Is a lack of insurance coverage for IVF unjust?

Essentially, an insurance coverage denotes to an amount of liability or risk that is covered for an entity or an individual by way of insurance services. Currently, many countries provide generous provisions for insurance coverage for the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). However, provision of this insurance coverage has been determined to be both beneficial and detrimental. It is in this regard that this paper argues that a lack of provision of insurance coverage for the IVF is not unjust.
Reasons in favor of the thesis
I am of the opinion that there is very limited justification to argue that insurance coverage for as good and that it could enable people to pursue life projects, but there should be no one that is favored in accessing funding that are currently being provided. I refute this argument based on the following arguments;
Fertility treatment has no special claim to funding: this is because it is a disease or disability just like any other thus, should not be accorded much aid while compromising on others.
People are not entitled or rather it is not a basic right for people to be assisted with the project of making a baby of their own.
Providing fertility treatment is not a special case: this is because having kids is a good thing for the society.
Objection
In as much as a lack of provision of insurance coverage for the IVF is not unjust, there is one objection where it can be considered as unjust. That is countries or states have a reason to provide insurance coverage for the treatment of fertility for couples of the same sex. However, this should not apply to heterosexual couples.