Pro-life leaders urge Trump to reverse his IVF stand, say the technology is 'not pro-life'
Some key pro-life activists are raising ethical questions about President Donald Trump's executive order to expand access to pricey in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures, arguing the technology "is not pro-life" because some embryos "are destroyed" in the process.
"IVF doesn’t address the root causes of the infertility health crisis in America," Live Action founder Lila Rose wrote on X. "It’s a Big Pharma bandaid, with major ethical issues, like millions of frozen & destroyed embryos. If we want to Make America Healthy Again, we should invest in addressing and healing the underlying causes of infertility."
Trump signed the executive order Tuesday, fulfilling part of a key campaign promise to mandate free IVF treatment for women. The order came shortly after Democrats criticized him for his role in appointing Supreme Court justices who reversed the landmark Roe v. Wade case, leaving abortion access up to each state,
PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT TO SHAKE UP MESSAGING WITH BIG INVESTMENT FROM THESE KEY PLAYERS
In a statement to Fox News Digital, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said Trump "pledged to expand IVF access for American families, and his executive order yesterday instructs that a plan be drafted to accomplish just that – a plan devised with feedback and input from critical stakeholder groups including Christian and pro-life voices."
IVF "offers hope to men and women experiencing fertility challenges," the executive order states, and "Americans need reliable access to IVF and more affordable treatment options" as the cost for treatments can range anywhere from $12,000 to $25,000.
"Therefore, to support American families, it is the policy of my Administration to ensure reliable access to IVF treatment, including by easing unnecessary statutory or regulatory burdens to make IVF treatment drastically more affordable," the order states.
Patrick T. Brown, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, explained that IVF raises a unique ethical issue within the conservative pro-life movement due to the technology's potential to create new life, which is causing some splintering among some on the right.
"I think that there are questions about what exactly are we doing with IVF, where we're creating something that has the potential to become a human person," Brown said. "All of us were embryos at one stage or another, so they deserve some respect, at the very least, if not legal protection of some form or another."
"There's actual guardrails that need to be pursued, rather than just going full speed ahead," he added.
Brown predicted that the most likely outcome is that after the White House comes up with a plan in the next three months, the Trump administration may consult with experts who have long been focused on IVF who are aware of the ethical concerns.
"The U.S. allows people to select sex or to screen for different genetic traits in a way that most other countries don’t," Brown said. "We’re kind of the ‘Wild West’ when it comes to some of this stuff. And it opens the can of worms for eugenics and some of these other things that I don’t think President Trump actually intends. But, you know, it could actually go that way if we’re not careful about it."
PRO-LIFE ACTIVIST PROSECUTED BY BIDEN DOJ REACTS TO TRUMP PARDON: 'I WANT TO GIVE HIM A HUG'
Several conservative social media influencers opposed Trump's executive order on Tuesday.
"IVF ends more precious lives than it creates," Turning Point USA influencer Alex Clark wrote on X. "President Trump’s executive order pushing for expanded access is just fueling the same industry that competes with Planned Parenthood. More babies will also be born without a right to know both of their biological parents, and that's a tragedy in itself."
Conservative commentator Liz Wheeler, who is Catholic, called IVF "dreadful" in another post.
"Over 90% of children created by IVF die, either left frozen and abandoned, destroyed due to eugenics, experimented on, or miscarried. Only 7% are born. It’s dreadful," she wrote.
Allie Beth Stuckey, an evangelical Christian who hosts The Blaze podcast "Relatable," wrote that IVF "is anti-MAHA," referring to the Make America Healthy Again movement.
"It’s the perfect example of what’s wrong with much of modern medicine in America," she wrote. "Instead of getting to the root cause of infertility, it masks the symptoms with a 'solution' that is a threat to women’s health. The process almost always involves the destruction or indefinite freezing of embryos. It is unbelievably unregulated in the United States, and I fear this latest EO will only make it worse."
IVF rose to become a high-profile issue during the presidential campaign. In February 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are children, leading to paused IVF services in the state. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey later codified access to IVF services in state law a few months later.
"When frozen embryos are thawed and prepared for transfer, there is a very small possibility that they may be damaged or destroyed and therefore unable to be successfully transferred," Joanne Rosen, a practice professor in Health Policy and Management at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in a blog post after the state's high court ruling. "Even fresh embryos may be damaged and not able to be transferred. So there was real concern about the legal consequences given that these embryos, these in vitro embryos, have been declared persons under the law in Alabama."
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the head of the Health and Human Services (HHS) department, wrote in a September post that while he and Trump are not opposed to IVF, "we are going to investigate the alarming decline in fertility."
"We will evaluate research implicating chemicals like glyphosate, BPA, heavy metals, xenoestrogens, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and so on," he wrote. "We will look into nutritional factors too. Why are sperm counts declining year after year? Why are girls reaching puberty so early? Why are so many couples infertile? The American people deserve answers, and we will provide them. So yes, IVF – but this issue is so much bigger than IVF."