Published June 5, 2025
As the Trump administration and the Republican Party appear to be moving toward greater institutional support for in vitro fertilization, the pro-life movement would be mistaken to treat this as a settled debate, both as a matter of policy and as a matter of first principles.
When it comes to politics, it would be understandable for observers to believe this debate was over before it began and that continued resistance is futile. IVF has long been legal, and there isn’t momentum to restrict it in any significant way at the federal level. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump moved the GOP toward a position of explicitly supporting these procedures, going so far as to call himself the “father of IVF.” He also pledged to initiate taxpayer funding for the procedure.
Last summer, as pro-lifers worried that the Republican Party would soften its decades of support for the rights of unborn children, the party altered its platform to embrace IVF by name. Where once the platform document stated that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” now it says only that the party will “oppose Late Term Abortion.” It pledges to support “IVF (fertility treatments).” Notably, some national pro-life groups endorsed this modified platform while saying little or nothing about its unfortunate departure from precedent.
Click here to continue reading.
EPPC Fellow Alexandra DeSanctis writes on culture and family issues, with a particular focus on abortion policy and pro-life advocacy, as a member of the Life and Family Initiative.
