text: Based on the statistics presented in earlier discussions, there is controversy with regard to a perceived lack of diversity within the donor sperm pool of many sperm banks. This includes, but is not limited to, height requirements implemented by some sperm banks. As a result, it is alleged that potential sperm recipients often encounter very limited sperm donor pool options. Lack of diversity results in very limited choices especially among ethnic minorities within the United States. Whenever an individual chooses to specify their preferred donor background, the number of available options (sperm donors that meet the particular individuals criteria) can dwindle down to the low single digits. Scott Brown from California Cryobank admitted: "We dont get as many minority applicants as we [would] like." Even after numerous attempts to reach out to numerous ethnic communities, the response can be nearly nonexistent.
  At the California Cryoback, Brown mentions that one out of 100 would be able to become final sperm donor while Ottey from the Fairfax Cryobank mentions one out of 200 would be able to become ultimate sperm donors. In addition, locations of the California Cryobank are in Los Angeles, Los Altos, California; mid-Manhattan, and Cambridge Massachusetts. These locations are known to have a population with higher socioeconomic latitude and being more likely to afford the services. Moreover, one of the requirements includes the potential sperm donor to be able to live nearby the sperm bank in order to provide samples once to twice a month for at least a term of six months. This could create potential barriers for populations who are at socioeconomic disadvantage and do not have their own forms of transportation; often having to rely on multiple forms of public transportation to reach certain places. This factor could cause a significant decrease in the sperm donor pool and less diverse availability for sperm recipients.
  Some controversy stems from the fact that donors father children for others, in the majority of cases, for single people or same-sex couples, but usually take no part in the upbringing of such children. The issue of sperm banks providing fertility services to single women and coupled lesbians so that they can have their own biological children by a donor is itself, often controversial in some jurisdictions but in many countries where sperm banks operate, this group form the main body of recipients. Donors usually do not have a say in who may be a recipient of their sperm.
  Another controversy centers around the use of sperm posthumously, or after the death of the sperm donor, as pioneered by California Cryobank. Within the United States, there were differences when it came to a child conceived after the fathers death and the eligibility for survivors benefits. Under California law, there was one court case (Vernoff vs. Astrue) in which the mothers child (conceived after the fathers death) was not eligible for the survivors benefits. However, Arizona courts had a different approach when it came to children who were born after fathers death that the children are eligible for the survivors benefits. There were numerous other stories of similar situations across different states in the United States and even the United Kingdom. Canada, France, Germany, and Sweden do not permit the retrieval use of sperm posthumously.