IVF as an Election and Policy Issue 

Copy link to quick take

For the second time this term, a bill that would have established a national right to in vitro fertilization (IVF) has failed to garner sufficient votes in the Senate on a largely party line vote.

IVF became an election issue shortly after a February 2024 ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court categorized embryos created through IVF as “unborn children” under the state’s law.  This ruling brought media attention to the potential implications of fetal personhood laws, which are embedded in some state abortion bans and a variety of other public policies, on curtailing access to fertility assistance.  

According to a recent KFF poll, 57% of voters say they want to hear more about IVF from the candidates.  This issue is particularly salient for Democrats (77%) and women in their reproductive years (76%), but also four in ten Republican voters feel it is important for the presidential candidates to talk about IVF.  

 Vice President Harris and former President Trump have both recently expressed their support for IVF care. Trump has stated that his administration would require insurance coverage of IVF services or have the government pay for those who don’t have insurance. There is no mechanism for a President to unilaterally require plans to cover IVF or to allocate funds to provide coverage for those who are uninsured or covered by Medicare or Medicaid.  Congress would need to approve a new law to provide IVF coverage, and nearly all Republican senators voted against the right to IVF, and many conservative groups, including the Southern Baptist Convention and Catholic Church, expressly oppose IVF.

While IVF services account for approximately 2% of births in the US, they are extremely costly and out of reach for many low and middle income people who need the technology to start or grow their families, a significant gap in health care coverage today.  While public support for IVF is high, Congress has been unable to agree even on the right to get IVF services.  Agreement on coverage and funding seem even more out of reach.