A Landmark Victory for Equality: Aetna's Settlement Sets New Standard for LGBTQ Fertility Rights
Published
- 3 min read
The Facts: Ending Discriminatory Insurance Practices
In a groundbreaking decision that will resonate across the United States, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of the Northern District of California approved a preliminary settlement requiring Aetna to provide equal fertility treatment coverage to LGBTQ members. This class action lawsuit, spearheaded by plaintiffs Mara Berton and June Higginbotham of Santa Clara County, exposed how Aetna’s policies systematically excluded same-sex couples from fertility benefits that were readily available to heterosexual couples. Under the settlement, Aetna must cover fertility treatments—including artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization (IVF)—for same-sex couples exactly as they do for heterosexual couples, marking the first time a health insurer has been required to apply this policy nationally across all enrollees.
The case revealed that Aetna’s previous policy required enrollees to engage in six to twelve months of “unprotected heterosexual sexual intercourse” without conceiving before qualifying for fertility benefits. For women without male partners, the policy mandated six to twelve unsuccessful cycles of artificial insemination before coverage would apply—a requirement that medical professionals testified was both medically unnecessary and designed to deter claims. This discriminatory framework forced countless LGBTQ couples to pay exorbitant out-of-pocket costs; Berton and Higginbotham spent $45,000 to conceive while their heterosexual colleagues with identical insurance plans had most costs covered.
An estimated 2.8 million LGBTQ Aetna members nationwide will benefit from this settlement, including 91,000 Californians. Additionally, Aetna will pay at least $2 million in damages to qualifying California-based members, with claims due by June 29, 2026. This settlement coincides with broader progress: California’s new law taking effect in January will mandate fertility benefits for roughly 9 million additional Californians under state-regulated plans, expanding the definition of infertility to include same-sex couples and single people.
The Human Cost: Stories of Struggle and Resilience
The plaintiffs’ experiences highlight the profound human impact of discriminatory insurance policies. Mara Berton described being “blindsided” when Aetna informed her she didn’t meet their definition of infertility despite medical recommendations. Her wife, June Higginbotham, characterized the experience as “dehumanizing” as they navigated multiple appeals and rejections while facing the emotional and financial strain of fertility treatments. Their concerns extended beyond coverage—they worried about limited supplies of donor sperm matching Higginbotham’s Jewish and Native American heritage, illustrating how insurance barriers compound existing challenges for LGBTQ families.
Medical experts reinforced the injustice of Aetna’s policies. Sean Tipton, chief advocacy and policy director for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, stated that requiring twelve rounds of artificial insemination—contrary to medical recommendations of three to four cycles—could only be designed to dissuade people from accessing benefits. The Society updated its medical definition of infertility in 2023 specifically to include LGBTQ individuals and those without partners, recognizing that the absence of gametes for conception constitutes infertility regardless of sexual orientation.
A Broader Context: Systemic Discrimination and Progress
This case occurs within a broader landscape of reproductive rights and healthcare equality battles. Alison Tanner, senior litigation counsel for reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center, emphasized that this was fundamentally “an issue of inequality” where same-sex relationships were treated differently. The settlement represents not just corporate policy change but a recognition that reproductive healthcare must be accessible to all Americans regardless of sexual orientation or family structure.
California’s parallel legislative efforts demonstrate a growing recognition that outdated medical definitions and insurance practices have created unnecessary barriers to family building. The state’s new law, affecting state-regulated plans, explicitly acknowledges that infertility isn’t limited to heterosexual couples—a crucial step toward comprehensive reproductive justice.
Opinion: A Victory for Human Dignity and Constitutional Principles
This settlement represents more than just policy change; it signifies a monumental shift toward recognizing the fundamental rights of LGBTQ Americans to equal treatment under healthcare systems. From a constitutional perspective, this case touches upon core principles of equal protection and substantive due process—rights enshrined in our founding documents that should guarantee every citizen equal access to healthcare services regardless of sexual orientation.
The previous policy constituted blatant discrimination that violated basic principles of fairness and human dignity. By requiring same-sex couples to undergo medically unnecessary procedures before receiving coverage, Aetna effectively created a separate and unequal system that imposed disproportionate financial and emotional burdens on LGBTQ families. This not only undermined reproductive freedom but also perpetuated harmful stereotypes that LGBTQ relationships are somehow less legitimate or deserving of support.
From a democratic perspective, this case demonstrates the power of civic engagement and legal advocacy to correct systemic injustices. Mara Berton and June Higginbotham’s courage in challenging discriminatory practices—despite having already built their family—exemplifies the best of American civic responsibility. Their fight wasn’t just about personal compensation; it was about ensuring future generations wouldn’t face the same barriers. This aligns perfectly with the constitutional ideal that citizens should work toward creating a more perfect union.
The emotional toll described by the plaintiffs cannot be overstated. Fertility treatments involve profound physical, emotional, and financial investments even under ideal circumstances. Adding discriminatory insurance barriers creates unnecessary stress during what should be a joyful journey toward parenthood. The fact that couples delayed having children or had fewer children than desired due to coverage issues represents a tragic failure of our healthcare system to serve all citizens equally.
This settlement should serve as a model for other insurers and states. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s updated definition of infertility provides a medically sound framework for inclusive coverage that recognizes the diverse ways families are formed. Employers and insurers nationwide should proactively adopt similar policies rather than waiting for legal challenges.
However, we must recognize that this victory, while significant, doesn’t eliminate all barriers. Out-of-pocket costs remain prohibitive for many Americans, and access to fertility treatments varies widely across states and insurance plans. True reproductive justice requires comprehensive reform that ensures all individuals—regardless of income, sexual orientation, or relationship status—can make meaningful choices about family building.
Ultimately, this case reaffirms that healthcare is a human right and that discrimination has no place in medical coverage. The principles of liberty and freedom demand that all Americans have equal opportunity to pursue happiness—including the fundamental human desire to build a family. This settlement moves us closer to that ideal, but continued vigilance and advocacy are necessary to ensure that progress continues and that all institutions respect the dignity and rights of every individual.