{"id":14010,"date":"2017-10-23T00:06:59","date_gmt":"2017-10-23T07:06:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/politicalhat.com\/?p=14010"},"modified":"2017-10-23T00:06:59","modified_gmt":"2017-10-23T07:06:59","slug":"court-upholds-legality-of-objective-biological-reality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/2017\/10\/23\/court-upholds-legality-of-objective-biological-reality\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Upholds Legality of Objective Biological Reality"},"content":{"rendered":"

     In this day and age where biological reality is mandated<\/a> to be denied<\/a> by the courts, a refreshing statement affirming reality.<\/p>\n

\n

“In determining whether the IRS properly denied a taxpayer\u2019s 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 \u2014 and in particular, to identify, retain, compensate, and care for the women who served as an egg donor and a gestational surrogate \u2014 spent ‘for the purpose of affecting’ his body\u2019s reproductive ‘function’ within the meaning of I.R.C. \u00a7 213? And second: In answering the statutory question ‘no,’ and thus in disallowing the taxpayer\u2019s 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?<\/p>\n

“We hold that the costs of the IVF-related procedures at issue were not paid for the purpose of affecting the taxpayer\u2019s own reproductive function \u2014 and therefore are not deductible \u2014 and that the IRS did not violate the Constitution in disallowing the deduction.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

     So, what was the claim made to substantiate the claim for the tax benefit?<\/p>\n

\n

“In an effort to bring his case within Section 213(d)\u2019s terms, Mr. Morrissey contends that all of the IVF-related expenses that he incurred\u2014including the costs attributable to the identification, retention, compensation, and care of the women who served as the egg donor and the surrogate\u2014were made for the purpose of affecting his body\u2019s reproductive <\/em>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\u2014a female egg donor and a female surrogate\u2014in order to enable his own body to fulfill its reproductive function.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

     However, this would require denying actual biological reality:<\/p>\n

\n

“In Magdalin v. Commissioner \u2026 a single man who was not infertile but was (of course) unable to conceive and bear children without a woman\u2019s 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\u2019s body\u2019s own structures and functions, which ‘remained the same before and after those processes.'”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

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

\"\"

Pictured: Not Biological Reality.<\/p><\/div>\n

     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.<\/p>\n

\n

“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 fianc\u00e9e. 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\u2019s 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.'”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

     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.<\/p>\n

     The ruling then dares to explain that men and women are different when it comes the question of reproduction:<\/p>\n

\n

“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\u2014and the parties\u2019 competing contentions\u2014demand 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\u2014sperm and eggs. It is the successful combination of those two\u2014and only that combination\u2014that produces a human embryo. Critically here, within the human reproductive process, the male and female bodies have different roles and purposes\u2014each has an activity \u201cfor which [it] is specifically fitted, used, or responsible,\u201d and thus, in statutory terms, serves a distinct ‘function.’ Webster\u2019s Third<\/em>, supra<\/em>, at 920-21.<\/p>\n

“The male body\u2019s necessary function within the reproductive process is simply stated: it must produce and provide healthy sperm capable of fertilizing a female\u2019s egg. See <\/em>Mayo Clinic Staff, Male Infertility: Causes<\/em>, Mayo Clinic (Aug. 11, 2015), http:\/\/www.mayoclinic.org\/diseases-conditions\/male-infertility\/basics \/causes\/con-20033113. The female body\u2019s 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 <\/em>Mayo Clinic Staff, Female Infertility: Symptoms and Causes<\/em>, Mayo Clinic (Nov. 24, 2016) http:\/\/www.mayoclinic.org\/diseases-conditions\/female-infertility\/symptoms-causes\/dxc-20214762.<\/p>\n

“Traditionally, of course, the fertilization of a female\u2019s egg by a male\u2019s sperm occurs in vivo<\/em>, or ‘within the living’\u2014that is, during the act of heterosexual intercourse. Today, through the marvels of modern medicine, fertilization can also be accomplished in vitro<\/em>, or \u201cwithin the glass,\u201d outside the context of sex. See <\/em>Robert W. Rebar, M.D., Assisted Reproductive Techniques<\/em>, Merck Manual, http:\/\/www.merckmanuals.com\/home\/women-s-health-issues\/infertility\/assisted-reproductive-techniques. 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\u2014at which point the female body serves the same reproductive function it would following traditional in vivo <\/em>fertilization: allowing the fertilized egg to implant, sustaining the embryo\u2019s growth to viability, and safely delivering a child.<\/p>\n

“The key point for present purposes is that regardless of the method through which a man exercises his reproductive function\u2014whether inside or (as here) outside the context of heterosexual intercourse, in vivo <\/em>or in vitro<\/em>\u2014he can\u2019t 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\u2019s peculiar reproductive function is also necessary. The bottom line: the male body\u2019s distinctive function in the reproductive process is limited and discrete. With the provision (one way or the other) of healthy sperm, the male body\u2019s role is complete; it makes no further biological contribution.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

     That such basic biology (i<\/em>.e<\/em>. 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.<\/p>\n

     The ruling can be read below:<\/p>\n

\n

Morrissey v. United States<\/a> by ThePoliticalHat<\/a> on Scribd<\/p>\n