After former President Donald Trump left office Declared When he proclaimed that he would make IVF more accessible to Americans, the anti-abortion movement galvanized. urged social media followers Do not vote To Trump, enthusiasm for IVF is the same as support for abortion. Pro-Life Action League asked President Trump walked back his comments, citing “hundreds of thousands” of embryos that would be destroyed. Meanwhile, Christian Hawkins, president of the National Student Life Federation, said: Tagged Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance, made another argument in a social media post, saying the policy would “encourage families to delay childbearing.” In other words, supporting IVF gives women the freedom to put off having children until they feel like it.
Opponents of abortion have long had an awkward relationship with IVF because the treatment can destroy an embryo, a problem for those who consider the egg to be a person. But since Trump promised to make the government and insurance companies pay for IVF, a different argument against IVF has gained traction among some abortion opponents: IVF doesn’t just destroy life, it destroys the sanctity of the American nuclear family unit, they say.
The technological marvels of growing embryos in a dish opened up biological parenthood to new groups of people, not just those with traditional reproductive problems. This allowed many women to have their first child in their late 30s or later. This change, combined with the rise in single women and LGBTQ couples wanting to have genetically related children, fueled a veritable IVF boom. And IVF dramatically expanded Americans’ notions of family beyond the default: mother, father, and child.
Even the most vocal opponents of IVF are opposed to changing the definition of family. After Trump made IVF universal, anti-abortion activist Katie Faust wrote: Post to X “Voting to ‘protect’ or subsidize IVF is approving the intentional creation of children without fathers and mothers,” she said — children with single or queer parents. Hawkins said in an interview that waiting to have children until it’s biologically difficult is a choice women can’t make, and that undergoing IVF is the same problematic assertion of bodily autonomy as abortion. “We’re commodifying children,” she said.
But the movement to restrict IVF has far less support than the anti-abortion movement. According to a Pew Research Center survey: vote A report released in May found that 63% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents support IVF, as do 60% of those who say abortion should be illegal. “As the reproductive justice movement has gone mainstream, it’s spreading the idea that there’s not just a right to abortion, but a right to have children,” Lisa Campo Engelstein, chair of bioethics at the University of Texas Medical Branch, told me. “That’s what conservatives are really worried about.” (Hawkins told me exactly that: “Children are not a right. They’re a privilege.”) So now some activists are looking at IVF differently: that it has expanded the ability to have families to certain groups of people who, in their view, shouldn’t have families.
The roots of this strategy go back more than half a century. Even before the first test-tube baby was born, conservative thinkers were clearly concerned with how in vitro fertilization (IVF) would affect American family structure. IVF was originally conceived for a very specific medical purpose: to help women with blocked fallopian tubes become pregnant. 1972Physician and bioethicist Leon Kass speculated that, once IVF becomes available, it likely won’t be limited to infertile couples. “Why limit it to couples?” he wrote. “What about single women, widows, and lesbians?” In their history of IVF, fertility historian Margaret Marsh and gynecologist Wanda Loner wrote: The pursuit of parenthood“Conservatives were almost universally opposed to IVF, seeing it as a threat to the moral order.” Kass’s prediction proved true when IVF was introduced in the United States in 1981. Along with changes in adoption laws and less invasive techniques such as intrauterine insemination, IVF became just one of many tools that removed barriers to parenthood for a more diverse group of people.
Abortion opponents were stunned when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that The verdict was given A court ruled that frozen embryos should be considered children. In response, clinics in the state stopped offering IVF treatments for fear of legal liability. Bipartisan IVF advocacy was swift. In Alabama, a bill to protect clinics was passed, with Republicans desperately supporting it despite opposition from senators. Blocked The Democrats’ IVF Protection Act has passed twice.
The anti-abortion movement has long claimed to be the defender of the American family, but in recent weeks Some Members have been calling on President Trump to cut costs associated with childbirth, but not IVF. Since the Alabama ruling, they have also had to defend their opposition to a technology that has helped so many people build their families. Some argue that fertility treatments harm women and families because they can be marketed as miracle cures when in reality they are a luck-based procedure. Behind the scenes, the anti-abortion movement is Hot Topics and Policy Recommendations Designed to curb the practice of in vitro fertilization. The Southern Baptist Convention be criticized He gave a presentation about IVF at the annual general meeting in June this year.
These advocates are right about what’s at stake: Making IVF more affordable would help more Americans become parents. Most Americans who have IVF births are white. And wealthy, married, heterosexual people tend to have the easiest access to IVF. The vast majority of people don’t receive benefits to cover the costs of fertility treatments, which average nearly $1,000. $50,000 per patientIn 2022, only about half of large employers offered fertility treatment coverage, and fewer than half of states mandate it. And many of the fertility treatment benefits that exist exclude access to treatment for LGBTQ and single people. In Arkansas, State Order To qualify for coverage, the eggs must be fertilized with a spouse’s sperm. Even New York City’s comprehensive health insurance, which covers in vitro fertilization for all employees, does not cover the costs associated with donating eggs or sperm or using surrogacy, which LGBTQ couples and singles need to start a family. marchThe Department of Defense Litigation They criticized the policy as discriminatory because it only offered benefits to married heterosexuals.
Trump’s vision of “fertility treatment for all” could upend this status quo by making IVF coverage universal, rather than a perk determined by employer or state. It could make parenthood more accessible to people who aren’t unmarried, white, wealthy or heterosexual. And for anti-abortion activists, that may be its greatest threat.
If you buy a book through a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for your support. Atlantic Ocean.
