Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., introduced the IVF Protection Act on Monday in response to Alabama’s recent ruling affirming the personhood of embryos. In The Wall Street Journal, Cruz and Britt argue that their legislation, which threatens to withhold federal Medicaid funding from states that prohibit IVF, aims to protect both life and IVF.
Cruz seems to be moving away from federalism, possibly to secure his Senate seat by appealing to both life advocates and opponents of Obamacare. On his campaign website, he positions himself as a leading voice against federal health care mandates. His opponent, Democrat Colin Allred, is a pro-abortion activist, portraying Cruz as too extreme on abortion. This raises questions about whether Cruz is trying to win over suburban moms for political gain.
I witnessed the end of Roe v. Wade at the Supreme Court, where reporters were more focused on issues like gay marriage, birth control, and IVF rather than abortion. This fearmongering is unfounded as no state has fully banned IVF to date.
The case in Alabama brought to light the negligence of one specific IVF facility, showing a disregard for the lives in their care. A random patient at the facility was near a liquid nitrogen tank containing frozen embryos, which could have destroyed them. Alabama IVF facilities weren’t shut down; they simply had to enhance the care and protection of embryos. Intentional harm to an embryo in Alabama now falls under Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Child Act—something universally supportable.
IVF involves the routine destruction of human embryos under the pretext of “fertility treatments.” IVF specialists often screen embryos for genetic disorders, handicaps, or sex and discard many, resembling eugenic practices.
Despite ethical concerns, the IVF industry is projected to grow, with an expected revenue of $37.4 billion by 2030. The well-being of children should be prioritized over profit. According to FertilityIQ, a single IVF cycle costs over $20,000, with many patients undergoing multiple cycles, totaling $40,000 to $60,000.
A report from the U.K. found that only 7 percent of embryos created for each woman undergoing IVF result in a live birth. Countries like Germany, New Zealand, and France limit the implantation of embryos per cycle to reduce the destruction of human embryos. Cruz and Britt’s bill does not address the number of embryos created in the U.S. IVF industry.
Britt and Cruz explained to Bloomberg News that their bill creates a federal right to access IVF. Cruz praised IVF as a miraculous technology enabling millions to become parents and emphasized that 2 percent of live births in America come from IVF, calling it pro-family and pro-life.
However, Cruz and Britt’s statement that “IVF is profoundly pro-family” is misleading for most couples. Many spend their savings on unsuccessful fertility treatments that also destroy embryos. The IVF industry’s lack of regulation and safety standards needs scrutiny, something Cruz and Britt’s bill fails to address.
During his interview with Bloomberg, Cruz dismissed pro-life concerns, citing polling that IVF is a 90/10 issue and stressing that on IVF, people of good faith should be able to unify.
Conservatives rightly grieve the destruction of embryos due to abortion yet celebrate the “miracle of IVF” which destroys over 85 percent of its intentionally created embryos.
If Cruz and Britt aimed for positive ethical changes in the IVF industry, it would be commendable. Instead, this bill gives more power to the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds over a significant ethical issue. It’s impossible to protect both life and IVF when the latter destroys more lives than it creates.
