Let me set the record straight on IVF

In politics, as in life, the facts matter, and too often the media is all too happy to take the Democrats' side of the story without checking the facts.

I was disappointed to see the Portsmouth Herald publish an in-depth article about IVF on March 19th, which contained misleading reporting about my record from my Democratic opposition, without giving me the chance to respond. So, accordingly, I feel it is important to explain what the facts are for voters so they have all the information as they are evaluating my stance on this issue. As they say, there are two sides to every story.

First, let me be clear that I fully support IVF and will always protect access to it for New Hampshire families.

Second, it is wrong to characterize the bill I cosponsored in 2011, or the vote I took on an amendment to the Affordable Care Act in 2012, as limiting IVF access for women and families. Neither piece of legislation mentioned IVF, and in fact, neither did the Portsmouth Herald mention IVF when they covered the legislative debate at the time.

The fact is that the Democrats are trying to rewrite my record a decade after the fact to scare women into thinking I am not supportive of IVF, when that couldn't be further from the truth. What my opponents conveniently left out in their attacks, and don't want to talk about, is that the Affordable Care Act does not mandate insurance coverage for IVF at all.

Yes, you read that right. What the Democrats are not telling you is that Obamacare does not, and never has, mandated that insurance companies cover IVF. This is why New Hampshire rightly took the step of mandating coverage for fertility treatments on state plans − a move I fully support.

The pieces of legislation that I supported, that are being misrepresented more than a decade after the fact, were about protecting the right to religious freedom enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution and protected by federal law, which was under attack by the Obama administration to force certain organizations to pay for coverage that violated their religious beliefs. In fact, in 2014 this issue went to the United States Supreme Court, and they ruled against the Obama administration. Unlike the Democrats, I will always put the Constitution first.

I think it was quite irresponsible to write a piece about my record that was designed to scare women who have had IVF and the families that intend to use IVF without my ability to address these charges prior to publication.

That's enough about the past, let's talk about the future. As governor, I will preserve access to IVF and fight any restrictions in New Hampshire. But the conversation must be bigger than this − we need to be talking about how to lower the outrageous cost of IVF. That starts with taking on the health insurance companies and medical industry wherever possible to break down barriers that make it harder for parents to access IVF.

It saddens me that this is normal in the political discussion today, for one side to use the media to attack the other, rather than a genuine policy discussion about how we help women and families.

So next time you read something as slanted as the coverage on this issue has been, be sure to check the facts and ask the hard questions. Too often there's more to the story than the media would have you to believe.