In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.
On the campaign trail last year, Donald Trump parlayed would-be parents’ anxieties into votes. Proclaiming himself “the father of IVF,” he promised to make the fertility treatment free, delivering IVF for all.
It worked. Ryleigh Cooper, a young woman who had been told by her doctors that in vitro fertilization could be her best chance at having a child, voted for Trump. “Going into the voting booth, the main thing on my mind was … I want to be a mom,” she said.
THE SURPRISINGLY CONTROVERSIAL IVF ALTERNATIVE DIVIDING WASHINGTON
Trump knew he had the pro-life vote, or as much of it as he was going to get. No matter that a number of pro-life Trump voters have concerns about IVF and its cavalier treatment of embryos. Pro-life activists who expressed misgivings about Trump’s record last year were dogpiled. He gave us the historic overturning of Roe v. Wade, the pro-Trump crowd’s reasoning went. And then-Vice President Kamala Harris is much, much worse.
So, Trump coasted to victory with the votes of two diametrically opposed groups: those who see any type of IVF as a net positive for society, and those who believe that even frozen embryos are unique human lives deserving of our protection. The time has come to reconcile the two camps. And Trump has no idea what to do.
IVF for all
The president began to tease the fulfillment of his IVF promises with an executive order in February. Titled “Expanding Access to In Vitro Fertilization,” this order made the grand request for “a list of policy recommendations.” Pretty underwhelming considering Trump’s lofty promises of free fertility treatment. Worse, the 90-day deadline for these policy recommendations passed. No public recommendations were issued.
Instead, Trump made an announcement of his own last week, issuing guidance to encourage employers to cover fertility treatments through insurance and touting an agreement with drug manufacturer EMD Serono to cut prices on fertility medications. Splitting the proverbial baby made no one happy, as IVF advocates complained that the prices haven’t been brought down enough, nor is insurance required to cover fertility treatment. Pro-lifers were relieved that Trump wouldn’t be funneling taxpayer dollars toward free IVF, but they were still disappointed to see him put such a focus on this fertility treatment above other options.
When asked about his message to pro-life conservatives, Trump said glibly, “Pro-life? I think this is very pro-life. You can’t get more pro-life than this.”
But you can get more pro-life by this — namely, by actually working to preserve life from its earliest stages. While Republicans differ on this subject, the general consensus among pro-lifers is that life begins at conception. That means when an embryo is created outside of his or her mother’s womb during the IVF process, that embryo deserves personhood protections.
The Alabama Supreme Court agrees. After someone dropped and destroyed embryos from three different couples at an IVF facility in the state, one couple filed a lawsuit under Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The case ultimately went to the state Supreme Court, which determined that the law applies “to all unborn children without limitation. And that includes unborn children who are not located in utero at the time they are killed.”
There are a staggering 1 million frozen embryos in the U.S. today, many of which will never get a shot at development. An NBC report from 2019 warns that “experts say hundreds of thousands of embryos have been cast aside, if not more.” This is a deeply disturbing state of affairs for the fertility treatment that seems to be touted above all others. To pro-lifers, IVF certainly doesn’t need more governmental support. If anything, what it needs is government oversight and intervention.
A human rights concern
Unfortunately for pro-lifers, Trump seems not to think too deeply about these ethical issues. For the president, pronatalism is about reinvigorating the birth rate, and that’s just a numbers game. “We will support baby booms,” Trump declared at CPAC in 2023. “I want a baby boom.” But there’s a difference between pro-birth and pro-life. Trump is undoubtedly hoping some of his supporters can’t tell the difference.
Or maybe that they just don’t want to get on his bad side. After his IVF announcement last week, some pro-life groups offered subdued criticism, avoiding criticizing the president directly.
“While it could have been worse, it’s still a reflection that they aren’t totally on board,” said Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins, whose organization endorsed Trump in 2024. She called it the second recent disappointment from Trump’s team, referencing its approval of a generic abortion drug. “I’m thankful there’s no new healthcare mandate forcing coverage for the destructive IVF industry, but IVF, as it’s practiced, still destroys countless humans in the embryonic stage.”
SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser previously told the Washington Examiner, “Any policy in this space, from the White House or Congress, must treat the lives of the smallest children in the highest regard.”
Live Action’s Lila Rose, who has taken heat for her previous criticisms of Trump, offered a full-throated condemnation: “Trump encourages employers to add insurance coverage for IVF — enabling the commodification of children,” she posted. “Reverse this.”
Trump is unlikely to reverse the policy, as he continues to nod to the pro-life movement while enabling actions completely antithetical to its goals. After pledging to do a full review of the safety of abortion medication, for example, his Food and Drug Administration approved a generic version of the drug, angering many Republicans. This appears to be his pattern when it comes to reproductive issues: throw pro-lifers some wins, but abandon them when it’s politically convenient.
Republicans need to decide how serious they are about protecting life from its earliest stages. Unfortunately, it may be difficult to take a hard-line stance on this issue. After all, the 2024 GOP platform pledges to support “mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments).”
A majority of Republicans do support IVF access, according to a Pew Research poll from last year. The question doesn’t really parse the difference between those who support IVF access with guardrails for the protection of embryos. Regardless, it’s clear that criticizing IVF in any way isn’t top of the agenda, even for many pro-life Americans.
“But even those who say abortion should be illegal in most cases generally view IVF access positively (60% say it’s good),” Pew reports. “And while views of IVF are least positive among those who say abortion should always be illegal, this group is still twice as likely to say having access to IVF is good (40%) as to say it’s bad (20%).”
TRUMP IVF ACTION GETS RESTRAINED PUSHBACK FROM ANTI-ABORTION GROUPS
Notably, the other 40% are unsure. If there is to be any movement among the GOP against the unfettered use of IVF to create and destroy embryos, it will come from reaching this 40%, the people who assume the fertility treatment to be simply beneficial without realizing how many hundreds of thousands of lives are on the verge of being discarded.
Trump isn’t interested in this debate. But it’s time Republicans reckon with it.
