The Conservative Case for Trump’s IVF Policy

The government already tilts the scales in favor of low fertility.

By Ira Stoll Sept. 5, 2024 6:16 pm ET

Conservatives have greeted Donald Trump’s promise to require insurance companies to pay for in vitro fertilization, or for government to foot the bill, with doubts. Yet the proposal deserves a look.

Opinion: Potomac Watch

Kamala Harris’s CNN Interview and Donald Trump’s IVF Promise

Current government policy is tilted against having children. Federal law requires most health insurers to cover contraception at no cost to the patient. That includes birth-control pills, long-acting methods such as intrauterine devices, and often even surgical permanent sterilization methods like tubal ligation.

In a free-marketeer’s dream of the future, those regulations wouldn’t exist. Insurers could compete on price and coverage, though with the possible consequence of an increase in unwanted pregnancies. That future is a long way off. In the meantime, Mr. Trump’s idea would restore the federal government’s neutrality on the decision to start a family.

Continue reading the article here.

Share:

MOST POPULAR Articles

Trump’s Expanded IVF Promise Envisions Flexibility for Employers

‘The pro-life movement still has some real juice’: How Trump’s promise of free IVF fizzled

Trump’s Long-Awaited IVF Policy Falls Far Short of His Campaign Pledge

More Articles of Interest