R.I. Governor: First Marriage, Then Babies

Carcieri Vetoes Bill Requiring Insurers To Cover Infertility Treatments For The Unmarried

(AP)  Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri has vetoed a bill requiring health insurers to cover infertility treatments for unmarried people, saying they shouldn't be forced to subsidize out-of-wedlock births.

The Republican governor, who opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, warned that eliminating the marriage restriction would also drive up health care costs.

"As a matter of public policy, the state should be encouraging the birth of children to two-parent families, not the reverse," he said in a written statement Thursday announcing his Wednesday veto.

Two weeks ago, Carcieri permitted another bill to become law without his signature that required insurers to increase the age cap on eligible women to 42 from 40. It also required insurers to pay for infertility treatments after a couple fails to conceive or carry a pregnancy after one year of trying, instead of two.

But Carcieri balked when Democratic Rep. Edith Ajello's bill went one step further and eliminated the marriage requirement.

Ajello, a prominent supporter of gay marriage, said her legislation could benefit heterosexual couples who choose not to wed, lesbian couples barred from marrying in Rhode Island and single women. She said infertility treatment can cost as much as $20,000, making it prohibitively expensive without insurance coverage.

"I do think it's an issue of civil rights, of discrimination, of not looking at people with an equal eye," Ajello said. "I think we get into a very potentially dangerous situation when we decide who should have children and who shouldn't."

[smagboy1]

Even as a card-carrying liberal, I can't understand why any governing body or insurance company should get involved with fertility treatments. It doesn't seem to me to be a matter of health, but rather an elective procedure--like plastic surgery. Why should an insurance company be required to pay for fertility treatments for anyone, married or not? Hell, I'm not as tall as I'd like to be. Should my insurance pay for me to have treatments to increase my height?

[rohink-2009]

Good, he should have.

[blazercoach1]

Wow....look at the quote from the Democrat sponsor of the bill. Does she not realize that SHE wants to determine who can and cannot have children?? She wants to weild a power stronger than nature, evolution, natural selection, etc....

While I disagree with the Gov.'s reasoning in terms of marriage being the only reason, he's doing the right thing. Government is not responsible for people's pro-creative choices. We do not have a "right to bear children"....unless one assumes that the "right to bear arms" implies "legs, etc...as well" :)

[afmca]

Another card carrying liberal and I agree with SmagBoy1. It may not be popular ut, there are too many life style coverages now in our health care plans. This drives the price of the coverage up for all. If we, as a country, ever hope to have universal health care we have to ensure that preventive and active health care is given the highest priority.

Although I can feel for the women who wants and needs these fertility treatments, this type of procedure should be paid for by the patient not the health groups.

[brian31462]

I can see it now.... 1. Pass the law. 2. Insurance companies have to cover it. 3. Public aid recipients want to have more babies. 4. Get treatment. 5. Have more babies. 6. get more public aid.

[sandy19731]

Even as a card-carrying liberal, I can't understand why any governing body or insurance company should get involved with fertility treatments. It doesn't seem to me to be a matter of health, but rather an elective procedure--like plastic surgery. Why should an insurance company be required to pay for fertility treatments for anyone, married or not? Hell, I'm not as tall as I'd like to be. Should my insurance pay for me to have treatments to increase my height?
Posted by SmagBoy1 at 07:07 AM : Jul 20, 2007

I agree entirely, however, I am the perfect height.

[gangesdak]

I applaud the governor for finding courage to say no to these gay activists. Gay marriage is a joke. It does not have anything to do with civil rights or discrimination. They have a right to work, they have a right to housing. They have right to personal safety. That's all I could think about.

[naber1961]

another republican trying to impose his views on how people live and want it life.

[jjp735i]

The Repuclican Taliban at it once again.

[ioweign]

We do not have a "right to bear children"....unless one assumes that the "right to bear arms" implies "legs, etc...as well" :)
Posted by blazercoach1 at 08:10 AM : Jul 20, 2007

You are wrong, you do have reproductive rights.
A number of states and courts have tried to tell women, 1) If they could have children and 2) how many they can have. It is discrimination.

[briannorwood]

As a single father and widower, I resent these holier-than-thou bigots telling me that my kids are inferior because they were raised in a one-parent household.

I have news for this idiot. My family is doing just fine, thank you

[michellem99-2009]

I am a Mainer by birth. No it is not his business to tell others how they oaught live.If he is baseing it on his church/bible then sorry. If they are forced to marry just cos of a baby,it won't work. My parents were forced to marry in 54 due to me. Yep. My late grandparents forced it. Mum had to drop out of high school at 16 and at 17 Mum/Dad at 19 became parents. The marriage did not last. At 5, I went into foster care. Mum to this day hates Dad.IThey were really bad at they abused me. So think long and hard and vote the fool out. I am not for that so called same gender marriage but not for forced marriage. So I never much cared for them holier than thou/greedy folks who think they got all the answers as they don't. We would be better off if the nanny would just shut his piehole on this issue. Men...I have a male room mate. Men the safe thing to do is with breeding females is keep yer pants on then no babies. That way you gents are not forced to pay child support. I am 52.

[mudrose-2009]

As a single father and widower, I resent these holier-than-thou bigots telling me that my kids are inferior because they were raised in a one-parent household.

I have news for this idiot. My family is doing just fine, thank you
Posted by briannorwood

That's great. Means one less burden for the taxpayer. Seems the man's got his priorities straight. Thanks to the Feminists eggs get laid all over the place and the one's they don't want they abort and the others they don't want they would like to donate to stem cell research. You can thank those babes for their generous gift to humanity. Friggin Feminists. Can't stand men so they create their own society and the whole of society has to support everyone else's kid, whether dead or alive.

[candy-apple]

I agree. There should be limits on the coverage of fertility drugs with insurance. While it can be costly, having insurance pay for it drives up the cost of the premiums for those of us who can barely afford to pay for what we have now. This is an elective procedure. There are other alternatives, such as surrogacy (not paid for ny insurance) and/or adoption. Think of all of the needy children who could be helped.

[toldyouso21]

Regardless of sexual orientation or family dynamic, I do not think others should have the right or expectation to force the rest of us to financially support what is not a health essential but is a choice.

People should be allowed to live the life they wish and have civil, recognized rights to be together --they also should have the right to create what ever family dynamic they choose as long as it does no harm to society. But they should not have the right to force others to pay for their choice.

Certainly people have a right to pursue that, whether they are a one parent family, an unconventional family or a same sexxxx family. But why should anyone besides like minded and like-situational people shoulder the burden for what is a choice? When all Americans have adequate health care NOT for fake boobs or other junk but for optimal health and when all Americans have shouldered and addressed the burdens of children already here (no matter the race/color/religion) then perhaps we can move on to other issues. There are a lot of things I choose to do that are not financially subsidized by others--as part of my choice, I shoulder the burden alone to pay for them.

Perhaps those who pursue it should pay for it by themselves or else, maybe all infertile people should all pool their resources and pay together.

[toldyouso21]

She wants to weild a power stronger than nature, evolution, natural selection, etc....

Posted by blazercoach1 at 08:10 AM : Jul 20, 2007

Infertility treatments are already attempting to wield a power stronger than nature and natural selection--when they use artificial means to promote the propagation of children for infertile couples. From a strictly evolutionary point of view--when nature selects anyone or any animal out for noncontinuance--any interference that circumvents that is trying to weild a power stronger than nature and is not natural.

Be that as it may--like most stuff--if it can be done, someone will go for it--the real question is, should those of us who do not believe in this artificial route have to help pay the costs for what is not essential to life, but is mostly an essential to ego?

[weareone2]

As a liberal who never found the right person to marry, and who very much wanted children, I can understand people wanting fertility treatments, but I other people shouldn't have to pay for them. I do see the problem in the fact that many more people are passing on genetic problems than would be the case in nature. I would not withhold care from people. But reproduction is another thing. If we end up with too many people needing serious medical care to survive, how can we afford it? I would make an exception for someone like Stephen Hawking, who has contributed so much despite his paralysis.

[mountainzen]

Isn't it enough to use our tax money to support the children of poor, unwed mothers without also paying for them to become pregnant?

[toolmangler-2009]

it is not his business to tell others how they oaught live.
Posted by MichelleM99 at 12:45 PM : Jul 20, 2007


"Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri has vetoed a bill requiring health insurers to cover infertility treatments for unmarried people, saying they shouldn't be forced to subsidize out-of-wedlock births".


That is not telling you how to live, that is telling you that no one else should have to pay for your dreams or mistakes. Get the money for flights of fancy yourself.

[michellem99-2009]

I did step upto the plate years ago and demanded to be fixed so I could not bring a sick child into the world. I am sorry you took it wrong. If they can't bear children the natural way with out fancy drugs or what have you then they have to live with the fact they can't have children. I told my parents story to make a point. You can't force others to marry as that is wrong. And no I am not a feminist but a 52 year old. I think it wrong to play with nature just to have a baby. Women who don't want babies bear them and women who want babies can't bear them. FYI,I am happy not having them years ago. I think those treatments should be banned for health reasons. I told mother it is wrong to have a child just to live out your dreams and I will not play the part. I didn't. I alss told her You did not raise me. She is 70 today.

[jjreding-2009]

Another case of Republicans getting into Americans' lives - and they insist that they're the party of 'small government'.

Who is the state of Rhode Island - or any other state or entity - to say that infertility treatments should ONLY go to married couples, because that's basically what they ARE saying by insisting that private insurance shouldn't pay for the treatments.

There are many reasons why an unmarried woman might want to have a child but can't without those treatments, and we know they are very expensive to begin with.

This is just another front on the Republican's assault on our freedoms.

[toldyouso21]

There are many reasons why an unmarried woman might want to have a child but can't without those treatments, and we know they are very expensive to begin with. Posted by jjreding at 05:45 PM : Jul 20, 2007

Indeed there may be many reasons. But there are NO reasons that should compell the rest of us to have to help her pay for what she wants. Her "rights end" where the rest of our rights begin, we should not have to pay for any woman to have help getting pregnant, because by extension, if that burden is for the public, then so is taking care of her child if she cannot or for some reason chooses not to.

My sister cannot have children. Nor can my brother's wife. If they want them--good luck. But not on the rest of the country's dime. A want is not a need and we should not pay for wants. But if you think we must, then I want mine in 100 million unmarked real US Dollars, put in an offshore account with my name on it.

[michellem99-2009]

Did you know in WA state a man and woman can't legally marry if they CAN'T bear children. It is dumb. It counts out everybody but breeding people. There is so much abuse to children born in some marriages. So they end up in foster care that is no better and worse. How do one know that them costly treatments don't have their problems.There are too many unwanted children as it is in this nation. There is too many people in the world .They throw a fit if a unborn is a borted. They had a term for out of weblock kids bas.****. I was shocked when teacher called a boy this in lessons in front of him and us. It was rude. The only reason to marry was so children don't carry this label and I don't have that label. To pass on father's name on a son. Girls bear it too . Now them treatments creat multi births at once and if they let nature do it then fine. Little girls are taught this she must have a child to be a woman,man demands it of her, that is her only duty to have a family. Why do you think Mummy gives her the dollie to be like her. I knew a woman who had to have them removed and she carried on like this. She went to pieces over this issue. Females years ago could not handle childless and it is the same now. A baby does not make a girl a woman. This is such a baby programming that woman who can't have will do anything to have it. Girls should be taught that ia nothing nothing wrorng with being childless as some are. That is just the way it is.

[rulesrmade2b]

"Did you know in WA state a man and woman can't legally marry if they CAN'T bear children. It is dumb. It counts out everybody but breeding people." posted by MichelleM99


I find this hard to believe...where did you get your information from?

[michellem99-2009]

I live in WA state and it was on the news here in Feb of this year. Marriage is for having babies only in WA. I went thru the change of life so people who can't bear children are barred even a man and woman from marriage. That is no bull. I am 52. The same gender wanted to marry so it went to man and woman who is childless well.