An insurance mandate (SF1961) that would require employers to cover IVF and similar technologies is moving at the Minnesota State Capitol. If IVF becomes covered in state and private health plans, more people will turn to this option, which is fraught with ethical dilemmas amidst low success rates. There are better solutions than making taxpayers and insurance payers cover expensive assisted reproduction.
The false hope of IVF
Although the fertility industry suggests the assured outcome of IVF is a healthy baby, many families either do not achieve a viable pregnancy or must endure multiple rounds of IVF to become and remain pregnant. Nationally, only 37 percent of assisted reproductive technology cycles resulted in a live birth. This indicates that 63 percent of all cycles fail.
Amidst these cycles, many lives are created and quickly destroyed. More embryos are destroyed at IVF clinics than at Planned Parenthood in a given year. Some reports say that up to 90 percent of embryos created are never born. Many are discarded as medical waste, donated to science, or left frozen for an indefinite amount of time.
To determine which embryos will have the best chance at life, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) is often used. In 2020, this was about 50 percent of the time. PGT is problematic as it can lead to modern day eugenics — we can now create designer babies with the characteristics and sex desired by their parents.
The proposed insurance mandate also creates a pathway for taxpayer-funded commercial surrogacy in Minnesota due to the bill’s broad definition of infertility. Here, too, the idea of a new life being created seems promising, but in practice, surrogacy creates a marketplace where wombs become commodities and children become products.
In 2024, the late Pope Francis raised concerns about surrogacy, stating, “I deem deplorable the practice of so-called surrogate motherhood, which represents a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child,” Pope Francis said. “A child is always a gift and never the basis of a commercial contract.”
Surrogacy exploits women and intentionally strips a child of the only mother he or she has known for nine months. This has detrimental effects for all involved. Unlike the adoption industry, the surrogacy industry faces few safeguards. Prospective parents and their homes are often unvetted, for example.
The Church, in her wisdom, teaches that there are ethical bounds regarding the conception of a child that must be safeguarded, and the scientific ability to create a child through various technological means does not make it just for the parents, child or society.
Families deserve better
Women and couples deserve better than being funneled down a technological path with low success rates and high moral costs.
Engaging restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) is a better path forward.
When discussing infertility, it is important to remember that infertility is not a disease in and of itself. It is a symptom of an underlying condition such as hormonal imbalances, blocked fallopian tubes, or endometriosis. When we pursue RRM — or more simply, sound women’s (and men’s) health care — patients receive tailored care to understand what may be inhibiting their infertility.
We acknowledge that every child born, regardless of the way they were conceived, is a gift and has dignity, but the reality is, just because we can do something does not mean that we should. The human body is complex, and couples do not deserve to be pushed into a one-size-fits-all approach that intentionally eliminates human life in the process of bringing about new life.
Rather than pushing for an IVF insurance mandate, the state should expand education around RRM in their public health programs, as is being promoted in SF4166 / HF4154.
Urge your legislators to oppose an IVF mandate and to support real care through restorative reproductive medicine at mncatholic.org/notoivf.