Nevada's new bill protecting IVF is a win for families like mine
Nineteen months ago, I held my son Hudson for the first time. His tiny fingers wrapped around mine, and in that moment, a year of heartbreak, loss, and longing faded into the background. Hudson was here and he was ours.
For families like mine, assisted reproduction is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Yet many face overwhelming financial and legal barriers just to have a chance at parenthood. That's why I am relieved and grateful that Nevada is stepping up to protect families like mine with new legislation ensuring access to assisted reproduction. This bill does more than just safeguard our reproductive rights—it protects the very existence of children like Hudson and ensures that hopeful parents won't be denied the chance to have a family of their own.
Assisted reproduction is under attack across the country, and Nevada is taking the right stand to protect families like mine. SB217 from Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro isn't just about policy—it's about real people, real children, and real futures. I support this bill because without access to fertility care, my son Hudson wouldn't be here. This bill ensures that no government entity can impose unnecessary burdens on accessing fertility treatments, fertility drugs, or other reproductive services. It guarantees that doctors can provide the care they are trained for without fear of legal retaliation. It prevents insurance companies from imposing arbitrary barriers to fertility treatments. And, perhaps most importantly, it affirms that a fertilized egg outside the womb is not a person under Nevada law—preventing dangerous legal interpretations that could disrupt access to care.
When my husband and I first began trying to conceive, we were filled with hope. We tried for a year, because they make you wait a full year before even referring you to a fertility specialist—it's right there in the paperwork. Doctor visits, fertility tests, and failed attempts left us emotionally and financially drained.
The next step was medical intervention. I started Clomid pills, my husband had Clomid shots, and we underwent countless tests for unexplained infertility. Before moving to intrauterine insemination (IUI) or IVF, my doctor suggested trying acupuncture as a less invasive option. We took that route first, but much of the process felt dictated by cost rather than medical necessity. If you could afford to go straight to egg retrieval, you did. If that was out of reach, IUI was the next best option. If even that was financially impossible, you were told to try medications and come back. The illusion of choice was frustrating—I still have all the paperwork outlining those financial hurdles.
We did what we could, hoping for the best, and whether it was the acupuncture, the medication, or just luck, Hudson finally made his way into our lives.
None of it was covered by insurance. As a type-1 diabetic, my pre-existing condition precluded my insurance from covering my procedures and testing, making an already difficult journey even more challenging. We spent $4,000 just for testing, medication, and imaging alone, before even considering more advanced treatments like IUI or IVF. Every test, every medication, every acupuncture session came out of our own pockets. We spent thousands of dollars, all while knowing that if those treatments didn't work, the financial burden of IUI or IVF would only grow. And yet, despite the pain, the cost, and the uncertainty, we had hope, because medical science gave us an opportunity that nature denied us.
But now, that hope is under attack across the country. From lawmakers trying to limit access to fertility treatments to court rulings threatening the very definition of embryos, our right to build our families through assisted reproduction is in jeopardy. We saw this happen in Alabama, where a recent court ruling classified frozen embryos as children, prompting some fertility clinics to pause operations out of fear of legal repercussions. Such policies don't just impact hypothetical scenarios; they hurt real families—families like mine.
That's why Nevada's new protections for assisted reproduction are so critical. This bill ensures that no government entity can impose unnecessary burdens on accessing fertility treatments, fertility drugs, or other reproductive services. It guarantees that doctors can provide the care they are trained for without fear of legal retaliation. It prevents insurance companies from imposing arbitrary barriers to fertility treatments. And, perhaps most importantly, it affirms that a fertilized egg outside the womb is not a person under Nevada law—preventing dangerous legal interpretations that could disrupt access to care.
For parents like me, this legislation is not about politics—it is about our children. It is about ensuring that people facing infertility or medical conditions that threaten their reproductive future still have a path to parenthood. It is about guaranteeing that no one has to hear the words 'I'm sorry, but the treatment you need is no longer available.'
Hudson is a joyful, thriving toddler who loves his TonieBox, puzzles, and snuggling up for bedtime stories. He is the reason I fight to protect access to assisted reproduction—because every child like Hudson deserves the chance to exist. Every parent who longs for a baby should have access to the medical care that makes that dream possible.
Nevada is leading the way in protecting fertility care. Other states should follow its example. Because no family should have to wonder if their child's existence is up for debate.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump's DC takeover is just Step 1 — dysfunctional capital needs a bigger fix
Last week President Donald Trump declared war on crime in Washington, DC, when he sent in the National Guard and federalized the district's police force for the 30-day period allowable under the DC Home Rule Act. Trump's motives were good: He's right that it's shameful our national capital has become one of our most dangerous cities. He's also right that DC's crime epidemic hurts America's competitiveness and prestige. But the president's month-long law enforcement takeover won't fix that problem — because the problem is not, at its core, bad law enforcement. It's the fact that DC's government has for decades now shown itself incapable of even the most basic level of public administration. Blame it, too, on Congress, which transferred control over the district to the city's own elected government in the Home Rule Act of 1973 — but has refused to admit its mistake and reverse course. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives remain aloof from the problems they created, even as federal staffers, visitors and on occasion their own members are routinely harassed and attacked by criminals on the streets and in their homes. But the US Constitution stipulates that DC is a national public resource, not a self-governing city like any other. Under the Constitution, it is Congress's responsibility to competently administrate it — and Congress has abdicated that responsibility. When the 30-day takeover period is up (assuming Congress does not renew his privileges), Trump will turn the keys back over to a capital city government that can't staff a police force, can't keep young violent offenders off the streets and can't run a functioning crime lab. District officials can't claim to have reduced crime without cooking the books, and can't protect visiting diplomats from being shot And they're not just failing at law enforcement: DC can't keep its public schools out of the basement of national performance rankings, and can't prevent huge homeless encampments from forming while thousands of district-owned public housing units go unoccupied. The only possible solution to such a crisis of mismanagement is to overturn the law that gave home rule to DC and start over from scratch. And if President Trump is serious about tackling the district's dysfunction, he should do just that. First, the president should build up some goodwill by ending his police federalization and troop occupation, preferably earlier than planned. No need to make excuses; he can simply explain that he's come to realize DC's dysfunction runs far deeper than anything a few extra officers on the streets can solve. Then he and Republican leadership should begin meeting with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to generate support for Home Rule repeal. While Trump seems to think the entire district is dead set against him, this is incorrect: Many residents, while no fans of the president, are fed up with not being able to safely walk their dogs at night. Longtime Democratic members of Congress have personally experienced the city's dangers for many years, and they all know the ordeal of their colleague Angie Craig (D-Minn.), who was assaulted in her apartment building's elevator just two years ago. If Trump were to approach this issue firmly but collaboratively, he would find the water warmer than he thinks. Legally, the argument is not a hard sell. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall have 'exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the federal district. Congress has given a 50-year trial to the notion of delegating its power to the people of DC, and that trial has unequivocally failed to produce a district that serves the interests of the federal government, the American people, or the residents themselves. Therefore, we should return to rule by Congress, as the Constitution mandates. Doing so would require a simple act of Congress, passed by both parties, that overturns the 1973 law and dismisses DC's elected representatives. A third section of the new law should establish a congressional committee to appoint exemplary city managers from cities around United States to reconstitute a competent DC government. In many American cities, like Madison, Wis., Phoenix, Ariz., and Wichita, Kan., elected officials appoint professional administrators to oversee day-to-day municipal operations. Washington, DC, should do the same — with Congress taking ultimate responsibility. Some on the left will bemoan the reversal of Home Rule as yet another federal assault on our democracy. But the District of Columbia was never intended by the Founders to be a self-governing state. It was intended to serve the interests of the country as a whole, by providing a safe and orderly place for public administration. Returning DC's governing prerogative to the people of America, not the district itself, will take us one step closer to being the republic the Founders envisioned. John Masko is a journalist specializing in business and international politics.


The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Texas House advances GOP-friendly map after weeks of Dem resistance
The Texas state House passed a new set of GOP-friendly congressional lines in a key preliminary vote on Wednesday, putting the party one step closer toward adopting a new map that sparked a redistricting arms race across the country. The lower chamber approved the new maps on party lines, 88-52, in the first of two key votes. The final passage of the map in the House is expected to take place later on Wednesday. Its likely passage marks a key victory for Republicans, who were called into a second special session by Gov. Greg Abbott (R) after efforts to pass their House map stalled during their first 30-day session when Democrats fled the state in protest. The state Senate will next need to pass the map before it heads to Abbott's desk for his signature. Republicans faced pressure from the White House earlier this year to do mid-decade redistricting as the party braces for a challenging political environment next year. The president's party traditionally faces headwinds during midterm cycles. President Trump on Tuesday urged Texas Republicans to move swiftly and pass the new congressional lines. Redistricting, which was not initially included on Abbott's call for a special session, was later added. Republicans sought to quickly pass a new map during their first special session, but Democrats fled the state to block the GOP from having a quorum — or the minimum number of lawmakers needed in order to do business. Texas Democrats rallied in California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts, drawing national attention over the issue and drawing criticism from Republicans who argued Democrats were being hypocritical about gerrymandering given several of those states also have gerrymandered maps. The redistricting battle prompted California to move forward with introducing their own set of gerrymandered congressional lines in an effort to neutralize expected gains out of Texas with their anticipated new map. A number of red and blue states could also see new House maps, too, including Florida, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri and New York. 2024 Election Coverage Earlier this week, Democrats returned to Texas during the second special session, where the passage of a new House map was all but inevitable. Democratic-aligned and civil rights groups are already getting ready to challenge Texas' maps, while Republicans are seeking to stop California from passing a new House map through a ballot initiative in November. Republicans currently hold 25 House seats in the Lone Star State, while Democrats hold 12, with one seat vacant after the late Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Texas) died in March. The new map would give the GOP the opportunity to increase their congressional delegation to 30.

Epoch Times
3 hours ago
- Epoch Times
Outspoken Advocate for Free Markets Heads to Brussels as US Ambassador to EU
At a White House ceremony on Aug. 20, Andrew Puzder, former CEO of CKE Restaurants, was sworn in by President Donald Trump as America's new ambassador to the European Union. Puzder, an outspoken critic of corporate politicization, the application of the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) framework, and the ideological influence of global asset managers over American companies, was confirmed for the position, based in Brussels, by the Senate on Aug. 2. The vote was 53–44.