hogan allowed the bill to become law without signing it. Today, Maryland is one of seven states that require insurance companies to cover IVF treatments for same-sex couples, though other states may soon join them. The treatment is really expensive and can reach tens of thousands of dollars.

Parrot served in the state Assembly until 2023, and during his 12 years in the state House of Representatives, he became known as an opponent of LGBTQ+ rights. In 2020, he was one of only four representatives to vote against repealing the state’s anti-sodomy law. In 2022, he was the only representative to vote to grant state-level veterans benefits to LGBTQ+ veterans who had been dishonorably discharged because of them. sexual orientation. In 2012, he led an effort to put the issue to a referendum after the Maryland Assembly passed a bill to legalize it in 2012. In the end, voters narrowly voted to keep the law.

Explaining his opposition to IVF legislation in 2015, Parrott argued that children born to single-parent families are more likely to succeed financially and socially.

“By passing this law, we willfully place the child in a ‘family’ from which the father is knowingly absent,” he wrote.

He also suggested the bill could be a slippery slope toward requiring insurance companies to “cover the cost of hiring a surrogate to carry a child in male same-sex marriages.” No state yet has such laws, although some couples have filed lawsuits to get insurance companies to cover these costs.

More broadly, IVF treatments have become a partisan flashpoint over the past year because the treatment involves fertilizing multiple embryos outside the womb, some of which may be discarded. In February, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that fertilized embryos are human, leading to a temporary suspension of IVF treatment in the state.

This raised questions about where Republicans stood on the issue, as they generally oppose abortion and believe that life begins at conception.

A majority of House Republicans have supported the “life at conception” bill, which says the term “human being” includes “all stages of life, including the moment of conception. The bill did not include restrictions on IVF.”

Most Republicans have since made it clear they support IVF and have introduced bills aimed at guaranteeing access to fertility. About 2% of all births in the United States occur as a result of such treatments.

Although Parrot says he supports IVF, he voted against the lone protest ballot measure to extend insurance coverage to single people in 2020.

“I think I’m going to go to single people instead of married people and we’ll pay for it with our health insurance dollars, I just don’t think we should mandate it,” Parrott told WBAL. “I think it should be optional, not something we have to pay for.”

Read the original article on Business Insider