Trump Says He’s the ‘Father of IVF’—But Republicans Aren’t Sure They Want the Baby
In Feburary, Trump signed an executive order to expand access to In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF). The order is a fancy way of telling Americans his administration will spend the next three months brainstorming ways to make IVF more affordable and accessible.
Trump, who calls himself the ‘father of IVF,’ promised to make the procedure free while campaigning this summer—telling voters that under his administration “your government will pay for — or your insurance company will be mandated to pay for — all costs associated with IVF treatment.”
Democrats collectively rolled their eyes at Trump’s announcement. They also called his bluff, saying they’ve already pitched legislation that would do exactly what he’s promising and are waiting for Republicans to support it. “Otherwise, it’s all just lip service from a known liar,” tweeted Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill).
The legislation called the Right to IVF Act, is a 64-page bill Duckworth presented in 2024. The law would establish a federal mandate for IVF treatment, extending coverage to service members, federal health plans, and private policies. But when it came to a vote last September, every Republican—except Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)—declined to push the policy forward.
Republicans’ own IVF legislation hasn’t fared much better. The IVF Protection Act, a sparse three-page bill, would prevent states from banning the procedure but avoids language on costs and insurance coverage. It’s classic politicking and when comparing the bills—more specifically the language they use to define IVF or assisted reproductive technology—there’s a glaring difference between how much control the definitions give politicians over embryos.
Democrats’ bill provides a comprehensive definition:
“Preservation of human oocytes, sperm, or embryos for later reproductive use…Assisted reproductive technology, including in vitro fertilization and other treatments or procedures in which reproductive genetic material, such as oocytes, sperm, fertilized eggs, and embryos, are handled, when clinically appropriate.”
It also includes language on genetic testing, and storage, shipment, and disposal of embryos.
The Republican definition says a lot less:
“The practice whereby eggs are collected from ovaries and manually fertilized by sperm, for later placement inside of a uterus.”
It’s an explanation their own supporters criticized for being too vague and sidestepping broader concerns on ethics. “Such ethical standards include limiting the use of preimplantation genetic testing—wherein doctors can test an embryo for its sex, genetic makeup, potential IQ, and even features such as the child’s eye color,” wrote Emma Waters at The Heritage Foundation.
You could say it’s a strategic omission for a party that’s spent that last decade affirming life at conception and can’t agree on whether IVF is pro-life, enough.
Alabama is at the forefront of this debate. Last year, the state’s Supreme Court ruled embryos have the same protections as children through the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The case stemmed from three couples who lost their embryos after a civilian gained access to a cryopreservation tank. The decision caused chaos for local fertility clinics, which discard embryos that are unviable, abnormal, or no longer needed. Some clinics even paused treatments until a later bill gave them immunity for their services.
A year after this Supreme Court ruling, Trump is shuffling the deck on IVF, and could redefine access, impact, and costs. No one can predict what’s next for fertility in America, but it’s clear that politicians—having beat abortion to death—found a new front in their war over reproductive rights.
Leave a Reply