A GOP House candidate opposed IVF coverage for same-sex couples, once saying it would create a ‘false sense of equality’

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.”