How to Think About the IVF Expansion Plan
President Donald Trump’s newest plan to expand IVF is a prime example of good intentions gone wrong. It’s easy to sympathize with a policy aimed at helping couples have children, and Republicans should lead on making family-building easier without creating new problems.
The goal to broaden access to in vitro fertilization aligns with conservative values about supporting families and life. Making fertility care affordable and available can strengthen households and restore hope for parents struggling with infertility.
That said, the phrase “good intentions gone wrong” applies because complex federal programs often create perverse incentives and regulatory thickets. A national rollout without careful guardrails risks bureaucratic overreach, higher costs, and legal entanglements that ultimately hurt the very families the plan intends to help.
One practical concern is how mandates interact with private insurers and health providers. If the plan relies on heavy-handed rules or unfunded mandates, employers and clinics could be forced into one-size-fits-all solutions that limit choices and raise premiums.
There are also ethical questions around embryo handling, parental consent, and the commercialization of reproduction that demand clear protections. Without strong protections for conscience rights and informed consent, clinics may face pressure to prioritize efficiency over patient autonomy, which conservatives must oppose.
A better conservative approach would preserve access while shrinking federal meddling—streamline FDA and insurance barriers, expand targeted tax relief or credits, and incentivize private-sector innovations that lower costs. Policies that promote portability of benefits, predictable liability rules, and competition will expand options without bureaucratic waste.
Religious and medical freedom must be central to any solution, ensuring providers who object on conscience grounds are protected and that parents retain final say over embryos and treatment paths. Protections should be explicit, legally durable, and written so they cannot be easily undone by regulatory reinterpretation.
We should measure success by outcomes that matter to families: fewer barriers to care, lower out-of-pocket costs, and clearer legal frameworks that prevent surprise liability and protect parental rights. That requires targeted federal incentives combined with state flexibility, not sweeping federal mandates that create new problems across jurisdictions.
Conservatives can support helping couples pursue parenthood while insisting on policies that respect liberty, conscience, and market solutions. Thoughtful reforms that remove red tape, protect providers, and empower families will succeed where blunt national programs risk doing more harm than good.
