IVF: The Cost of Creating Life

President Trump’s recent Executive Order creates a ripple of controversy within the Conservative Party, especially the pro-life community.

By Lauren Glickert

 

An Executive Order

On February 18, President Trump signed an executive order expanding accessibility and lowering costs of in-vitro fertilization (IVF). The order seeks to “protect IVF access and aggressively reduce” treatment costs. The Conservative Movement is confused about where to stand on the issue of IVF. While many Republicans, including Trump, are keenly backing legislation supporting it, the pro-life community is pushing back.

 

What Is IVF?

Through a process called ovarian stimulation, doctors inject a follicle-stimulating hormone into a woman’s body. The goal is to cause the ovaries to produce multiple mature eggs at once. A man collects sperm, which scientists monitor in a lab where conception occurs. Invariably, the process creates several embryos. Doctors implant those which show the greatest promise of growing to term in the womb. The remaining embryos are discarded or used for scientific experimentation.

 

Pushback

Alabama jurors go as far as to claim IVF is no different from abortion. In the Alabama Supreme Court decision, the state established that frozen embryos can be considered children.

From a conservative, pro-life perspective, IVF cannot be supported. If the pro-life community truly believes life begins at the moment of conception, IVF undeniably crosses a red line. Mechanically generating the conception of embryos is one thing. Discarding the least likely to survive is blatantly another thing. Essentially, it amounts to choosing between life and death.

Not only that, many embryos implanted through IVF fail to survive to term, resulting in a miscarriage. According to data from a 2020 CDC report, the national average for women younger than 35 able to become pregnant by in-vitro fertilization during the first egg retrieval is 55.1 percent. As women age, that number drops steadily. In 2022, the CDC released new data showing that only 37.5 percent of IVF cycles resulted in a live birth.

Christian communities at large are hesitant to support the expansion and promotion of IVF treatment. They claim that in-vitro fertilization is far outside the boundaries of God’s intended plan for parenthood. Many, especially Catholics, believe the separation of the procreative acts of marriage contrary to human nature and design. Men and women bear the image of God from the beginning of life to the end. Manufacturing the process of creating life begs serious moral questions.

 

Thinking Critically

Amid the politically charged debate, it remains important to think critically about the nature and impact of in vitro fertilization. Opponents of IVF highlight the ways in which it parallels abortion, but the purpose behind each procedure is radically different. The objective of abortion is death. The objective of IVF is life. Nevertheless, the eerie similarity between the processes highlights the reality of how both abortion and IVF handle embryos.

Despite the controversy surrounding President Trump’s Order, IVF brings hope, joy, and children to many struggling families. As his Order states, “We want more babies.” Yet, as C.S. Lewis shares in The Abolition of Man, not everything that brings pleasure or joy is morally good and acceptable to pursue. Consequential and ethical sacrifices arise in a society when it chooses to believe the creation of life can be bought. Embryos are thrown away. Life is created through methods contrary to human nature. The government points hopeful parents to artificial reproductive technology instead of adoption. And IVF draws dangerously close to building an industry out of making babies. (READ MORE: Pop Culture in Support of Conservatives)

 

Solutions

Many couples hoping, praying, and desperately trying to have children turn to IVF. Nonetheless, creating life in a lab is not the only way for these individuals to become parents. The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) estimates around 369,000 children currently in the child welfare system. American parents adopt over 115,000 children each year. Hundreds of thousands of children still await adoption.

President Trump’s Executive Order rightly recognizes “the importance of family formation… that our Nation’s public policy must make it easier for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children.” However, the Order quietly ignores the many potential avenues for parenthood.

Family formation and the protection of the nuclear family are deeply valuable components of molding a healthy culture. If our Nation genuinely strives to remove barriers to growing families, all opportunities should be reflected in policymaking. President Trump’s Order promotes the mass manufacturing of lives in a lab. (LISTEN MORE: Keeping History Alive: Eras and Icons) 

True legislative support for all paths to family formation could and should advocate so much more. Through fostering and adopting, families could deeply impact an immeasurable amount of lives without discarding virtually hundreds of thousands of embryos.

 

 

About the Author

Lauren Glickert is a senior at Grove City College, double majoring in Political Science and Communications. In addition to serving as a marketing fellow for the Institute for Faith & Freedom, Lauren is a student ambassador for Concerned Women for America and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.

On campus, Lauren engages in several student leadership opportunities such as acting as President for Grove City’s Young Women for America chapter and leading at Grove City Middle School as Young Life team leader. She also served on the Student Government Association, Orientation Board, Project Okello African Missions, Homecoming Committee, several mentorship programs, and is a member of Mortar Board National Honor Society and Pi Sigma Chi Political Science Honorary.

Lauren spent the summer before senior year interning at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. and plans to move back to the Capitol post-grad to focus on public policy and justice issues. Lauren is passionate about American politics, human rights issues, and advocacy, and she is excited to see where her future leads.

READ MORE BY LAUREN GLICKERT: Women’s Healthcare is for Women, Right? 

 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed are those of the writer alone and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Grove City College, the Institute for Faith and Freedom, or their affiliates.

Cover Image: Photo by Julia Koblitz on Unsplash