Donald Trump’s recent pledge to ensure that either the government or insurance companies would pay for in vitro fertilization (IVF) “for all Americans that get it, all Americans that need it,” has provoked a mixed reaction from Republican Party members. While a Pew Research Center poll indicates that 70% of the general public and 63% of Republicans view access to IVF positively, some within the GOP express concerns that Trump’s stance might contradict the party’s platform and deepen existing rifts regarding reproductive rights.
Trump’s commitment may appeal broadly among voters but highlights significant divisions among conservatives, particularly those who oppose IVF on the same grounds as abortion. For fiscal conservatives, his proposal represents a stark contrast to his earlier efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare.
Under the GOP’s 2024 platform, the party has committed to “support access to IVF” while simultaneously defending states’ rights concerning abortion laws, aligning with the 14th Amendment’s promise of due process for all individuals.
The backdrop to these debates includes Alabama’s recent legal rulings that grant frozen embryos the status of “extrauterine children,” leading to significant implications for IVF providers. Following Alabama’s recognition of “the rights of the unborn child” in its state constitution, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in February that destroying embryos at fertility clinics could result in wrongful death lawsuits. This has caused many fertility clinics to close, prompting GOP legislators to scramble for protections for IVF providers in response to public outcry.
Despite most conservatives supporting IVF, a faction remains staunchly opposed, equating it with abortion. Katy Faust, head of the children’s rights group Them Before Us, argues that both IVF and abortion treat children as commodities rather than individuals with rights. She and others advocating against IVF now focus on redefining family structures and advocating for “traditional” nuclear families—defined as those comprising two heterosexual parents and their biological children.
Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, views access to IVF as a privilege rather than a right and is particularly opposed to its use by single mothers or LGBTQ couples. She argues that allowing such access undermines the nuclear family concept, which she and others deem essential for societal stability.
The opposition to IVF among certain conservative circles is intertwined with broader patriarchal views on gender roles and reproductive autonomy. Critics from the New Right, like Scott Yenor, argue that biological sex dictates societal roles and assert that same-sex couples should not have access to IVF. The notion of a “right to parenthood” through IVF is seen as a threat to traditional family dynamics.
Additionally, anti-IVF advocates like Faust argue against the adoption of unused embryos, claiming it infringes on a child’s right to know their biological parents, further illustrating their commitment to preserving traditional family structures.
Trump’s proposal to provide free IVF lacks clarity, particularly regarding how it would be funded and implemented. A national bill aimed at requiring insurance coverage for IVF has been blocked by Republican senators, including J.D. Vance. Although California has made strides in IVF coverage, requiring insurers to cover specific treatments, challenges remain. For instance, religious employers may object to such mandates, similar to the challenges faced under the ACA regarding contraceptive coverage.
Despite the preference for the nuclear family structure—still supported by 90% of Americans—a growing acceptance of nontraditional family setups is evident. According to the same Pew survey, 60% view single parents as acceptable family units, and 47% approve of married same-sex couples raising children. This evolving landscape may threaten the narrative of traditional family advocates like Faust, Hawkins, and Yenor, who are seeking to persuade the public of their views on reproductive rights.
As Trump’s IVF promise collides with existing GOP tensions, the future of reproductive rights within the party remains uncertain. While many Americans express support for IVF, the party’s internal conflicts may ultimately dictate the direction of healthcare policy in a post-Roe landscape.
Related topics:
