LGBTQ+ couples forced to crowdfund paths to parenthood as insurance discriminates

Being LGBTQ+ is expensive. From greater healthcare needs and less financial support from families to limitations on where one can live and feel safe, the costs of marginalization can quickly add up.

Often, one of the most expensive endeavors for LGBTQ+ folks is building their families. Whether couples choose to use surrogacy, adoption, in vitro fertilization (IVF), or another path to parenthood, these services can be prohibitively expensive (as in, hundreds of thousands of dollars). What’s more, insurance often denies coverage to LGBTQ+ couples due to stringent definitions of what qualifies as infertility.

Related:

By the numbers (part 2): A new financial survey reveals that being LGBTQ+ is expensive

The costs of family formation, gender-affirming care, as well as name and gender marker changes create unique financial hurdles for LGBTQ+ people.

As such, couples are turning to crowdfunding platforms like GoFundMe to ask their communities for help. Kyle and Jack Maurelli recently spoke with NBC News about their decision to start a crowdfunding campaign for their surrogacy journey after their insurance company informed them they did not qualify for infertility coverage.

Never Miss a Beat

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.

Daily

Weekly

Good News

Their GoFundMe page explains that they have been together for over a decade and were married in 2019. “We successfully created embryos, however, our path to parenthood has been fraught with financial challenges due to the exorbitant expenses associated with fertility treatments like surrogacy and in vitro fertilization (IVF),” they write. “Despite both of us working tirelessly, the overwhelming burden of these costs totaling approximately 180K and climbing is proving to be an insurmountable obstacle.”

They go on to decry the insurance industry, writing that “while some insurance plans cover fertility treatments for heterosexual couples struggling with infertility, same-sex male couples like us are often left without any coverage options.”

The couple has already spent $65,000 on the fertility process, and now need $180,000 more to cover surrogacy. Despite taking on second jobs and loans against their home, they have not been able to raise the funds.

Many insurance companies, including that of the Maurellis, define infertility as someone who cannot conceive after 12 months of trying, or six months of trying if you’re over 35. This often does not apply to LGBTQ+ couples, who will never be able to conceive sexually.

“It just doesn’t feel fair; it feels discriminatory,” Jack Maurelli told NBC. “I feel like there’s a stigma that two men can’t raise a child together or that men are incapable of raising children on their own, and it’s something we want to stop.” 

Kyle Maurelli said their insurance company has told them things like, “‘You’re not infertile and your husband’s not infertile, so the two of you can naturally reproduce with females that are fertile.’”

He also noted that a straight couple struggling with infertility could have up to $100,000 of coverage for fertility treatment through his insurer, Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield.

A simple Google search will reveal that many other LGBTQ+ couples have also turned to crowdfunding platforms for help in starting their families.

But one medical group is hoping to jumpstart a change in the insurance industry.

Recently, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) Practice Committee has announced they are updating the definition of “infertility” to be more inclusive.

The new definition will include single people and same-sex couples. It will consist of anyone needing medical interventions “in order to achieve a successful pregnancy either as an individual or with a partner.”

“We made it explicit that lack of access to the kind of gametes you need is a condition deserving of treatment,” Sean Tipton, ASRM’s chief advocacy and policy officer, told CNN.

He added, “It is our hope that this definition removes one of the excuses that insurance companies have attempted to use to deny patients coverage for the medical care they need to have children.”