Posted on 10/25/2025 1:47:43 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Social and religious conservatives spent more than a year lobbying first the Trump campaign and then the administration against mandating or subsidizing insurance coverage of in vitro fertilization, which they consider akin to abortion.
Last week, their work paid off.
President Donald Trump unveiled policies to lower the cost of fertility drugs and to create a new pathway for optional employer-based coverage of IVF, arguing the moves would make it easier for couples to have children. But Trump, who promised on the campaign trail to make fertility treatments free for all patients, will not have the government pay for it or require insurance companies to cover the cost.
“There were letters and meetings and calls — a lot of activity,” said Kristi Hamrick, the lead federal policy strategist with Students for Life of America, an anti-abortion group. “We told [the Trump administration] that it would be an absolute violation of people’s conscience rights to force taxpayers to subsidize IVF, which has the business model that destroys more life than is ever born.”
The White House’s decision to stop short of an IVF mandate or taxpayer-funded program highlights the power that social conservatives and anti-abortion advocates still wield within the administration — even as their agenda has at times clashed...
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Very good
“…in vitro fertilization, which they consider akin to abortion.”
Politico
Ya. The process freezes fertilized embryos. Those are people In freezers. After the parents die they have a child undeveloped sitting in a freezer until someone destroys it.
Does it have a soul? Well if the Gospel is true, then, yeah
I’m not paying for that. Not contributing to that
Why Trump got involved in promoting this embryo destructive practice is hard to understand.
He listens to people and will change course when he listened to the wrong people.
The man has a lot on his plate.
And that's the "best" outcome. Those embryos can be (and are) sold for medical experimentation. Before too long perverted science will propose - let's grow some of those embryos into children, which we have manipulated to have terrible diseases, or have selected for some exaggerated characteristic. Then we can make money selling their parts, or drugs developed from them, etc. etc.
It's truly inhuman and satanic.
Only in so far that government shouldn’t be running our health care system et al.
But, a couple having a hard time conceiving should be regarded has having an illness/disease which should be covered.
It is a natural/ biological function to reproduce. Our bodies were meant for that. It’s part of what defines life. Most definitions of “life” include the idea of reproduction in them somewhere: https://pressbooks.cuny.edu/astrobiology/chapter/definition-of-life/#:~:text=Living%20organisms%20are%20capable%20of,Response
If it don’t work, it should be regarded as being broke and needing repaired or assisted.
I’m not talking about that I’m talking about freezing fertilized embryos. People.
It is a natural/ biological function to reproduce. It is not a natural/ biological function to manufacture human beings as a commodity. The process removes the act from outside the natural intimacy that should exists between a husband and wife when bringing new life into the world, and in the process destroys multiple other human beings because they are not the perfect "chosen" ones. Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should.
Some people probably had him convinced that it was a solution to low U.S. birth rates among young married couples. If memory serves fertility problems are becoming more common especially with so many women deciding to have their first child when they are in their mid thirties and even forties.
Its possible to harvest eggs and fertilize only what you intend to implant.
Where is life destroyed?
You can harvest eggs, fertilize them and use them for other couples, maintain them for when the couple wants more children in the future...
You’re argument is based on a “what if.” One possible way things can be done, but it doesn’t need to be that way.
That’s a Catholic doctrine. That belief is the basis of Catholics being forbidden to use birth control. The vast majority of Christians do not follow that RCC belief. Really, based upon birth control use, most Catholics don’t either.
But IVF is prolife and profamily. It has blessed many families with children when they have a fertility problem.
It is possible, but today that is not the common practice. Currently the usual procedure is to fertilize several, pick what is deemed the most viable and destroy the rest. Sometimes they are frozen, sometimes indefinitely; most commonly they are simply discarded as "medical waste". and of course this is apart from the other moral and ethical reasons against this procedure. There is no "what if" about it.
“ You can harvest eggs, fertilize them and use them for other couples, maintain them for when the couple wants more children in the future...”
I’m not arguing. I’m saying I’m not wanting to participate in this crap in any way. And it is against my religion to begin with
Google search Catholic view
It makes no difference to church reaching “what most Catholics do”. It follows Jesus, not a majority
It’s not a democratic institution
“IVF departs from that norm. Its very name, in vitro, means in Latin that the conception occurs “in glass” (a petri dish in most cases), not in the couple’s marital act. Ovum and sperm are extracted from the man and woman, often by masturbation, and are manipulated in the laboratory. Multiple embryos are usually created, because some do not survive the freezing before insertion in the mother; others are not used because they are judged to have low reproductive potential; and some of those with high reproductive potential fail to attach to the uterine wall. As laudable as sympathy for an infertile couple may be, there is more than a whiff of “eugenics” in IVF as medical personnel choose which embryos are worthy of life and which are not.
So, what happens to the embryos that are not used? Unless the couple objects, they are discarded. If the couple wants to keep them, they are kept frozen for possible future use. Now
He liked the COVID shots too loved working with the ‘science’ of the Pharma Industry “Operation Warp Speed”.
Weren’t most of Elon musk’s children created via IVF?
Neither one of these is true.
The vast majority of Christians do not follow that RCC belief. Really, based upon birth control use, most Catholics don’t either.
The fact that a lot of people are ignorant defiant in the face of clear teaching of the Church does not justify it. As stanne said, Christianity is not a democracy.
But IVF is prolife and profamily.
It is neither. It separates procreation from the God designed marital act and makes a commodity of children. It also murders those unborn children that are not lucky enough to be chosen. The child that survives has brothers and sisters who were artificially and wrongly conceived in order to be killed.
It has blessed many families with children when they have a fertility problem.
At the cost of artificially bringing a child into this world and murdering it's siblings just to satisfy the wants of the parents, including same-sex couples and, in at least one recent case, "thriples".
It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. This has been unequivocally established since at least since the 1970's. At that point everything that is necessary for it to develop into a human being is present, including its own unique DNA. Allowed to complete its natural development, it will not turn into a kidney or lung or an undifferentiated mass of cells, but a human being.
The real point is whether the destruction of human life (from IVF, for example), is any different than the murder of a born person. Since science now unequivocally tells us that at conception it is a human being, that should be the starting point for any consideration of this question, not the aftermath.
As I said in another thread on this topic, when we speak of human zygotes, embryos, fetuses, babies, children, teenagers, adults, middle-aged, and old age, these are all simply descriptions of the various stages of human development. Some occur on one side of the birth canal, others on the other side. Some may have been conceived under less-than-ideal circumstances. Some may be imperfect or unwanted by their parents or by society. But all are living human beings. All have an equal human dignity. None should unjustly be deprived of life.
So where do we draw the line at the taking of an innocent human life? What difference does location or stage of human development make? If we lower ourselves to countenance taking the life one category of people for our own convenience and satisfaction, who is next?
Before it can become a legal issue, the moral issue has to be addressed. Before there were written laws against pre-meditated murder, there was a general consensus that it was wrong and this was the basis of the law against murder.
Even though it seems clear to me and others that based on the scientific evidence it is rational to conclude that human life begins at conception, it is an unfortunate fact there is doubt or disbelief about this in a large segment of the population. Is it a human life, or isn't it? If it isn't, you can do whatever you want with it. If it is, it should be treated like all other human life. If one simply does not know, it should be given the benefit of the doubt of being human until proved otherwise. It would be akin to seeing a human shaped bag in the middle of the road. If there's a chance there's a human being in there, do you stop or go around it, or just run over it because you don't know? If you are going to err, it's always wise to err on the side of life.
Yes. And Trump has chosen to not make me a part of it with my tax money/contrubution
“If one simply does not know, it should be given the benefit of the doubt of being human until proved otherwise.”
This is simple logic.
One observation is that in the Catholic Church we consider and meditate on the occurrence in the Gospel- when did Jesus’ life begin
It began at the moment of conception, when the angel appeared to the Virgin Mary asking for her consent. That was the moment Jesus came into the world. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
Your Biblical interpretation and based on extrapolation. Some folks pretend blood transfusions aren’t Biblical either applying the same sort of thinking.
As long as they don’t over-harvest, fertilize, and then destroy the fertilized eggs, no harm no foul.
That would be destroying life (it starts at conception and I think we can agree on that point).
This issue can EASILY be addressed.
A couple seeking children of their own is natural, healthy, socially sustainable, and science / medicine can help in a way that isn’t outside the bouday of morality.
Stem cells years ago is a similar situation. The way it was done was immoral, using fetal stem cells. But there were other ways which are employed today using somatic (non-fetal) stem cells found in marrow, fat, etc.
Imagine all stem cell work had been banned because of this? https://www.chicagostemcells.com/blog/list-of-diseases-treated-by-stem-cells/?bp=32962#:~:text=Inherited%20immune%20and%20other%20system,(Medulloblastoma%2C%20Retinoblastoma%20and%20Neuroblastoma)
(IMHO)
You are creating an issue with only two options when in reality there are many.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.