Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo recently vetoed Senate Bill 217, and while the topic may sound technical – assisted reproduction and insurance mandates – his reasons come down to simple, common-sense principles: protect taxpayers, keep courts in check, and don’t let vague laws create costly consequences.
SB 217 aimed to create new legal protections and insurance requirements related to fertility services like in vitro fertilization (IVF), sperm and egg preservation, and related treatments.
Supporters said the bill would expand reproductive rights and access to care.
But Governor Lombardo saw serious problems with how it was written – and the long-term impact it could have on Nevada families, small businesses, and the state itself.
Here’s what the bill tried to do – and why the governor said “not so fast.”
- Lawsuits First, Public Process Later? Not a Good Trade
One of the governor’s biggest concerns was how the bill opened the door for people and organizations to sue state and local governments anytime they believed their access to fertility-related care was being “substantially burdened.”
That phrase – “substantially burdened” – might sound clear, but it isn’t.
In fact, it’s a legal gray area. The governor warned that this kind of wording is wide open to interpretation and could allow almost any disagreement to turn into a costly lawsuit.
More importantly, it gives judges – not lawmakers elected by voters – the power to decide sensitive policy issues.
As Governor Lombardo explained in his veto message, “Courts should not be tasked with making budgetary or legislative decisions under the guise of constitutional interpretation.”
In other words: decisions about public spending and lawmaking should happen through elected officials – not behind courtroom doors.
- Insurance Mandates Without a Price Tag
SB 217 also would have required both public and private health insurance plans – including those offered by local governments and small businesses – to cover a wide range of fertility treatments and preservation services.
It also gave pregnant individuals special enrollment periods, even outside the usual open enrollment windows.
While that sounds helpful on the surface, it comes with a hidden cost: insurance premiums could rise for everyone, including people who don’t use these services.
And taxpayers could end up footing the bill for state and local employee plans, without a clear idea of how much it would cost or how to pay for it.
Governor Lombardo made it clear that he’s not against fertility care – but he opposes passing expensive mandates without a funding plan.
“The fiscal impact of SB 217 is not only unknown, but potentially very substantial,” he wrote.
That kind of open-ended spending doesn’t sit well with fiscal conservatives – or many everyday Nevadans – who are already concerned about inflation, rising insurance premiums, and government overreach.
- The Courts Are Not a Legislature
A major theme in the governor’s veto was protecting the role of the Legislature.
SB 217 would have let the courts step in and overrule laws and policies if they were found to interfere with assisted reproduction – even if those laws were passed legally and with public input.
Governor Lombardo warned this would shift power away from elected representatives and give unelected judges control over policy, funding, and regulations – something he called “an inappropriate delegation of legislative authority.”
For those who believe in limited government, checks and balances, and rule of law, that’s a serious red flag.
What Supporters Say
Backers of SB 217 argued the bill was about fairness, especially for couples facing infertility or undergoing cancer treatments that could affect fertility.
Some said it would protect access to care in case future laws limited IVF or related services.
They also said the bill was necessary after recent national court rulings raised questions about reproductive rights, and that Nevada should take steps to protect these medical options.
But even many who support the goals of the bill admit it was written in a broad, sweeping way that left room for unintended consequences.
Why the Veto Matters
Governor Lombardo didn’t veto SB 217 because he’s against IVF or helping people start families. Quite the opposite.
His concerns were about how the bill was written and what it could mean for Nevada’s legal system, state budget, and health insurance market.
By saying no to this version of the bill, he’s asking lawmakers to come back with a version that’s more precise, more responsible, and more respectful of the balance between rights, responsibilities, and costs.
In times like these – when trust in government is low and people are stretched thin financially – it makes sense to take a cautious, careful approach. That’s exactly what the governor did.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
