The Conscience Clause and the Future of IVF Access

“There were letters and meetings and calls—a lot of activity,” Kristi Hamrick, vice president for media and policy at Students for Life of America, told Politico. “We told [the administration] that it would be an absolute violation of people’s conscience rights to force taxpayers to subsidize IVF, which has the business model that destroys more life than is ever born.” This argument centers on the belief that supporting IVF, even with the intention of helping families, indirectly supports the destruction of potential life.

Opposition to Trump’s IVF promises wasn’t a new development. Following his February executive order – which many critics characterized as largely symbolic, merely directing officials to explore options for expanding access – prominent anti-abortion figures publicly voiced their disapproval. However, the Politico investigation reveals the extent of their behind-the-scenes influence was greater than previously understood.

Patrick Brown, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, explained to Politico, “A lot of people met with different people within the administration over the last eight months to say, ‘This is not pro-life. This is not going to raise birth rates. This pumps money into an industry that a lot of pro-lifers have great concerns over, because of the potential for eugenics. So let’s tap the brakes on this.’” This highlights a deeper concern within some anti-abortion circles about the potential for IVF to be used for selective breeding or other practices they consider ethically problematic.

Groups including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and Americans United for Life also reportedly participated in pressuring the administration. The White House, according to Politico, even provided a briefing call to select activists before Trump’s announcement, addressing their concerns about a potential coverage mandate – but did not allow for questions.

“In a sign of how seriously they took the groups’ arguments, administration officials held a briefing call for a select group of activists ahead of last week’s announcement to address their fears of a coverage mandate. According to two anti-abortion advocates on the call, granted anonymity to discuss the private event, the White House did not take questions.

A White House official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about behind-the-scenes conversations, confirmed both the call and the key role anti-abortion groups played in developing the policy. Their influence ensured that no employer is obligated to cover IVF, that no federal funding supports it, and that new coverage options can include alternative fertility treatments promoted by groups who oppose abortion.

“It’s providing flexibility, not just in an ideological sense, but just in a medical sense,” the official said. “It would be bad policy just to push everyone onto IVF.”

Beyond blocking broader IVF access, anti-abortion advocates also pushed for the promotion of “restorative reproductive medicine” (RRM) within the White House Domestic Policy Council. RRM, a collection of unproven approaches claiming to address the underlying causes of infertility, has been widely criticized by leading medical organizations like the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). ASRM argues that RRM is essentially a repackaging of standard fertility care, lacking scientific validation.

During Trump’s announcement, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., repeatedly emphasized addressing the “root causes” of infertility, a phrase that raised concerns among IVF access advocates. As one expert, speaking anonymously, noted, “On the one hand, we were happy because they didn’t say ‘restorative reproductive medicine.’ And on the other hand, we were concerned because they said ‘root causes’ several times.”

The administration’s attempt to appease all sides ultimately left many dissatisfied. Progressives argued the announcement fell short of Trump’s initial promises, while anti-abortion groups expressed continued reservations. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops labeled the announcement a “harmful government action,” and prominent figures like Lila Rose and Kristan Hawkins voiced their disappointment.

What does this complex interplay of political pressure and ideological conviction mean for the future of reproductive healthcare access in the United States? And how will the debate over IVF and alternative treatments like RRM continue to evolve?

Frequently Asked Questions About IVF and Political Influence

• What is the primary concern anti-abortion advocates have with IVF?

  Their main objection centers on the creation and potential discarding of unused embryos during the IVF process, which they consider the destruction of potential life.

• How did anti-abortion groups influence Trump’s IVF policies?

  They engaged in extensive lobbying efforts, including meetings, letters, and calls, to persuade the Trump administration to avoid subsidizing or mandating IVF coverage.

• What is “restorative reproductive medicine” (RRM)?

  RRM is a collection of unproven approaches claiming to address the root causes of infertility, but leading medical organizations consider it to be a repackaging of existing fertility care without scientific validation.

• Why did some groups criticize Trump’s final IVF announcement?

  Some on the left felt it didn’t go far enough to expand access, while anti-abortion groups remained concerned about any support for IVF, even in a limited form.

• What role did the White House play in accommodating anti-abortion advocates?

  The White House held a briefing call for select activists before the announcement, addressing their concerns and ensuring no employer would be obligated to cover IVF.

• Is IVF a widely accepted medical procedure?

  Yes, IVF is a well-established and effective treatment for infertility, helping millions of people worldwide achieve pregnancy. However, it remains a subject of ethical and religious debate.