A recent attack on a fertility clinic in California has brought the issue of in vitro fertilization (IVF) back into the national spotlight. However, experts in the field assert that a growing conservative emphasis on natural conception poses an even more significant threat to the accessibility of IVF treatments.
The car explosion that occurred outside a Palm Springs clinic injured four individuals and resulted in the death of the attacker. Authorities are currently investigating the suspect, exploring potential connections to anti-natalism, a belief system that considers procreation to be inherently unethical.
While such fringe ideologies are not perceived by reproductive health experts as a substantial political threat to IVF access, the incident in Palm Springs has heightened the sense of unease among both providers and families utilizing IVF clinics across the country.
Currently, approximately 2% of births in the United States are the result of IVF. Despite its prevalence, some religious groups that regard embryos as human beings oppose the treatment due to concerns about the storage and discarding of unused embryos. Furthermore, healthcare providers are raising concerns about anti-abortion policies advocating for fetal personhood, which seek to grant embryos and fetuses the same legal rights as individuals, potentially jeopardizing IVF access.
Trump Administration’s Stance on IVF
Amidst a US fertility rate that has remained near a record low after decades of decline, President Donald Trump and influential figures within his administration have expressed a desire to stimulate a “baby boom.” They are reportedly considering incentives such as a $5,000 “baby bonus” for new parents. President Trump has also issued an executive order aimed at gathering recommendations to safeguard IVF access and reduce its costs. The White House has indicated that these recommendations are currently under review.
While the administration has consulted with some providers and experts, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), a prominent IVF medical and advocacy group, has stated that it has been notably excluded from these discussions. According to Sean Tipton, the organization’s chief advocacy and policy officer, ASRM made multiple attempts to engage with members of the administration but received no response.
ASRM has been vocal about misleading terminology, such as “restorative reproductive medicine,” which it believes is being used to promote concepts that could ultimately restrict access to IVF treatment. This term has gained traction within the “Make American Healthy Again” movement and among conservative groups that prioritize “natural solutions” like dietary changes and cycle tracking over treatments like IVF for infertility. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has promoted this idea, characterizing IVF as a treatment that neglects underlying health issues.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine maintains that restorative reproductive medicine is not a novel solution or a distinct medical specialty. They emphasize that fertility doctors already address underlying causes of infertility for every patient and that this approach may not effectively address all fertility challenges, such as male factor infertility or blocked fallopian tubes.
Sean Tipton of ASRM highlighted the concern that misleading medical information circulating online is now reaching high levels of government and policymaking. He noted the need to address this because organizations promoting “restorative reproductive medicine” have the attention of many Republicans, including individuals within the White House. Tipton expressed concern that these groups aim to limit individuals to outdated medical technologies from the 1970s, while ASRM advocates for access to advanced, 21st-century fertility care. He also pointed out that the push towards natural conception often overlooks the needs of the LGBTQ+ community.
Kerrie King, a 29-year-old from Mississippi, shared her experience of trying to conceive through IVF with her wife for over two years. They had to travel two hours to find an LGBTQ-friendly fertility clinic. King expressed fears about the potential impact of the Trump administration’s policies on LGBTQ+ rights on their ability to continue their IVF treatment.
The Battle Over Fetal Personhood
Navigating the delicate balance between public support for IVF and a conservative shift against it may prove challenging for President Trump, who once referred to himself as the “father of IVF.”
Last year, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos should be considered human beings, leading to a temporary halt in IVF treatments across the state. This decision caused significant disruption and anxiety for families who faced the potential loss of their opportunity to have children, along with the considerable financial investment they had made in fertility treatments. Following widespread outcry from families, providers, and advocates, Alabama lawmakers быстро moved to enact legislation protecting IVF patients and providers from legal liability, allowing clinics to reopen.
However, Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, notes that the underlying issue of fetal personhood that fueled the Alabama court’s decision is not going away, and the public reaction has not deterred other states from engaging in this debate. While the Supreme Court declined to hear a fetal personhood case in 2022, Kansas recently passed a law requiring child support payments to cover embryos and fetuses, and Florida lawmakers are considering a bill that would allow parents to seek civil damages for the wrongful death of an embryo or fetus.
The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant body in the US, also passed a resolution last year asserting that embryos are human beings and urging its members to consider the “ethical implications” of IVF. Experts argue that these policies advance the concept of fetal personhood. While the primary goal of this movement is to end abortion rights nationwide, it could also have devastating consequences for IVF treatment, as many families in Alabama experienced firsthand last year.
Professor Ziegler suggests that the most significant threat to both abortion rights and IVF access stems from the same source. She notes that increasingly, anti-abortion activists who hold the most extreme views have begun protesting outside IVF clinics, mirroring their tactics outside abortion clinics.
While many are awaiting the White House’s response to the IVF policy recommendations, Ziegler believes that the courts are the key area to watch. She suggests that President Trump is more likely to nominate judges who adhere to a legal theory of fetal personhood, and these judges could issue rulings with substantial negative impacts on IVF, without the president directly enacting such policies. Ziegler concluded by stating that similar scenarios have unfolded before, with the most significant changes regarding abortion during President Trump’s first term originating from court decisions rather than laws signed by the president or executive orders.
Discussion about this post