They spent over $200K to expand their family. Doctors say it's common for LGBTQ+ couples.
Matt Tolbert and his husband Joshua Gonzales knew they wanted kids for at least a decade.
The New York thirtysomethings began their research into surrogacy and adoption and determined they'd need upwards of $100,000.
'We didn't really know how we were going to get there,' Tolbert, 36, says over a Zoom call.
But as they dove into the process, they quickly discovered the cost of surrogacy in the U.S. had increased. Estimates vary, but that cost could be as high as double or triple that $100,000 they'd planned on.
It's a common story among LGBTQ+ people who want to grow their families but face a medical system that was built for heterosexual couples.
While decades of technological advancements have improved fertility care, there's been little change to better accommodate same-sex, transgender or nonbinary couples, said Marea Goodman, a licensed midwife and founder of PregnantTogether, a virtual community for queer and solo parents.
'The history of fertility care is based in a lot of heterosexuality,' they said. 'The same tactics that they use for heterosexual people, who have been trying to conceive at home but can't, are not appropriate for the LGBTQ folks or solo parents who are accessing those same services.'
Tolbert and Gonzales face what many LGBTQ+ couples do: The fact that insurance doesn't cover their fertility journey.
Until recently, most insurance companies followed the American Society for Reproductive Medicine's definition for fertility, which defined infertility as a condition in which heterosexual couples couldn't conceive after a year of unprotected intercourse.
'If you're a gay couple, you're not infertile, or you may be, but that's not the reason for you going through fertility treatments,' Tolbert added.
In October 2023, the organization expanded that definition to include all patients who require intervention.
About two dozen states have laws mandating private insurers to cover fertility treatments, according to a KFF database. However, only Colorado, Illinois, Maine and Washington, D.C. explicitly include LGBTQ+ people. California's new law, which goes into effect July 2025, mandates coverage for IVF and expands the definition of infertility to include LGBTQ+ people.
It would only apply to larger companies with more than 100 employees. Still, it's a step in the right direction, said Dr. Mickey Coffler, reproductive endocrinologist at HRC Fertility, a network of fertility clinics in California.
'We are responsible as providers to do the best in our abilities to educate patients and make them aware of their rights because this new state bill is quite revolutionary and it's going to be very helpful,' he said.
Pride Month: What is it and why is it celebrated in June?
Between July 2024 and February 2025, Tolbert and Gonzales underwent fertility and tested for sexually transmitted infections ($652); flew to Mexico and made semen deposits ($2,380); selected an egg donor with enough frozen eggs for two IVF journeys; and made embryo transfers. Today, one of the couple's surrogate is 18 weeks along and the other nine weeks. Tolbert and Gonzales used the same egg donor so their children would be half-siblings.
The fees for their agency, donor, surrogates and other medical fees tallied $118,295, and overall, they spent $143,538 with an additional expected $78,028 for a total of $221,566.
A limited supply of egg and sperm donors, and surrogates is also partly driving rising costs for LGBTQ+ people, Coffler said. American families are also competing with international families who are seeking similar services in the U.S.
Rising fees "has become a huge barrier for these patients to be able to afford those services,' he said.
Despite the mounting costs, Tolbert and Gonzales are excited to build their family. In the meantime, they aim to showcase their journey and educate their followers along the way.
'We're sharing this not for sympathy, but for transparency,' Tolbert said in a recent TikTok video, 'and for those of you exploring similar paths to have a real-world example. Every journey is unique, and costs can vary wildly, but knowledge is power.'
Adrianna Rodriguez can be reached at adrodriguez@usatoday.com.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Infertility, IVF: How LGBTQ couples navigate a heterosexual system
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
On a big decision day, the Supreme Court sent a message about unity
Supreme Court justices sent a message to the American public on Thursday: We're not as divided as you think. Of the six rulings that were released, four were unanimous, including the opinions in high-profile battles over reverse discrimination and faith-based tax breaks. Another decision was nearly unanimous, with just one justice peeling away on one part of the ruling. And the sixth decision had just one dissent, meaning that nearly all of the justices agreed with the plan to dismiss the case as 'improvidently granted.' Here's an overview of the six rulings released on Thursday — and a look at what's still to come from the Supreme Court in June. Ruling: Unanimous In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the court was considering whether members of a majority group, such as straight, white males, should have to meet a higher burden of proof in order to make an employment discrimination claim. The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a straight, white woman, who accused her former employer of privileging LGBTQ employees during the promotion process. Ames lost in front of lower courts, but the Supreme Court overturned those decisions on Thursday. The justices unanimously said that members of majority groups should not have to meet a higher burden of proof and sent Ames' case back to the lower courts for reconsideration. The question in this case is whether ... a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' We hold that this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Smith & Wesson Brands v. Mexico, the court was asked to determine whether the Mexican government could sue seven gun manufacturers based in the U.S. over their role in unlawful gun sales in Mexico. The Supreme Court unanimously said on Thursday that the Mexican government's lawsuit cannot move forward 'because Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers.' 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales 'as in something that (they) wish to bring about,'' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the state of Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment's religious freedom protections by denying a faith-based tax break to a group of Catholic nonprofits. The nonprofits said their service to people in need was clearly motivated by Catholic teachings, but Wisconsin officials said they didn't qualify for the religious exemption to the state's unemployment tax because they did not seek to serve only Catholics or evangelize to their clients, as the Deseret News previously reported. State officials won in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which said that the Catholic nonprofits' work did not serve 'primarily religious purposes.' In Thursday's unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment by privileging certain religious beliefs and actions over others. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion.' There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In CC/Devas (Mauritius) v. Antrix, the justices were considering under what circumstances federal courts in the U.S. can assert jurisdiction over foreign states. The case stemmed from a conflict between a company that's active in the U.S. and a corporation owned by India. The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that federal courts did have jurisdiction over India in this dispute and reversed a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion. Ruling: Nearly unanimous, with one justice taking issue with one part of the majority opinion. In Blom Bank v. Honickman, the court was considering whether victims of terrorist attacks or their surviving family members could reopen their case against a bank that had allegedly aided and abetted terrorists by providing financial services. The Supreme Court ruled that the people who brought the case did not meet the high standard that must be cleared to reopen the case. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, was nearly unanimous. Eight of the justices, including Thomas, joined it in full, but Jackson only joined it in part. Ruling: Dismissed as improvidently granted, with one justice dissenting to the dismissal In Lab Corp v. Davis, the justices were considering whether a federal court can certify a class action suit if some of the parties in the suit lack legal standing. A majority of the justices decided to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, meaning that they felt the court should never have agreed to weigh in. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented to that decision, writing that he felt it was possible — and would be valuable — to rule on the case. The Supreme Court will release around two dozen more rulings throughout the month of June as it works to wrap up its 2024-25 term by early July. The justices have yet to announce their decision in four of the five cases that the Deseret News highlighted in its list of this term's highest profile battles. The Supreme Court's next decision day has not yet been announced, but it will likely be Thursday, June 12.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court revives straight woman's 'reverse discrimination' suit
June 5 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that a straight woman can move forward with her Title VII Civil Rights Act job discrimination lawsuit, which claimed "reverse discrimination." The justices voted 9-0 to side with Marlean Ames, ruling that she faced a higher burden to be able to sue for discrimination as a straight woman after she was passed up for job opportunities in favor of two LGBTQ applicants. "We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs," the court wrote. Ames sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services after she was denied a management position in favor of a lesbian woman hired for that job. She also lost out on another job at the agency when a gay man was hired instead as a program administrator. The lower court judgment was vacated and the Ames case was remanded back to the lower court to be heard applying the Supreme Court's finding. The decision said the Sixth Circuit erred when it "implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs-those who are members of majority groups-to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard." The ruling makes it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to argue "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. At issue was the "background circumstances" rule. As interpreted by the Sixth Circuit, that rule requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard in Title VII lawsuits. "Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," the Supreme Court decision said. "The Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule requires plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to bear an additional burden at step one. But the text of Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs." The Supreme Court said that provision "focuses on individuals rather than groups, barring discrimination against 'any individual' because of protected characteristics." The high court rejected Ohio's argument that the "background circumstances" rule does not subject majority-group plaintiffs to a heightened legal standard when they sue alleging discrimination under Title VII. "The 'background circumstances' rule -- which subjects all majority-group plaintiffs to the same, highly specific evidentiary standard in every case -- ignores the Court's instruction to avoid inflexible applications of the prima facie standard," the Supreme Court wrote. The Supreme Court held that "the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group." The Civil Rights Act bars discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex or national origin." Ohio maintained Ames was not chosen for the jobs in question due to her lack of the necessary vision and leadership skills, not because she was straight. A three-judge Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed that Ames would have been likely to prevail if she was a gay woman. But they ruled against her due to the higher burden created by the Sixth Circuit interpretation of the "background circumstances" rule.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
WorldPride speaker says she was denied entry to US after Cuba visit
Phyll Opoku-Gyimah, a British political and LGBTQ rights activist, said she was denied entry to the U.S. over a recent trip to Cuba. Opoku-Gyimah, also known as Lady Phyll, had been scheduled to deliver opening remarks at WorldPride's human rights conference, which runs June 4-6 in Washington. Speaking over a livestream Wednesday afternoon, Opoku-Gyimah said U.S. officials revoked her visa waiver under the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), an automated system determining whether visitors from participating countries may enter the U.S. without a visa. Travel to Cuba, which the U.S. designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 2021, is grounds for having an ESTA revoked, according to the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) website. The Caribbean nation's terror designation was briefly rescinded under former President Biden and reinstated by President Trump in January. Opoku-Gyimah said she was notified of the revocation of her travel authorization days before she was set to fly to the U.S. for WorldPride. She applied for a temporary visa, she said, but was told the earliest she could enter the country was September. 'I've called. I've written. I've pleaded,' said Opoku-Gyimah, the co-founder and CEO of UK Black Pride. 'And the answer was a cold, bureaucratic 'No.'' DHS did not immediately return a request for comment. Opoku-Gyimah's virtual remarks on Wednesday highlighted the LGBTQ community's diversity, and she encouraged WorldPride gatherers to embrace the group's intersectional identities. 'Enjoy the Pride, walk together, walk proudly and talk proudly,' she said. 'Be bold and brave in our fight for justice.' The U.K. issued a travel warning for the U.S. in March, cautioning British passport holders that 'authorities in the U.S. set and enforce entry rules strictly' and 'you may be liable to arrest or detention if you break the rules.' Other countries, including Denmark and Finland, have issued travel advisories for transgender visitors to the U.S., referencing policies instituted by the Trump administration targeting trans rights.
