Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Surrogacy

I know that this has been hit on several different sites lately, but I found something interesting this morning.

I stumbled on a blog of a Navy wife who has been a surrogate mother to 5 children, and also given birth to four of her own kids.

My boss, way back when, adopted a little boy, and the birth mother had insurance but wasn't able to care for the child.  There are people in the military that put their children up for adoption, should they be denied having their pregnancies paid for because the baby is going to someone else?

I mean heck, Tricare is paying for a ton of people to have babies, that don't need to be having babies.  I read one comment somewhere, where a woman said she would have done it at one point, but after 6 boys and no girls, she wouldn't be able to give up a girl.  That opens a whole other can of worms for me, so I won't go there.

Anyway, check out this blog.  Fertile Inspirations

So, is it surrogacy that you have a problem with or is it that Tricare is paying for a portion of it?
Posted by at

5 comments:

McMGrad89 said...

If both parties are military then the military should pay for it. They pay a portion of adoptions anyway (or so I heard a long time ago - don't shoot me if this is wrong.) But if the adoptive parents aren't military, TRICARE wouldn't have been paying for their pregnancy and they would be paying for medical expenses of any other adoptive mother. That should be the case with surrogacy. The military is not here to run a baby mill. When I was a kid there was no tricare, but because of the rise in medical costs, they had to come up with another plan. What happens when this system gets overburdened. What will it cost the regular serviceperson and his/her family medically. Sorry if I step on anyone's toes, but she asked.

October 19, 2010 at 5:45 PM
Jeannette said...

I think Tricare should pay for the pregnancy but maybe not the birth. They are treating the pregnant mother only until baby is born. Tricare only pays a couple thousand dollars per birth anyways. It's why they haven't bothered to search out these parents and charge them. It's not worth the cost of finding and suing them.

October 19, 2010 at 6:03 PM
Vintage Love & Photographs said...

I honestly don't know what to think..but I think that if someone can afford surrogacy then they should pay for all the medical expenses..I guess. Having said that, if I could afford to have a surrogate mother I would...30,000?? Psh. Don't have that.

I think this is one of those not black and not white issues.

October 19, 2010 at 6:25 PM
Samantha said...

I'm against Tricare paying for it... I'm against Tricare paying for dependents to have babies that aren't the sponsors; ie, a dependent child's baby shouldn't be Tricare (and thusly the Governments) financial responsibility to birth. I'm all for surrogacy though! I also understanding needing the money.... and considering the possibility.

October 19, 2010 at 7:12 PM
Amy said...

I'm torn on this issue. Mostly I lean more toward TriCare paying for the pregnancy but not the birth.

Really I think insurance companies need to modernize when it comes to this issue. People are using this as an option to have a biological child when they for some reason cannot do it alone. That child is their dependent and should be covered, IMO, by their insurance just as if the child were being carried by the person covered.

But that's just me. For now. Last night was rough, today was rough..I may not be thinking or speaking coherently.

October 19, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)