Image – Shutterstock: President Donald Trump in 2019
Donald Trump’s latest policy pledge to make in vitro fertilisation cheaper and more widely available has exposed a deep divide within the conservative movement, highlighting a tension at the heart of American politics over the very meaning of being “pro-life.”
Flanked by senior Republicans at the White House, including Alabama Senator Katie Britt, the former president hailed a new deal with EMD Serono that he claimed would slash the cost of IVF drugs by more than 70 per cent and encourage insurers to provide fertility cover as a standalone benefit. When asked about the contentions it causes, Trump described the initiative as “pro-life,” declaring: “you can’t get more pro-life than this.”
To many within the Republican establishment, this move is a pragmatic attempt to respond to demographic decline and appeal to younger voters. Yet critics, including prominent pro-life leaders, see something far darker beneath the rhetoric.
IVF, they argue, is not the life-affirming solution Trump claims it to be. It is a process that routinely involves the destruction, freezing, or indefinite storage of countless embryonic human lives.
Lila Rose of Live Action pointed out that only around seven per cent of embryos created through IVF survive to birth, while the rest are discarded or perish. Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life was even blunter, calling IVF “destructive” and urging politicians to “help families grow and flourish without killing life in the process.”
This ethical contradiction has long troubled conservatives, but the Alabama Supreme Court’s landmark decision in early 2024 sharpened the debate. In that case, justices ruled that frozen embryos are legally children under the state’s wrongful death law, leading IVF clinics to halt operations out of fear of prosecution.
The backlash was swift, and lawmakers quickly carved out protections to shield the industry. Senator Britt, while reaffirming her pro-life credentials, insisted that supporting IVF and defending life “are not mutually exclusive.” But many pro-life advocates saw the court’s ruling as a necessary recognition of what science has long confirmed: that human life begins at conception, whether in a womb or a laboratory.
Trump’s announcement shows profound ignorance of the reality of IVF, as he so easily brushes off this uncomfortable reality. In his eagerness to portray IVF as part of a “family-first” agenda, he is blind to the millions of embryos created and destroyed as part of the process. For those who believe every human life is precious from the moment of conception, this is not a secondary detail but the central moral problem.
The debate is not simply about science or economics. It touches on deeper questions about how society values the most vulnerable. Framing IVF as “pro-life” risks reducing that principle to a slogan, detached from its ethical foundation.
If human life has inherent worth (it does), then policies must reflect that consistently, not just when it is politically expedient. And for many pro-life voters watching Senator Britt stand behind Trump as he announced his IVF plan, the spectacle was a troubling sign that their movement is pandering, sacrificing moral clarity for electoral means.
If you’re reading this and haven’t yet donated to SPUC, please consider helping now. Thank You!
