Pray for an end to IVF and the protection of human embryos: Join our prayer pledge

(Catholic Culture) — President Donald Trump’s in vitro fertilization executive order (February 18, 2025), directing the federal government to move to expand access to IVF conception techniques, is the policy that most conservatives voted for Donald Trump “in spite of” rather than “because of.” Yes, his IVF EO supports social conservative goals, affirming “the importance of family formation and that our Nation’s public policy must make it easier for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children.” And he also states, “As many as one in seven couples trying to have a baby are unable to conceive.”

But then President Trump wants an alliance between social conservative values and greater public access to current IVF practices, which, in part, end up by consigning the “surplus population” of redundant IVF derived embryonic human beings to be used for human experimentation, frozen for possible future “implantation,” or unceremoniously discarded.

The president seemingly intended his IVF EO to apply to traditional man and woman married couples, but that will surely be contested by LGBTQ activists, Planned Parenthood, leftist Democrats, the ACLU, single working women, and others. But the president’s single IVF policy, addressing low birth and fertility rates directly, conflicts with the “Make America Healthy Again” mantra and the DOGE efficiency and cost cutting goals.

Sadly, President Trump’s IVF views are widely shared by the American public. A Pew Research Center survey of Americans on the question of IVF in mid-May 2024 presents a bleak outlook for IVF opponents.

• Religion: 78% of White non-evangelical Protestants and religiously unaffiliated Americans say IVF access is a good thing, as do White evangelicals (63%), Black Protestants (69%) and Catholics (65%).
• Politics: 63% of Republicans/Republican-leaning independents say IVF access is good, one in ten disagree, 27% are not sure. 79% of Democrats/Democrat leaners say IVF access is good, 5% think it is bad, 16% are not sure.
• Abortion: 82% of no-exception abortion supporters, and 76% who favor abortion in most cases support IVF. 60% of persons who want abortion illegal in most cases favor IVF access. 40% of persons who want abortion legal in all cases support IVF access, 20% say IVF is bad, and 40% of “no exception pro-lifers” are unsure.
• Life starts at Conception: Of the 33% of Americans who believe that the statement “human life begins at conception, so an embryo is a person with rights” describes their position very well, 59% say IVF access is a good thing, and 13% say it is a bad thing.

Religious opposition to in vitro fertilization

The teachings of only two American Christian denominations are very clearly opposed to IVF. Catholic IVF teaching was plainly explained in 1986 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in Donum Vitae (The Gift of Life). As the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has commented: “Donum Vita teaches that if a given medical intervention helps or assists the marriage act to achieve pregnancy, it may be considered moral; if the intervention replaces the marriage act in order to engender life, it is not moral.”

The Southern Baptist Convention (June 24, 2024) stated:

All children are a gift from the Lord regardless of the circumstances of their conception … not all technological means of assisting human reproduction are equally God-honoring or morally justified .… In Vitro Fertilization most often participates in the destruction of embryonic human life and increasingly engages in dehumanizing methods for determining suitability for life and genetic sorting .… Southern Baptists [should] only utilize reproductive technologies consistent with that affirmation especially in the number of embryos generated in the IVF process .…

Other Christian denominations show little to no IVF consistency. Emma Waters, writing in 2024, noted, “Most Protestant denominations in our country still lack a biblically informed stance on childbearing, infertility, and the most basic reproductive technology.”

Prominent IVF opponent

So, if religious affiliation is not the determining factor for IVF support, what is? Let’s look at Nicole Shanahan, Vice Presidential running mate to Robert Kennedy, Jr. for his 2024 Independent presidential run: She and her former husband, Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin, unsuccessfully tried IVF. Writing in People magazine, Shanahan, a very wealthy and successful attorney, stated (July 6, 2023), “I believe IVF is sold irresponsibly, and my own experience with natural childbirth has led me to understand that the fertility industry is deeply flawed.”

In the New Yorker (April/May 2023) Shanahan said, “Many of the I.V.F. clinics are financially incentivized to offer you egg freezing and I.V.F. and not incentivized to offer you other fertility services.” She told the Australian Financial Review that IVF is “one of the biggest lies that’s being told about women’s health today.”

Politico (March 28, 2024) reported that Shanahan said: “IVF is a very expensive for-profit business, and many of these clinics are owned by private equity firms that are not invested in the underlying health of women. … I care about … informed consent…not letting corporations take advantage of us.” Politico also reported that Shanahan, who turned to IVF “to conceive her first child, “was told she would not be a good candidate for IVF because she had polycystic ovary syndrome.” With a prominent successful and tech-oriented woman lawyer taking public swipes at IVF, the president of Reproductive Freedom for All (previously NARAL), Mini Timmaraju, went into ad hominem overdrive, saying that Shanahan’s IVF criticisms are “junk” science, claiming that “IVF has been a long-established reproductive health technology.”

I am pleased to report that while I was working on this article, Nicole Shanahan was baptized and is now a Christian. Let’s examine the IVF public record to learn whether it is Shanahan or the abortion “reproductive freedom” lobbyist Mini Timmaraju who knows the score.

Congress did not require CDC to identify IVF complications

In 1992, Congress passed the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act (HR 4773, 1992) introduced by the abortion supporter, then Congressman and now Senator, Ron Wyden (D-OR) and co-sponsored by Republican Representative Norman Lent (NY). It required all U.S. assisted reproductive technology (ART) programs to report yearly to the secretary of Health and Human Services through the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) regarding pregnancy “success” rates defined by the HHS secretary, the embryo laboratory used by the program, and whether it is certified or has applied for certification.

HHS was tasked to develop a model certification; IVF procedural standards; requirements for maintaining records for lab tests, facilities, personnel, job descriptions, quality assurance; and HHS authorizes states with certification requirements to rely on “accrediting” organizations (i.e., groups with a self-interest in IVF) to inspect laboratories, and requires state inspections and authorizes federal inspections. HR 4773 authorized the HHS secretary to institute disciplinary proceedings for violations, permits the secretary to set criteria and procedures for accrediting groups compliance, and requires publication of pregnancy success rates; to identify embryo laboratories in states with certification programs and whether a laboratory is certified, and to identify labs in states with no certification; each certified laboratory in a state without a certification program; and laboratory applications for certification.

Since 1997 the CDC has “collaborated with the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) to publish the incoming data” (see The National Library of Medicine). SART is basically an IVF facility trade association. SART is definitely WOKE, very WOKE. On SART’s website home page are four rotating fade-in fade-out pictures of what one assumes are typical SART IVF clients: two young women and a baby; two young men and a baby; a single women and a baby, and finally a young couple and a baby.

HR 4773 unanimously passed on a voice vote both in the House and Senate. Only two congressmen voted on the record, and no senators were listed as supporting or opposing HR 4773. But there was one significant omission in the bill: Congress did not require the CDC to identify even one adverse health complication affecting the IVF-conceived child or the mother! So IVF clients have nothing to worry about. Or do they?

CDC’s IVF complication censorship

The CDC, acting as a compliant and industry regulatory agency, has docilely complied with interests of America’s morally rudderless IVF facilities in not reporting any IVF complications. Bloomberg News reports:

While the CDC publishes a wealth of statistics on the success rates of various fertility therapies, they often fail to provide comprehensive insights into potential complications and health risks associated with these procedures. Adverse effects, including severe medical conditions, psychological impacts, and long-term health considerations, are not always included in the standard data reports. ….[P]atients may be entering treatments without a full understanding of what’s at stake for their health and well-being.…

IVF linked to numerous complications

Confirming Bloomberg’s observation about CDC’s hiding, ignoring, not reporting, etc., IVF complications is a November 2020 Human Reproduction study regarding the reporting, or more accurately the non-reporting, practices of the three major IVF monitoring organizations from the United States (CDC), Australia-New Zealand (ANZARD), and the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the reporting years 1997-2016.

Of the three agencies, the CDC documents the fewest adverse complications:

Condition	Europe	USA CDC	Australia / New Zealand
Miscarriage	No	No	Yes
Abnormal pregnancy outcome	No	No	Yes
Delivery	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mode of Delivery	No	No	Yes
Cumulative outcome data	Yes, 1 year	No	No
Neonatal malformation	No	No	Yes
Perinatal mortality	No	No	Yes
Ovary hyper stimulation syndrome	Yes	No	Yes
Maternal deaths	No	No	Since 1999
PreTerm delivery < 37 weeks	Yes	Yes, since 2011	Yes
Haemorrhage	Yes	No	No
Infections	Yes	No	No
Foetal reduction	Yes	No	Yes

Human Reproduction also states:

The health status of the infants is recorded only at the moment of birth, although minor and major malformations or health impairments are more often determined during further infant development.

In 2018 Jessica Gorgui and Anick Bérard detailed some across-the-board IVF complications:

• In a systematic review and meta-analysis of Ovarian Stimulators and the increased complication prevalence in IVF initiated multiple pregnancies, “Chaabane et al. pooled a total of nine studies…. They calculated a pooled relative risk (RR) of 8.80 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 5.09 to 15.20.”
• Medically Assisted Reproduction (MAR) single birth babies “have been shown to be at increased risk of very preterm…LBW, small for gestational age,…neonatal intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95%CI, 1.16-1.40), and overall perinatal mortality (OR, 1.68; 95%CI, 1.11-2.55) compared to spontaneously conceived singletons.”
• Artificial Reproduction Technology (ART) “users were 3.27 times more at risk of prematurity than non-ART users (RR, 3.27; 95% CI, 2.03-5.28). ART was also associated with a doubling of the risk of delivering moderately preterm (RR, 2.05; 95%CI, 1.71-2.47) [87-89].”
• “When comparing singleton ART conceived children to those who were spontaneously conceived, we observed a 1.70-fold increase in the risk of LBW among ART singletons (RR, 1.70; 95%CI, 1.50 1.92)”
• “…when comparing singletons conceived through ART to those who were naturally conceived, the meta-analysis showed a 3-fold increase in the risk of being born very LBW which is defined as a birth weight of < 1500 g (RR 3.0; 95%CI, 2.07-4.36).”

IVF and ovarian cancer

A March 2025 Fertility and Sterility article by 19 authors of 11 meta-analytical reviews of 188 studies investigated the association between developing female ovarian cancer and borderline ovarian tumors after “fertility treatment” (FT):

An observed association between ovarian cancer (including borderline ovarian tumors) and FT has been demonstrated .… This umbrella review … concludes that a statistically significant increase in the incidence of ovarian cancer and borderline ovarian tumors is associated with FT .… The results related to ovarian cancer … point to an association between ovarian cancer and FT in general (OR, 1·21; 95% CI, 1.00–1.45), as well as IVF specifically (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.07–2.54)….

Nicole Shanahan, IVF, and endometriosis

Recall that Nicole Shanahan complained that IVF clinics had significant financial incentives to offer egg freezing and IVF but they were not invested in offering other fertility services. Shanahan’s conclusion received recent clinical support in a study to determine the Effect of Endometriosis on In Vitro Fertilization outcomes. The particular University of Rome study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 40 studies from January 2010 to November 2023 of IVF outcomes in women with and without endometriosis. It was conducted with 8,970 infertile women with endometriosis who were contrasted with 42,946 controls with other infertility causes. The study conclusion showed that that women with endometriosis undergoing IVF/ICSI were “associated with a significantly lower implantation rate (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74–0.97, p = 0.02) … despite the absence of significant differences in live birth, clinical pregnancy, and fertilization rates.”

The authors also noted that “Women with endometriosis may experience … fertility issues … estimated to affect about 10% of women of reproductive age. However, it may reach 25–40% among infertile women[.]” With endometriosis significantly affecting implantation rates, why would IVF clinicians even attempt IVF in the presence of endometriosis when it is known to reduce the “success” rate of their own IVF endeavors? Could such practices be a way of ensuring repeat IVF customer-patients?

IVF preterm births are higher risk

Twelve meta-analyses studying 433,330 IVF/ICSI-initiated pregnancies were undertaken to determine rates of preterm births from two IVF practices as contrasted to natural conceptions. The findings follow:

• “The rate of preterm birth of singletons conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is increased, being as high as 15% to 16% across Europe and the United States.”
• Twelve meta-analyses (16,522,917 pregnancies) ˃433,330 IVF/ICSI were included. IVF/ICSI singletons showed a significantly higher PTB risk compared to natural conception (PTB ˂37 weeks: OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.57–1.89; PTB<32 weeks: OR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.82–2.64).
• Subgroup analyses revealed a comparable risk magnitude for spontaneous PTB (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.56–2.04) and a greater risk for iatrogenic PTB (OR: 2.28, 95% CI: 1.72–3.02). PTB risk was consistent in the subgroup of conventional IVF (OR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.76–2.15) and higher in the subgroup of fresh only (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.55–2.07) vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfers (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.34–1.43).

IVF: Speculative benefits, short on documentation, very pricey

William Williams, MD, past editor of Linacre Quarterly, examined the files and articles at the Cochrane Library repository in the UK, the “gold standard” for compiling medical research producing systematic reviews, which collects all the data and research results about a topic in a consistent way, for example, by using randomized controlled trials to eliminate bias in data collections and evaluations. Dr. Williams reports the following from the Cochrane database:

• Regarding women with unexplained infertility, “IVF may be associated with higher live birth rates than expectant management, but there is insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions.” But “expectant management” is conducting no medical intervention at all!
• Dr. Williams looked for randomized IVF control trials for polycystic ovarian syndrome and endometriosis, common causes of infertility, but no Cochrane level data were available.
• Examining male infertility, a 2016 Cochrane library systematic review contrasted timed intercourse using ovulation prediction kits for pregnancy and live birth rates with IUI (intrauterine insemination), IVF and ICSI (Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection) that reported “no evidence” of different live birth or pregnancy rates between treatments among 10 randomized controlled trials and 757 patients studied: “We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference in safety and effectiveness between different treatments for male subfertility.”

Ovulation prediction kits from Amazon cost from $5 to $125 for cell phone-based ovulation monitors. President Trump notes IVF “treatments” cost $12-$25 thousand dollars per attempt. Dr. Williams urges NaProTechnology, which relies on modern medicine to diagnose the cause of infertility for individual women or men. Over 1,400 medical scholarly articles are the foundation of the system’s textbook, The Medical & Surgical Practice of NaProTECHNOLOGY.

IVF, medical safety, and morals

The Catholic Medical Association appealed (2/21/2025) to President Trump:

…in favor of a medically sound and morally ethical alternative to couple infertility known as Restorative Reproductive Medicine. RRM also has a much better track record of success than IVF .… In contrast to IVF, Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM), provides a thorough evaluation of the cause of infertility and treatment to address it. RRM methods, including NaPro Technology, FEMM and NeoFertility, consistently lead to a higher rate of successful pregnancies with reduced risks and financial costs compared to IVF.

The impressive record the Catholic Medical Society refers to has been documented by Dr. Thomas W. Hilgers at Creighton University’s St. Paul VI Institute:

Infertility Treatment—Percent Success Rate Natural Procreative Technology vs. Artificial Reproductive Technology Source: Pope Paul VI Institute for Human Reproduction
NaPro Technology %	In Vitro Fertilization %
Endometriosis 56.7—76.42	Endometriosis 21.2
Polycystic ovaries 62.5—80.02	Polycystic ovaries 25.6
Tubal occlusion 38.43	Tubal occlusion 27.2
Surgical NaPro Technology Associated with	Traditional Surgery association (rarely used)
Endometriosis 56.7—76.42	Endometriosis 57.0
Polycystic ovarian disease 62.5—80.02	Polycystic ovarian disease 41.8
Cost per cycle of Treatment $322	Cost per cycle of Treatment $9,226

CDC finally admits IVF dangers

The branch of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) known as the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is the federal statistical agency responsible for the collection and dissemination of the nation’s vital and health statistics. The NCHS prepares forms for recording important public health data such as the U. S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth, most recently revised in 2003 (previously revised, 1989). This is not the birth certificate parents take home with their newborn from a hospital or birthing center. Of foremost importance to President Trump’s IVF Executive Order is Box 41 of the U. S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth:

41. RISK FACTORS IN THIS PREGNANCY. … Pregnancy resulted from infertility treatment—If yes, check all that apply:
☐ Fertility-enhancing drugs,
☐ Artificial insemination or Intrauterine insemination
☐ Assisted reproductive technology (e.g., in vitro fertilization (IVF), gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT))

The 2003 revision U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth was the first time U.S. public health forms requested IVF related complications, because Artificial Reproductive Technology (ART) complications were so common (considering the very small segment of IVF births compared to regular births) that the NCHS added Box 41 to record the adverse effect incidence and prevalence.

CDC’s Potemkin village health reports

Because CDC’s data retrieval efforts of IVF-related complications are not currently disseminated and publicized they cannot improve public health.

For example, in January 2017, the CDC published its Morbidity and Mortality Report on Inpatient Hospitalization Costs Associated with Birth Defects Among Persons of All Ages for 2013. The CDC reports that, “The costs for birth defect–associated hospitalizations were highest among patients aged <1 year ($8,901,015,375)[.]” I read the 2013 report and did word searches for IVF, ART, in vitro fertilization, and complications. There was no way to learn what percentage of the birth-defect complications which accounted for those gross health expenditures were IVF-related, even though the CDC had collected such records since 2003!

I examined the next MMWR on Inpatient hospital costs for birth defects published in July 2023 for tabulation year 2019. The CDC published its service delivery hospitalizations cost estimated for:

patients aged <65 years … In 2019, the estimated cost of these birth defect-associated hospitalizations in the United States was $22.2 billion. Birth defect-associated hospitalizations bore … 7.7% of related inpatient medical costs … and are the leading cause of infant mortality, responsible for 21% of newborn and infant deaths …. Their treatments incur significant financial costs throughout a person’s lifetime. As treatments and medical costs change, updates to hospitalization cost estimates for birth defects are needed.

I read the 2019 CDC report, performing identical word searches, and again found nothing. Do CDC employees read their own publications that explain “hospitalization cost estimates for birth defects are needed?” If so, why the complete omission AGAIN of any current specific cost breakdown for IVF associated complications? Further, when following a link to where we would expect the 2019 data to be found (try this link), the computer user is greeted with a 404 Not Found message. This data hiding looks intentional.

Lower fertility causes

Lower fertility is, in part, a result of personal lifestyle or behavioral choices. Harris-Williams, a global investment bank, notes that lower society-wide fertility rates result from a number of non-medical causes, including: More working women in the workforce delaying childbearing for a job drive the demand for ART, and the age of first time mothers went from 24.9 in 2001 to 27.5 in 2023. From 2020 to 2022, 46 percent of U.S. births were to women ages 30-39. In addition: Increased acceptance and legalization of homosexual “marriage,” including those with children since 2015 who are choosing ART, and single women choosing ART.

The question provoked here is: What past voluntary choices that reduced childbearing capacity should now be subsidized by third parties, including tax incentives, to reverse the effects of these fertility-reducing choices?

Dangers of government IVF promotion

In January 2025, Arlington, Virginia, Catholic Bishop Michael F. Burbidge wrote a pastoral letter regarding IVF and public policy. He noted:

[E]lected officials are rushing to support an IVF industry that kills or freezes hundreds of thousands of embryonic children every year and facilitates the exploitative practice of surrogacy. … [T]his ignores the moral injustices at the core of the IVF process and the fatal consequences for so many of the embryonic children brought about through that process.

The Church stands in solidarity with all those experiencing infertility and proclaims the dignity of all who come into existence as a result of IVF; however, she stands absolutely opposed to any federal or state governmental action that would involve every citizen with a grave moral injustice.

A federal IVF entitlement or mandate would represent…an illegitimate handing over to Caesar the things of God (cf. Mk. 12:17)…. Like the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act, such government action would also threaten religious liberty for the millions of Christians and others for whom both faith and reason make involvement with IVF impossible, and such a state mandate would inevitably result in the widespread coercion of healthcare workers and the evisceration of their professional right of conscience.

President Trump’s main reason behind his campaign promise was to “make it easier for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children.” His suggestion that increasing IVF access would solve the problem of lower fertility does not really properly serve that goal.

Moreover, his IVF policy, since he is a public official pledged and duty-bound to secure the good common to all, must be considered in light of others policies he currently supports and which he implemented in his first term as president. These include his commitment to reduce public expenses and debt as per the Department of Government Efficiency and his past and present support for restricting elective abortions. His stated goal is to “make it easier for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children,” consistent with his other policies.

Existing public health agencies, non-Hippocratic medicine, and Planned Parenthood are heavily invested in IVF protection and are likely to produce “recommendations” on a par with the disastrous COVID-19 model. By any fair accounting, IVF fails on ethics, costs, health preservation, harm to women and children, and even personal inconvenience. In addition to combatting the immorality of IVF, citizens should demand that the White House Domestic Policy Council conduct an open and fair process applying objective measures to both IVF and restorative fertility approaches. For both moral and pragmatic reasons, it is restorative fertility, not IVF, which deserves our support.

Republished with permission from Catholic Culture.

Pray for an end to IVF and the protection of human embryos: Join our prayer pledge