Ethical and Financial Implications of any IVF Mandate
In a move that only served to confound pro-life Americans further dismayed over recent statements that his administration will be “great for women and their reproductive rights,” former President Trump announced last week that “your government will pay for — or your insurance company will be mandated to pay for — all costs associated with IVF treatment.”
While the 2024 Republican Platform, written entirely by Trump and his inner circle, already made clear that he supports “policies that advance . . . access to . . . IVF (fertility treatments),” this latest promise to use the heavy hand of the federal government to force taxpayers to fund the contentious procedure may erode support from not only those worried about the millions of embryos destroyed under current IVF practices but fiscal conservatives and libertarians as well. As the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board bluntly put it, “If you think IVF is expensive now, wait until it’s ‘free.’”
Despite making the repeal of Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) a signature part of his 2016 campaign, the Trump Administration failed to get rid of the onerous law. He has rightly called the government take-over of health insurance “much too expensive” due to its numerous mandates that force people to buy coverage they don’t need and fund morally objectionable elements. More than 100 groups and businesses sued the Obama Administration for violating their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by mandating birth control be covered under the law, including the Little Sisters of the Poor who took their case all the way to the Supreme Court. Why does Trump want to start another such fight when he needs to be reassuring voters he respects not only their consciences but their wallets as well?
Many Americans have deeply held religious beliefs that the unitive and procreative aspects of child-creation must not be separated. But under the Trump plan, same-sex couples and single individuals would be entitled to funding from those who have strong moral objections. Also, studies have confirmed that the best environment for a child to thrive is in a two-parent married home with a loving mother and father. Is it in the government’s interest to subsidize less-than-ideal situations on purpose? Can the state, once it has invested in the creation of a baby, prohibit the parents from divorcing because of the negative impact on the child? What rights will parents lose if they accept federal money for IVF? Banks that provide mortgages hold a lien against your property — will the state hold a lien over your progeny?
In vitro fertilization (IVF) is one of many Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) that can help infertile couples conceive and bear children. But IVF has terrible odds for those who seek to become parents — studies estimate somewhere between 3% -7% of embryos created for IVF will result in a live birth. So should taxpayers have to pay for the 93% to 97% failed IVF treatments? A single cycle of IVF costs upwards of $20,000. Usually, more than one cycle is required and costs per birth can easily skyrocket to over $50,000. A Trump IVF mandate could easily cost taxpayers over $7 billion yearly — paid for by increased insurance premiums for all. Vanessa Brown Calder, of the libertarian Cato Institute, noted that this figure “understates the true long-term costs of the program” because “government-funded IVF would create new incentives for couples to delay childbearing or engage in elective fertility preservation, leading to growing use and reliance on fertility treatment long-term.” The costs of free IVF — like the cost of free college tuition — would only continue to grow at a time of unsustainable federal debt.
As the Wall Street Journal noted, 43% of large employers already covered IVF in 2022, nearly double the percentage (27%) that offered the benefit in 2020. In a free-market capitalist system, businesses should be allowed to make that offer. It is also fair to interpret that decision as one in which large businesses are enticing women to delay childbearing so they can climb the corporate ladder by agreeing to pay for fertility treatments once time has run out for their biological clocks. Is that really the “choice” for which American women are pining?
Pro-life Americans are concerned about the ethical issues surrounding IVF as well. An astounding 93-97% of embryos created by IVF are frozen, discarded, or otherwise denied the ability to develop. These are not just eggs retrieved from an ovary, but human embryos created in a petri dish that given time and the proper environment, could develop into a child. Over one million embryos are currently frozen in the United States today. Most of these will never make it into the loving arms of a mother. Pasadena City College philosophy professor Edward Feser was quoted in the Washington Examiner saying, “There is no moral difference between killing embryos during abortion and doing so as part of IVF.”
We must also consider the eugenic implications that surround IVF and what effect its funding will have on ‘quality control.’ Eugenics, as defined by Wikipedia, is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population. According to the National Institutes of Health, “over 75 % of fertility clinics in the United States offer pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PDG)” to screen for genetic disorders. The same study states that PDG, “could potentially be used to screen for both desired physical traits such as height, attractiveness or athleticism and personality traits such as intelligence, or humor.” In the US, over 80% of IVF clinics allow for sex-selection testing, a non-medical use that is banned in many countries and is opposed by nearly 70% of Americans.
If IVF coverage is mandated by the government, will sex-selection testing be allowed? Will genetic testing for certain diseases be required? Will the government eventually argue that “investing” in “inferior” embryos (say those with Down Syndrome or an increased risk of developing cancer later in life) is a waste of taxpayer money? Will we one day soon have to argue against creating a master race of government-funded children? Who will have the final say in answering these fundamental questions?
The Left often maligns those who oppose abortion as trying to control the “reproductive decisions” of women. What will happen when American women invite the government into the reproductive process by funding it directly? “He who pays the piper, calls the tune,” as the old saying goes. It should be a warning for all on the right and left.
“We want more babies,” Trump declared when announcing his plan to mandate funding of in vitro fertilization. Ironically, there are almost one million unborn babies who die each year in the United States from abortion at a time of plunging global fertility rates. The pro-life community cherishes all children and wants to see the deliberate destruction of the unborn become unconscionable. As a society, we must answer the many moral, ethical, and financial questions that surround IVF before suggesting it as a panacea to the infertility crisis. Promoting adoption and encouraging other assisted reproductive procedures that do not destroy embryos are ways to respect life and help those who want to become parents to do so. President Trump should rethink the IVF mandate and instead promote his agenda of economic recovery, lower taxes, fewer regulations, and more religious liberty. These are the issues all Americans can get behind.
--------------------------
Kristen A. Ullman, JD is the president of Eagle Forum. Kris served as Executive Director of Eagle Forum’s D.C. office from 1995-1998. She has served on the Eagle Forum Board of Directors since 2017.
