Tanis Cortens:
The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank, released a report on March 24 entitled “Treating Infertility: The New Frontier of Reproductive Medicine.” The report contrasts two methods of dealing with infertility: assisted reproductive technology (ART) and restorative reproductive medicine (RRM).
“One of the major differences between ART and RRM,” wrote Natalie Dodson in the introduction to the report, “is that the former seeks to circumvent the infertility, and the latter seeks to treat the underlying causes of infertility.” RRM “examines the whole body and the multitude of conditions or comorbidities that may contribute to the symptoms patients experience,” then “treat(s) (the root causes) through hormone-balancing, dietary and nutritional adjustments, environmental changes, and, in some cases, surgery.”
Types of RRM include Natural Procreative Technology (NaProTechnology), which tracks a woman’s hormones during her menstrual cycle via the Creighton Model for fertility, as well as occasionally using various surgical techniques: the Billings Ovulation Method, which recognizes cervical mucus as a highly reliable fertility signal; and Fertility Education and Medical Management (FEMM), a comprehensive approach that teaches women how to monitor their hormones and identify ovulation. All of these pathways target the disease instead of the symptoms, providing holistic fertility care.
On the other hand, ARTs such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) are not true infertility treatments; rather, they bypass the seat of the problem in favour of artificial procedures intended to result in conception. Writing in the Heritage Foundation report, both Dodson and Dr. Patrick Yeung Jr., criticized “pharmaceutical Band-Aids” that make no effort to address the real issue and thus fail to solve underlying long-term health problems such as endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), hormonal imbalances, and male-factor infertility.
Later in the report, Emma Waters echoed these concerns: “At its core, medicine seeks to diagnose, treat, and heal the human body. The fertility industry, however, tends to prioritize costly procedures that circumvent the human body altogether. While many medical professionals working in fertility clinics are well-intentioned, the industry itself is shaped by financial structures that often prioritize profitability over patient care. Unlike traditional medical practices, which are typically owned and managed by physicians, the fertility sector is increasingly dominated by private equity firms and venture capital investors seeking rapid returns.”
Indeed, ART is a lucrative field: According to the Economic Research Institute (ERI), reproductive endocrinologists in Canada make an average of $344,342 per year. By contrast, Craig Turczynski and Dr. Phil Boyle, wrote in the Heritage Foundation report that “RRM clinicians are typically trained in family medicine or gynecology and are less highly compensated than reproductive endocrinologists … mak(ing) the cost to the patient a fraction of IVF.”
In addition to its prohibitive costs — averaging up to $15,000 per cycle in Canada — IVF is morally problematic. In a March 20, 2024 commentary piece for The Daily Signal, Waters wrote, “To increase (IVF’s) low odds of success, fertility clinics routinely create a large surplus of embryos so that they have more options to choose from.” What becomes of the excess embryos?
Using available data, Waters estimated that 10 embryos are created in an average IVF cycle, then calculated the result: “only 2.3 (per cent) of all embryos created in the United States result in the live birth of a child. The other 97 (per cent), or 4 million embryos (per year), are variously willfully or accidentally destroyed, frozen for later use, placed for adoption, donated to research, or fail to implant when transferred into the womb.” She concluded, “If we believe that life begins at conception, then any consistent pro-life ethic would apply that to embryos.”
Though IVF, with its wholesale discarding of children, is highly unethical, all ARTs have by nature an additional layer of dubiousness. “ARTs…are problematic because they treat children as objects or commodities to be obtained, and put their needs and well-being second to the desires of prospective parents,” Josie Luetke, director of education and advocacy for Campaign Life Coalition, told The Interim. “There’s been a slew of predictable abuses and horrifying headlines as a result … At the end of the day, every child deserves to be conceived (naturally) in the loving embrace of a husband and wife, so that ideally, they can grow up with both a father and mother modelling a Christ-like love and servitude to them.”
A further cause for concern regarding IVF is the fairly common practice of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), which allows couples undergoing IVF to select the “best” embryo from among those created. According to Luetke, this “leads to a eugenic, consumerist attitude towards babies and the perpetuation of the abortion mindset because it is quite literally survival of the fittest. Those very young human beings deemed less than perfect are often just disposed of, like a defective product. PGT is especially insidious being it’s marketed as beneficent, only concerned with the health of the embryo, but it has the potential to expand to an untold number of genetic characteristics deemed more or less favourable.”
Yet more questionable reproductive and genetic technologies are emerging. Waters wrote a January 27 commentary piece for The Heritage Foundation entitled “Designer Embryos and Kids Born From the DNA of Throuple Parents: Understanding the Depraved New World of EPS and IVG.” According to her article, embryonic polygenic screening (EPS) and in vitro gametogenesis (IVG) are newly developed technologies that “subvert God’s good design for human procreation and undermine the inherent worth and dignity of each child.”
Unlike standard PGT, which only analyzes single genes, EPS lets scientists look at the interaction of multiple genes in an embryo and determine which combinations might result in certain health issues. “Instead of pursuing treatments that may heal or improve a child’s health,” wrote Waters, “such technology merely discards embryos with potential health problems.”
Although not available for human use yet, IVG has allowed researchers to genetically modify cells into viable eggs or sperm. Rob Stein, a correspondent and senior editor for NPR, described it as “IVF 2.0” on September 27, 2023. Waters also saw the connection: “The legal structure that governs IVF—namely, that anyone has the right to create and parent a child—sets the legal precedent that emerging reproductive technologies such as…IVG…will fulfill biologically.”
RRM, besides posing none of these ethical concerns, is more effective than ART. A January 2024 study found a higher live birth rate for RRM (40.4 per cent) than for IVF (24.4 per cent). Other research has shown that women who had tried ART without success were eventually able to conceive and give birth naturally through RRM.
Non-IVF solutions to infertility are supported by the public as well as by the data. In a poll conducted in March and April of this year on behalf of The Heritage Foundation, research firm J. L. Partners found that 53 per cent of Americans surveyed think “treating the root issue which is causing the symptom of infertility” should be prioritized, with 26 per cent supporting a combination of root cause treatment and IVF. The poll also showed that “(i)f medical advancements made it easier to improve natural fertility without relying on IVF,” 70 per cent would say “treating the causes of infertility first” was better than going directly to IVF. Finally, 89 per cent thought it important “for couples struggling with infertility to explore personalized treatment plans to address their infertility, specifically tailored to their medical history and reproductive health.”
American politicians have heard the voice of the people on this issue: Congresswoman Diana Harshbarger introduced a bill on May 23 called the Reproductive Empowerment and Support through Optimal Restoration (RESTORE) Act, which aims to assist medical professionals in the diagnosis and treatment of reproductive health disorders. “Having children is one of God’s greatest gifts, and we should be empowering modern medicine and investing in solutions that address the root causes of infertility to bring hope to prospective parents,” Harshbarger said in a statement. “The RESTORE Act will provide essential tools not only for women and men trying to conceive but also for medical professionals, equipping them to better treat reproductive health conditions.”
Furthermore, a bill in the Arkansas State Legislature, sponsored by Representative Alyssa Brown and Senator Jim Dotson, created an act with the same name as the federal bill. The act, the primary purpose of which is to promote RRM, became law on April 17. According to a June 30 article by Arkansas Advocate, Dean Moutos, OB/GYN, called it “a backhanded attack on assisted reproductive technology.” Conversely, Heritage Action, a sister organization of The Heritage Foundation, released a statement on April 23 praising the act as “groundbreaking legislation that champions reproductive healthcare for women in Arkansas.”
On the topic of politics, Luetke said, “The Canadian government should ban ARTs like IVF. Funding towards ARTs should be redirected towards restorative reproductive medicine, especially training new health care professionals on its provision.” Though not as widely available as ART, RRM does currently exist in Canada: My Fertility Labs, a root cause-oriented clinic, has three locations in Alberta; Cherish FertilityCare uses the Creighton Model to support patients in Kelowna, BC, as does St. Marguerite Bourgeoys FertilityCare in Mississauga, ON; and many practitioners are available for remote consultations.
In an August 20 column for The Washington Times entitled “Beyond IVF: Why America needs fertility care that treats the whole person,” Waters wrote, “The Make America Healthy Again movement has emphasized holistic health across the board. Fertility care should be no different. When couples receive comprehensive, personalized treatment that restores reproductive function, the results speak for themselves: healthier parents, healthier pregnancies, and healthier future generations.”
Luetke concluded the interview with a call to action: “The pro-life movement has been understandably focused on the abortion issue for over half a century now, but we ignore Big Fertility to our detriment, and the detriment of all children. Rather unintuitively, the baby-making industry kills babies, and has the potential to do so on a much greater scale than the baby-killing industry (Big Abortion), actually. We desperately need to increase awareness of the harms of IVF and ARTs and promote alternatives like restorative reproductive medicine and adoption.”
