Will Americans Pay for Right to IVF?

From guest columnist Diane Petryk

September 2, 2024

Between $12,000 and $30,000. That's what in vitro fertilization costs – for one attempt. For many couples, multiple attempts are necessary. A mother under age 35 can expect an in vitro attempt to have a 30 to 50 percent success rate and that drops with age, according to the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Those who pay for the service are, in fact, gambling.

Now candidate Donald Trump wants to make those gambles with taxpayer money. He released the good news Thursday in Potterville, Michigan. He announced that the government or mandated insurance coverage would pay for IVF for everyone. If he is elected, of course. “We want more babies,” he said. So, he said:

“I’m announcing today in a major statement that under the Trump administration, your government will pay for, or your insurance company will be mandated to pay for, all costs associated with IVF treatment.”

That would run into the billions of dollars, explained Senator Elizabeth Warren, who knows about such things. It's not something Trump could do by executive order, she said. It would require funding by Congress.

But now, thanks to Trump's running mate, J.D. Vance, we know that babies are the primary purpose of the GOP. So maybe they will fund IVF. But, wait, there is controversy. Some of the Christian Nationalists and anti-abortionists think embryos are people and deserve protection. The problem with IVF is that many embryos are called into being, but few will serve.

Here's the procedure for one cycle of IVF, according to YaleMedicine.org:

The woman's ovaries are stimulated and eggs are retrieved.

The eggs are placed in a test tube or culture dish and therein introduced to sperm, either the husband/partner's or donor. (That's the “in vitro” part.)

Embryos are grown and then one or more are selected for implantation in the woman's uterus. Some are left over. That's because creating multiple embryos is the most efficient way to provide the service. One at a time would be cost prohibitive because odds are better with more than one.

Unused embryos can be frozen for future use for up to about 50 years, or they can be discarded, allowed to be adopted or donated. It's the “discarded” that bothered the Alabama Supreme Court recently.

“The Alabama Supreme Court ruled in February that frozen embryos created by IVF are children under state law and are therefore subject to legislation dealing with the wrongful death of a minor if one is destroyed,” reported CBS News Health Watch. "The Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to all unborn children, regardless of their location,” the news agency said. That includes outside of a biological uterus.

If upheld nationally, that ruling could end IVF treatment entirely. Doctors would be as reluctant to be responsible for embryo-children as they are now for aborted fetuses, even in the most dire situations for the health of the mother.

Trump wants to keep his anti-abortion supporters while handing hope to infertile couples. That hope involves murder in the estimation of more than just some Alabama justices. As Republicans want to soften their stand on abortion to enhance their election prospects, there are, according to National Public Radio, abortion “abolishionists” who want IVF patients charged with murder. IVF practitioners could attempt to keep all created embryos alive, but a failure there would open them up to wrongful death suits from the egg and sperm donors or activists in states that would give them standing to sue.

The important thing to know, at this stage, is that Trump is lying about the promise of the government paying for IVF and the mandate upon insurance companies.

Will taxpayers want to provide this service when some don't want to pay for the health care of children already here? Or, would the insured want their premiums to go for it?

It was hard enough for the Affordable Care Act to mandate coverage for pre-existing conditions. In 2009, as Congress debated the ACA, colloquially known as Obamacare, politicians were returning to their districts to ask constituents how they wanted them to vote on the measure. I covered a very large town hall meeting at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania. Women were wearing tea bags dangling from their hats and the crowd was palpably hostile. Then-Senator Arlen Specter, R-Pa, finally said, “Well, then, what do you want me to do when people can't afford to go to the doctor?”

A woman way in the back shouted: “Well that's just too damn bad for them.”

Specter, a Democrat who became a Republican, would switch back to the Democratic Party that same year.

Soon after the 2004 election, Specter, a member of the Judicial Committee, stepped into the public spotlight as a result of controversial statements about his views of the future of the Supreme Court. At a press conference, he stated:

“When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think [confirmation] is unlikely. The president is well aware of what happened, when a number of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster.... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning.”

Activist groups interpreted his comments as warnings to President George W. Bush about the implications of nominating Supreme Court justices who were opposed to the Roe v. Wade decision. Specter said he was predicting, not warning. And in questioning John Roberts, when Roberts was up for confirmation, he worried, but questioned obliquely, afraid the direct question was unfair.

Ah, hindsight.

Author Diane Petryk can be reached at bloomplanet@gmail.com.

Send comments, questions, and tips to stevenrharry@gmail.com or call or text me at 517-730-2638. If you'd like to be notified by email when I post a new story, let me know.

Previous stories