Telegraph subs, report for your beating

Lesbian couple win legal battle after being denied IVF treatment that would have been given to same-sex parents

Rachel Morgan (L) and Laura Hineson (R) won a legal fight on the issue CREDIT: SUPPLIED
Stephen Walter
13 DECEMBER 2017 • 9:24PM
A lesbian couple who wanted a baby were discriminated against over their sexuality after being denied access to funded IVF treatment which would have been given to same-sex partners.

Laura Hineson and Rachel Morgan were told by their local NHS Clinical Commissioning Group they would have to spend £6,000 on six rounds of intrauterine insemination due to unexplained infertility.

However, under Barnsley CCG’s policy, a heterosexual couple with similarly unexplained infertility would not need to undergo the same procedure before being granted access to IVF treatment.

A “heterosexual couple” would generally not be a “same sex couple”.

29 comments on “Telegraph subs, report for your beating

  1. Ah, but in our progressive, politically correct new world we must presume & have equality. So we must presume there’s an equal likelihood of one of the members of a heterosexual couple being tranny. And of course, whatever sex a person chooses to adopt must be recognised. Ergo all heterosexual couples should be considered same sex couples.
    QED

  2. Although I did think this passage was rather good:

    “Laura Hineson and Rachel Morgan were told by their local NHS Clinical Commissioning Group they would have to spend £6,000 on six rounds of intrauterine insemination due to unexplained infertility.”

    A pair of dykes have been unsuccessfully trying to inseminate each other. Yes, that they have failed is a complete & inexplicable mystery.

  3. they would have to spend £6,000 on six rounds of intrauterine insemination due to unexplained infertility.

    Q: “Do either of you own a male reproductive system?”
    A: “No”
    Q: “Your unexplained infertility, explained.”

  4. they would have to spend £6,000 on six rounds of intrauterine insemination due to unexplained infertility.

    Sex education for two year olds doesn’t seem to have “raised awareness” of sex, has it? Are we teaching them so early now that they don’t understand it and forget it all by the time they are four, so ending up with nonsense like the above?

  5. I’ve had another look at this.
    Maybe Laura or Rachel was originally Larry or Richard. Or even both. In today’s world we must be open minded & not make assumptions.

  6. A lesbian couple who wanted a baby were discriminated against

    Yes. We should discriminate against lesbians when it comes to IVF though, should we not?

    Because the children are what’s important, not your yoomin right to have a sprog. And children need a mummy and a daddy, not two butch women with a life-sized carboard cutout of Clare Balding in the bedroom.

  7. Again, no one is disputing these ladies’ right to pretend they are in a childbearing relationship. The controversy is that they insist on their “right” to be made whole (by strangers) against the obvious consequences of their game of pretend.

  8. SS2, you never learn. NIV will be along shortly with his fucking links to spurious studies that no one ever reads to show you just how wrong we all are.

  9. “SS2, you never learn. NIV will be along shortly with his fucking links to spurious studies that no one ever reads to show you just how wrong we all are.”

    Quite.
    If you didn’t want to discuss it, you wouldn’t discuss it so much.

  10. > Rachel Morgan ( L ) and Laura Hineson ( R ) …

    I momentarily assumed this was an American story, and that the ( R ) denoted a Republican politician. By inference, ( L ) must be a Liberal. The idea of two such people forming a lesbian relationship is most amusing.

  11. “Christ, it’s like saying ‘Candyman’ three times in front of a mirror….”

    Yes. 🙂

    One has to presume that if you do, knowing what’s going to happen, you actually wanted the consequences.

    Happy to oblige.

  12. Lesbian couple Laura and Rachel were told [they needed] six rounds of intrauterine insemination due to unexplained infertility.

    .

    Unexplained? Neither have testicles to produce the necessary sperm.

    Sadly, NHS caved in – Ms May, grow a pair and stop the insanity in UK public sector.

  13. “Unexplained? Neither have testicles to produce the necessary sperm.”

    I suspect what they’re talking about is that they had both tried the ‘turkey baster’ approach (private medical artificial insemination), and it didn’t work (“unexplained infertility”), so they applied to the NHS for IVF. If they’d been hetero they’d have got it straight off, but because they weren’t they were going to get charged £6k for the NHS to try their own turkey baster first.

    It might be arguable whether it was worth trying given the couple had already tried it and failed – presumably it’s cheaper than IVF, and they might have been doing it wrong – but the basic problem was they were making a distinction between same-sex and different-sex couples. Had the NHS been charging all the different-sex couples £6k as well, they’d have been free and clear. But they weren’t. And they evidently didn’t have a good technical excuse for doing so.

  14. I still struggle to understand why IVF is available on the cash constrained NHS to anyone. Let alone the rest of the ‘lifestyle’ ops

  15. @Mark T, December 15, 2017 at 5:19 am

    I still struggle to understand why IVF is available on the cash constrained NHS to anyone. Let alone the rest of the ‘lifestyle’ ops

    Agree, IVF should Not be available from NHS. Progeny are a choice and not something the state should pay for or subsidise using taxpayers’ money.

  16. “Progeny are a choice and not something the state should pay for or subsidise using taxpayers’ money.”

    And maternity hospitals. And sports injury clinics. And pumping out Friday night drunks…

  17. @NiV

    You are citing consequences of personal choices, not taxpayer paying for a personal choice with ongoing taxpayer costs.

    One of those ongoing costs to taxpayers being Maternity Hospital use.

    There is a clear dfference.@NiV

    You are citing consequences of personal choices, not taxpayer paying for a personal choice with ongoing taxpayer costs.

    One of those ongoing costs to taxpayers being Maternity Hospital use. Others inc immunisaion, child benefit, school……

    There is a clear dfference.@NiV

    You are citing consequences of personal choices, not taxpayer paying for a personal choice with ongoing taxpayer costs.

    One of those ongoing costs to taxpayers being Maternity Hospital use. Others inc immunisaion, child benefit, school……

    There is a clear difference.

  18. “You are citing consequences of personal choices, not taxpayer paying for a personal choice with ongoing taxpayer costs.”

    What? I’m unclear on the distinction you’re trying to make. Are you saying that maternity hospitals and sports injury clinics are not ongoing costs for the taxpayer?

    Or are you trying to say there’s a difference between the costs of a personal choice and the costs of the consequences of a personal choice? What’s the difference, and why is it relevant?

    I’m not arguing, I just don’t understand what you mean.

  19. State via taxpayer extortion paying for procreation using IVF; then State via taxpayer extortion paying for ongoing costs of procreation.

    vs

    State via taxpayer extortion does not pay for normal pregnancies by paying couples to have sex; nor does State via taxpayer extortion pay for people to play recreational sport.

    There is a difference, step back and ponder.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.