Court Upholds Legality of Objective Biological Reality

     In this day and age where biological reality is mandated to be denied by the courts, a refreshing statement affirming reality.

“In determining whether the IRS properly denied a taxpayer’s claimed deduction on his 2011 return, we must decide two important and (as it turns out) interesting questions. First up: Was the money that a homosexual man paid to father children through in vitro fertilization — and in particular, to identify, retain, compensate, and care for the women who served as an egg donor and a gestational surrogate — spent ‘for the purpose of affecting’ his body’s reproductive ‘function’ within the meaning of I.R.C. § 213? And second: In answering the statutory question ‘no,’ and thus in disallowing the taxpayer’s deduction of his IVF-related expenses, did the IRS violate his right to equal protection of the laws either by infringing a ‘fundamental right’ or by engaging in unconstitutional discrimination?

“We hold that the costs of the IVF-related procedures at issue were not paid for the purpose of affecting the taxpayer’s own reproductive function — and therefore are not deductible — and that the IRS did not violate the Constitution in disallowing the deduction.”

     So, what was the claim made to substantiate the claim for the tax benefit?

“In an effort to bring his case within Section 213(d)’s terms, Mr. Morrissey contends that all of the IVF-related expenses that he incurred—including the costs attributable to the identification, retention, compensation, and care of the women who served as the egg donor and the surrogate—were made for the purpose of affecting his body’s reproductive function. Br. of Appellant at 6. In particular, Mr. Morrissey asserts that because he and his male partner are physiologically incapable of reproducing together, IVF was his only means of fathering his own biological children. Accordingly, Mr. Morrissey claims, it was medically necessary to involve third parties—a female egg donor and a female surrogate—in order to enable his own body to fulfill its reproductive function.”

     However, this would require denying actual biological reality:

“In Magdalin v. Commissioner … a single man who was not infertile but was (of course) unable to conceive and bear children without a woman’s participation sought to claim deductions of IVF-related expenses for an egg donor and a surrogate. The Tax Court held that the donor- and surrogacy-related IVF processes had not ‘affected’ the taxpayer’s body’s own structures and functions, which ‘remained the same before and after those processes.'”

     Indeed, it is not that the man couldn’t be able to successfully engage in a “reproductive function”, it is that he wouldn’t by choice do so.

Pictured: Not Biological Reality.

     Even the claim that equality in marriage has not bearing since not only neither the egg donor nor surrogate was the man nor a spouse of said man, but that same denial of tax benefit was applied to a man and his fiancee.

“Similarly, in Longino v. Commissioner, the Tax Court addressed the deductibility of IVF-related costs that a fertile male taxpayer had incurred on behalf of his fiancée. The court held that the expenses were not deductible because (as relevant here) they were not made for the purpose of affecting the structure or function of the taxpayer’s own body. This Court affirmed on the ground that the Tax Court had found that the taxpayer ‘had presented no evidence that any of the alleged care involved him, his spouse, or a dependent.'”

     Thus, regardless of the composition of a marriage, costs spent on someone outside that confine is not applicable, regardless of whether that composition is of two people of the same sex or of the opposite sex.

     The ruling then dares to explain that men and women are different when it comes the question of reproduction:

“We begin, of necessity, with a primer on the science of human reproduction. (Some of this must surely seem so obvious as not to require restatement, but the circumstances of the case—and the parties’ competing contentions—demand a brief refresher. So here goes.) It is a biological fact that unlike some lower organisms that reproduce asexually through fission, budding, or the like, human beings reproduce sexually. It is also a biological fact that human sexual reproduction requires, in particular, the involvement of both male and female gametes—sperm and eggs. It is the successful combination of those two—and only that combination—that produces a human embryo. Critically here, within the human reproductive process, the male and female bodies have different roles and purposes—each has an activity “for which [it] is specifically fitted, used, or responsible,” and thus, in statutory terms, serves a distinct ‘function.’ Webster’s Third, supra, at 920-21.

“The male body’s necessary function within the reproductive process is simply stated: it must produce and provide healthy sperm capable of fertilizing a female’s egg. See Mayo Clinic Staff, Male Infertility: Causes, Mayo Clinic (Aug. 11, 2015), /causes/con-20033113. The female body’s function is more robust. It must first produce and provide at least one healthy egg capable of being fertilized, and then, following successful fertilization, allow that egg to implant in the lining of the uterus, sustain the growth of the embryo to viability, and finally, safely deliver a child. See Mayo Clinic Staff, Female Infertility: Symptoms and Causes, Mayo Clinic (Nov. 24, 2016)

“Traditionally, of course, the fertilization of a female’s egg by a male’s sperm occurs in vivo, or ‘within the living’—that is, during the act of heterosexual intercourse. Today, through the marvels of modern medicine, fertilization can also be accomplished in vitro, or “within the glass,” outside the context of sex. See Robert W. Rebar, M.D., Assisted Reproductive Techniques, Merck Manual, There, rather than the sperm and egg being united during intercourse, they are retrieved separately and then either ‘mixed’ in a culture dish or, as happened here, combined by injecting sperm directly into an egg. If successful fertilization occurs, the fertilized egg is incubated for several days and then transferred to the uterus of either the mother or (as here) a gestational surrogate—at which point the female body serves the same reproductive function it would following traditional in vivo fertilization: allowing the fertilized egg to implant, sustaining the embryo’s growth to viability, and safely delivering a child.

“The key point for present purposes is that regardless of the method through which a man exercises his reproductive function—whether inside or (as here) outside the context of heterosexual intercourse, in vivo or in vitro—he can’t reproduce on his own. In either case, a father contributes to the reproductive process by the provision of healthy sperm. His provision of that sperm is a necessary condition to reproduction, but not a sufficient condition; the cooperative involvement of a female body’s peculiar reproductive function is also necessary. The bottom line: the male body’s distinctive function in the reproductive process is limited and discrete. With the provision (one way or the other) of healthy sperm, the male body’s role is complete; it makes no further biological contribution.”

     That such basic biology (i.e. the “bird n’ the bees”) must be stated in such a detailed manner, goes to show how much the push for “Gay Marriage” rests on denying basic and objective biological reality.

     The ruling can be read below:

Morrissey v. United States by ThePoliticalHat on Scribd

     Hat Tip: TaxProf Blog.

This entry was posted in Healthcare, Progressives and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Court Upholds Legality of Objective Biological Reality

  1. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 10.23.17 : The Other McCain