As Maryland’s annual legislative session drew to a close in 2015, then-Delegate Neil Parrott spoke out against a bill that would have required insurance companies in the state to cover in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments by married couples, of the same sex.
Parrott called the bill “shockingly bad” in an email newsletter to voters, arguing not only would it raise premium costs, but that it would be harmful to children born to two-mother families.
“This kind of social engineering and fiscally irresponsible lawmaking, solely for the pleasure of adults, with no regard for the children who will grow up in these situations, is reprehensible,” Parrot wrote at the time. “What homosexuals cannot do naturally, the General Assembly has now mandated, must be provided by all insurance plans, creating a false sense of equality, with little or no regard for the children who will be adversely affected.”
Parrot is now the GOP candidate for Maryland’s 6th Congressional District and will face April McClain Delaney, wife of former Rep. John Delaney, in the November election.
Prognosticators generally expect McClain Delaney to prevail, but the race is likely to be competitive. The seat was held for several cycles by Democratic Rep. David Trone, a wealthy self-funder who unsuccessfully sought the open state Senate seat this year. Parrott ran against Trone in 2020 and 2022.
Parrot told Business Insider in a statement that he is not opposed to IVF in general, but had specific concerns about the bill’s fiscal impact.
“I want to emphasize that I am a strong supporter of IVF,” Parrot said, adding that he had “serious concerns” about the bill’s “financial impact on Maryland’s already strained budget and high insurance premiums.”
“At the time, I was deeply concerned about the overall fiscal health of the budget, particularly with cuts to essential services like law enforcement and corrections, and reductions in state contributions to pension and pension funds. In that context, adding a another expensive term. Fiscally irresponsible,” Parrot said. “It wasn’t just about the cost of IVF treatments, but about the broader impact on the state’s financial stability and the well-being of all Marylanders.”
Parrot did not address his 2015 newsletter comment that the bill would “adversely” affect children of same-sex couples, or that it would create a “false sense of equality.”
The bill passed both houses in 2015 and at that time Govt. Larry Hogan, a Republican, allowed the bill to become law without signing it. Today, Maryland is one of only seven states that mandates insurance companies cover IVF treatments for same-sex couples, though other states may soon join them. Treatment is really expensive and can run into the tens of thousands of dollars.
Parrot served in the state assembly until 2023, and during his 12 years in the state lower house, he was known as an opponent of LGBTQ+ rights. In 2020, he was one of only four delegates to vote against repealing the state’s anti-sodomy law, in 2022, he was the only delegate to vote against providing veterans benefits at the state level to LGBTQ+ veterans who had been discharged dishonest because of sexual orientation. In 2012, he led efforts to put the issue to a popular referendum after the Maryland Assembly passed a bill to legalize it in 2012. Ultimately, voters voted narrowly to keep the law in place.
Then-Exit. Neil Parrot in the Maryland State House in 2019. Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Explaining his opposition to the IVF coverage bill in 2015, Parrott argued that children born to single mothers and fathers are more likely to succeed economically and socially.
“With the adoption of this law, we are deliberately placing a child in a “family” where the father will consciously be absent,” he wrote.
He also suggested the bill could be a slippery slope toward forcing 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, although some couples have pursued lawsuits to get insurance companies to cover those costs.
More broadly, IVF treatments have become a partisan flashpoint in recent years, given that the treatment involves fertilizing multiple embryos outside the womb, some of which may be discarded. In February, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that fertilized embryos are human, leading to the temporary suspension of IVF treatments in the state.
That raised questions about 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 supported a “life in conception” bill stating that the term “human being” includes “all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization. The bill did not include any provision for IVF.” .
Most Republicans have since moved to make clear they support IVF, introducing bills designed to guarantee access to the fertility procedure. Approximately 2% of all births in the US result from such treatments.
While Parrot says he supports IVF, he cast a single protest vote against expanding insurance coverage for the procedure to unmarried people in 2020.
“I think for me, going to singles instead of married, and we’re going to pay for it through our health insurance dollars, I just don’t think that’s something we should be forcing,” Parrott told WBAL. “I think it should be optional, not something we have to pay for.”