There’s a clear issue surrounding fertility today.
In the U.S., approximately 16% of married women face challenges with getting pregnant or experience miscarriages, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On a global scale, about one in six individuals deal with infertility, according to the World Health Organization.
“During the Trump administration, we’re aiming to make it simpler for all couples to have children, raise them, and create the families they’ve always desired,” President Donald Trump declared recently.
This is indeed encouraging. The declining birth rate in the U.S. raises serious concerns for our future economy and societal structure, not to mention the emotional impact on couples longing for children, as well as relatives who yearn for little ones in the family.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy cautioned that this low birth rate represents “a national security threat.”
“Back when my uncle was president, the fertility rate stood at 3.5%,” he noted. “Now, it’s down to 1.6%. The replacement rate, which is the fertility needed to maintain our population, is 2.1%. We’re below that rate currently. That’s a national security issue for us.”
Though IVF, or in-vitro fertilization, usually garners most of the attention regarding infertility solutions, it isn’t the sole method available. Additionally, IVF raises significant ethical questions, especially concerning the fate of embryos that are created and frozen but never used.
Trump mentioned his administration’s plan to encourage employers to include fertility insurance, similar to vision or dental coverage, for their workers. As it stands, 27% of companies with 200 or more employees provide IVF coverage, according to a 2024 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
IVF can be quite costly—a single cycle might range from $12,000 to $25,000 and still may not result in a live birth. The president highlighted that the primary fertility medication used in IVF is currently much more expensive in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world, announcing a collaboration with EMD Serono, a pharmaceutical company, aimed at reducing the costs of IVF medications.
However, it’s essential to acknowledge both the limitations of IVF and that there are alternatives for couples experiencing infertility struggles. Emma Waters, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, pointed out that “IVF has a success rate of just 23%.”
Another method—commonly referred to as restorative reproductive medicine—can also assist couples. This approach typically investigates the underlying causes of infertility. For example, if a woman has endometriosis affecting her ability to conceive, treating that condition might enable her to get pregnant.
“A 2024 study showed that 40% of couples who were previously labeled infertile were able to conceive naturally after restorative reproductive medicine treatments, compared to a 24% success rate with IVF. Another study from 2018 found that 32.1% of women who had about two unsuccessful IVF attempts were able to conceive naturally after targeted interventions with restorative reproductive medicine,” Waters noted.
Kennedy expressed the administration’s commitment to addressing these root causes, mentioning, “President Trump is tackling the underlying issues through his MAHA agenda, which aims to lower exposure to endocrine disruptors and chemicals that harm fertility.”
Restorative reproductive medicine tends to be more affordable and avoids the ethical challenges associated with IVF. In IVF, multiple embryos are often created and then only a few are implanted, while others may be frozen indefinitely. According to Waters, around 15 embryos are typically produced in one cycle, with only 3 to 7% resulting in live births. Many are left frozen or perish.
Some nations have restrictions on the number of embryos that can be generated in a single cycle. For instance, in Germany, parents can only create up to three embryos.
Right now, the U.S. has no such restrictions. However, a survey conducted earlier this year by The Heritage Foundation revealed that 44% of American voters would support limits on the number of embryos created, while only 30% were against the idea. Additionally, over half of American voters favor a requirement that all created embryos be implanted.
A significant portion of the public seems unaware of the potential risks associated with IVF. When asked if they knew that research indicated women who undergo IVF face “a higher risk of serious pregnancy complications including preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, severe maternal morbidity, and cesarean delivery,” almost half were unaware of those risks.
Moreover, many Americans are open to considering restorative reproductive medicine. Over half of voters believe that physicians should focus on treating the underlying issue causing infertility symptoms before resorting to IVF.
While much media attention has centered on infertility solutions like IVF, it’s crucial for those dealing with infertility to be informed about other options. We certainly need to address our declining birth rates, but it’s possible to do so ethically, without leaving embryos in a prolonged state of freezing or neglect.
