What we can VERIFY about the Republican Party’s stance on IVF

IVF is a type of fertility treatment where eggs are collected from the ovaries and combined with sperm outside of a person’s body in a lab. The fertilized egg, or embryo, is then placed inside of the uterus. The process often results in more embryos than can be transferred into the uterus in one cycle, and those extra embryos may be frozen and stored for future use.

IVF is typically used to treat many causes of infertility, including advanced maternal age and endometriosis, and the procedure is some couples’ only hope to have a baby. In 2022, nearly 92,000 babies were born via IVF, constituting 2.5% of all births in the U.S., according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM).

The political debate over access to IVF intensified in mid-February after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos can be considered unborn children under state law, leading to a wave of criticism. The decision temporarily jeopardized access to IVF treatment in the state, as three major IVF clinics paused treatment following the ruling due to “legal risk.”

Amid the backlash, Alabama Republican Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation on March 6 that shields IVF providers in the state from potential legal liability, which allowed the clinics to resume providing IVF services.

Recent online search trends show many people are wondering what the Republican Party’s stance is on IVF. Here’s what we can VERIFY.

THE SOURCES

WHAT WE FOUND

Since the Alabama Supreme Court ruling in February, former President Donald Trump and several Republican members of Congress have declared their support for in vitro fertilization. However, some have voted against enshrining IVF access into law.

Former President Donald Trump on IVF

Former President Donald Trump has said multiple times since the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that he “strongly supports” providing access to fertility treatments like IVF to couples who are trying to have babies “in every state in America.”

On Aug. 29, Trump promised while on the campaign trail in Michigan and Wisconsin that either the federal government or insurance companies would be mandated to pay for universal IVF if he’s reelected in November.

It’s unclear at this time how this plan would actually work. Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance, said in an Aug. 30 interview with CNN anchor John Berman that it would have to go through the legislative process, meaning Congress would have to pass a bill that the president would have to sign into law.

On Sept. 1, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said on ABC’s “This Week” that he would not support mandating insurance companies to fully cover IVF saying, “there’s no end to that.” Instead, Graham said he would support a means-tested tax credit for IVF users “to encourage people to have children.”

IVF treatments are notoriously expensive and can cost tens of thousands of dollars for a single round. Many women require multiple rounds, and there is no guarantee of success.

In a statement, Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign said Trump shouldn’t be believed.

“Trump lies as much if not more than he breathes, but voters aren’t stupid,” Harris-Walz 2024 spokesperson Sarafina Chitika told the Associated Press.

About a week before promising universal IVF if he’s reelected, Trump claimed on Truth Social that “the Republican Party is charging forward on many fronts, and I am very proud that we are a LEADER on I.V.F.” In another post, the former president said that his administration “will be great for women and their reproductive rights.”

The 2024 Republican Party Platform, which is featured on Trump’s campaign website, also says that it supports “mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments).”

House Republicans’ stance on IVF

In the wake of the Alabama ruling, some members of the House Republican Conference pushed for legislation supporting access to IVF. But House Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed the need for such legislation on March 14.

“It’s not my belief that Congress needs to play a role here,” Johnson told reporters at the annual Republican issues conference held at The Greenbrier, a resort in West Virginia. “I think this is being handled by the states.”

Johnson, however, insisted that House Republicans support access to IVF and said it is “something we ought to protect and preserve” but that it needs to be done “ethically and well.”

House Republicans have introduced three different measures backing IVF access since the Alabama ruling.

Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina introduced a non-binding resolution in February that expressed support for IVF accessibility and condemned any judicial rulings or legislation that might restrict access to fertility treatments.

Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon also introduced a non-binding resolution that aimed to “make it clear that IVF needs to be protected,” but it did not enshrine protections for IVF into law at the federal level. Instead, it called on state legislatures to take action to support IVF access.

Non-binding resolutions must be passed by both the House and Senate, but they do not require the signature of the president and do not become laws. Neither resolution has been passed in either chamber.

Meanwhile, some House Republicans, such as Rep. Matt Rosendale of Montana, have been trying to roll back federal funding for IVF in the wake of the Alabama ruling.

In March, multiple media outlets reported that Rosendale and several fellow members of the right-wing Freedom Caucus sent Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough a letter raising ”strong objections” to an expansion of IVF services for veterans.

Rosendale also introduced amendments to bills funding the VA and the Department of Defense that would have prohibited funding for IVF. However, both amendments were blocked from getting a floor vote.

In June, Rosendale adorned his Washington, D.C. office with anti-IVF messaging saying it “destroys more life than Planned Parenthood.”

But some of Rosendale’s Republican colleagues say he is out of step with the overwhelming majority of the party and risks handing ammunition to Democrats, according to an article published by Axios in late June.

“Dealing with it personally ... and watching someone like that, I think it’s gross,” Rep. Max Miller of Ohio told Axios of Rosendale’s anti-IVF push. Miller has said he and his wife struggled to conceive a child.

Mace called Rosendale’s efforts “absurd, moronic,” according to Axios, adding, “100% they’re going to be used [by Democrats]. Already my opponent in the general election is saying I oppose IVF, but nothing could be further from the truth.”

Senate Republicans’ IVF stance

A few days after the Alabama Supreme Court ruling, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) urged Senate candidates to support protecting access to IVF ahead of the 2024 election in a Feb. 23 memo.

“A recent ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court is fodder for Democrats hoping to manipulate the abortion issue for electoral gain. There are zero Republican Senate candidates who support efforts to restrict access to fertility treatments. NRSC encourages Republican Senate candidates to clearly and concisely reject efforts by the government to restrict IVF,” NRSC Executive Director Jason Thielman said in the memo.

Senate Republicans have introduced one measure backing IVF access since the Alabama ruling.

In May, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama introduced the “IVF Protection Act” to ensure that states do not prohibit access to IVF services. Under the language of the bill, states would be ineligible to receive Medicaid funding if they enacted an outright ban on access to IVF. Companion legislation was also introduced in the House.

However, Senate Democrats blocked Cruz’s bill on June 12, saying the legislation leaves too many legal loopholes and still allows states to restrict IVF.

“It is ridiculous to claim that this bill protects IVF when it does nothing of the sort,” said Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington. “In fact, it explicitly allows states to restrict IVF in all sorts of ways. It’s literally in the bill text.”

After the IVF Protection Act was blocked, every Senate Republican, including Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance, signed a joint statement saying they “strongly support continued nationwide access to IVF.”

On June 13, all Republicans, except Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, voted against the “Right to IVF Act,” a Democratic-led proposal introduced by Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, that would make it a federal right for women to access IVF and other fertility treatments.

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana said Democrats were trying to “politicize a deeply personal issue for short term political gain.” He added that Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York had brought Duckworth’s bill to the floor without allowing the committee work and studies that usually mark a serious piece of legislation.

Still, Schumer said he would continue to bring up legislation on reproductive care.

“Republicans are twisting themselves in knots trying to run away from their very record on reproductive freedom,” Schumer said at a press conference following the vote.

Project 2025’s stance on IVF

Project 2025 is an initiative launched in April 2022 by The Heritage Foundation to provide a roadmap for the next conservative president to transform the government in favor of conservative social policies and ideals.

But Project 2025 suggests that fetuses deserve to be legally recognized as people from the moment of conception, which is an idea known as fetal personhood.

At least 23 bills aiming to establish fetal personhood have been introduced in 13 states so far this legislative session, but none have been passed or signed into law, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

Critics say fetal personhood legislation could put fertility treatments, like IVF, at risk of being restricted or banned altogether at the state level.

Many Democratic leaders claim Project 2025 and Trump are affiliated, but the former president has never publicly endorsed the initiative by name and has tried to distance himself from the plan ahead of the November election.

Project 2025 has also denied any affiliation with Trump. But several former Trump administration members and people working for his campaign have contributed to Project 2025 or promoted the initiative.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.