In a lawsuit filed on Thursday, a former assistant district attorney, Corey Briskin, and his husband are taking legal action against New York City, arguing that the city's policy of providing in vitro fertilization (IVF) coverage only to women is discriminatory. The couple claims that this policy has forced them to postpone their plans for IVF due to the lack of financial support.

Currently, New York City's policy only covers IVF procedures if the employee or their partner is infertile. However, the city council is considering legislation that would mandate IVF coverage for all employees, regardless of marital status or sexual orientation, according to Reuters.

Peter Romer-Friedman, a lawyer representing Briskin and his husband, stated, "No court has yet opined on the issue of whether gay men can be denied IVF benefits given to other employees." The lawsuit argues that denying IVF coverage to gay men violates the city's guarantees against discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well as the equal rights and due process protections enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

The issue of IVF coverage has recently gained attention due to its interaction with abortion restrictions. A ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court led three state fertility clinics to halt IVF services. This prompted a response from national Republicans, with some voicing support for IVF, while others suggested that it should be left to individual states to decide.

Democrats, on the other hand, have used the Alabama ruling as a political weapon against the right, alleging that Republicans would restrict IVF access and reproductive health measures nationwide. However, conservatives have denied this claim.

The high cost of IVF treatment is also a significant factor. Just one cycle of IVF can range between $15,000 and $30,000, depending on the clinic and the individual's medical history. Briskin and other gay male employees would only be able to access IVF through surrogacy, further complicating the financial burden.

As this lawsuit unfolds, it may bring attention to the broader issue of IVF coverage and discrimination against gay men. It remains to be seen how courts will interpret the intersection of IVF benefits, sexual orientation, and constitutional protections.