Josie Luetke:
Interim writer, Josie Luetke, Talk Turkey
Houston, you have a problem. This past May, one of your own, “strongly pro-life” Texas senators Ted Cruz (R) co-sponsored a bill to protect access to IVF.
Actually, Houston, we have a lot of problems, because Cruz is far from the only big “pro-life” name to come out in support of in vitro fertilization—Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R); House Speaker Mike Johnson (R); vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, and all Republican senators, including others with A+ ratings from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. Incredibly, according to a 2023 survey from a firm run by Kellyanne Conway, former campaign manager for President Donald Trump, 78 per cent of pro-lifers support IVF.
It’s broadly popular, and parents will proudly admit in casual conversation to using IVF, which speaks to its lack of controversy—something abortion advocates have never achieved.
Quite rightfully, the pro-life movement has long been consumed playing whack-a-mole with this abortion leviathan, trying to convince people not to whack babies. IVF hasn’t been on our radar in the same way.
Up till June of this year, when the Southern Baptist Convention formally joined the opposition camp, the Catholic Church has largely been the lone voice rejecting this technology.
What precisely is the objection, then? On a fundamental level, practicing Catholics, at least, believe that children ought to be “begotten” within the conjugal embrace. Practically, as well, IVF presents a lot of questions surrounding the ethics of how we treat the youngest of humans—and this is where the hypocrisy of these pro-IVF “pro-lifers” arises.
The usual protocol is to pump a woman full of hormones to encourage the maturation of multiple eggs, which are extracted and fertilized with sperm in a laboratory, creating a bunch of new human beings. Some of these human beings will be injected into the uterus with the hopes that at least one successfully implants. If multiple embryos implant, physicians may encourage “selective reduction”— a euphemism for aborting one or more of the growing siblings. Remaining embryos that aren’t implanted are frozen (potentially in perpetuity), discarded (destroyed), or donated, often for research in which they are destroyed.
Figures from the United Kingdom from 2012 suggest that only seven per cent of embryos created through IVF make it to implantation. This year, the Heritage Foundation estimated that “only 2.3 percent of all embryos created in the United States result in the live birth of a baby” and soberly reported that “one million embryos are frozen in liquid nitrogen freezers.”
A whole host of other ethical concerns surrounds the process—eugenic considerations made when selecting which embryos to attempt to implant, the use of donated sperm or eggs that deprives resultant children of a relationship with both biological parents, etc.
Even if a couple does everything to limit the evil associated with this technology—even if they’re nobly rescuing frozen embryos instead of creating new ones—they’re still ultimately cooperating with or benefiting an industry indifferent to the destruction of human life it leaves in its wake. That’s like visiting Planned Parenthood. Regardless of which services you’re procuring, you’re probably safer boycotting the entire establishment while this moral corruption persists.
So, I’ll return to my point: It would be understandable to be caught flat-footed as IVF rears its ugly head, but this goes beyond flat-footedness. We are racing to score goals on our own net.
Missouri Senator Josh Hawley (R) has stated, “I think that IVF is pro-life,” explaining that, “Having a baby is a pro-life thing. So, I’m in favor of it.” Many other Republicans have echoed the sentiment.
The pro-life argument is not merely that having babies is good. The pro-life argument is that killing them is bad. Our argument rests on the principle that all human beings are equal. The moment you throw that principle out the window, you lose the debate.
I can’t adequately stress how we can’t afford to be confusing or contradictory.
At least everyone knows—on some level or another—that the abortion industry is in the business of killing babies. At least—on some level or another—the public can grasp why pro-lifers would oppose the industry.
Unfortunately, now we’re in the position of having to explain to the public that, counter-intuitively, the baby-making industry is also in the business of killing babies. So many people, including pro-lifers, are ignorant about this reality.
And once we relieve this ignorance, we need to instill that, as painful as infertility is, children are a gift—not something anyone is entitled to obtain through any means possible—and not something we can just throw away, either. There are ethical alternatives like Natural Procreative Technology (NaProTECHNOLOGY) that should be pursued instead.
Here’s another hurdle: Every abortion survivor is a powerful refutation of pro-choice talking points. “Abortion could have killed me. It would have killed me, had it not failed.” Similarly, 2 per cent of babies born in Canada and the United States were conceived via IVF. How are we possibly going to convince anyone that IVF is wrong, when everyone knows someone they can say wouldn’t exist without IVF?
The answer is you can oppose premarital sex, adultery, rape, and IVF, and still believe that children conceived in such circumstances are precious and equally valuable—but I fear this nuanced understanding is difficult to convey, especially when the pro-life movement is presenting mixed messaging.
We need to be on the same page, because it only gets worse from here.
Approximately one in six people experience infertility according to the World Health Organization—and reproductive problems in men and miscarriages in women are increasing, especially as couples delay childbearing. And, of course, same-sex couples are sterile by definition, so the tighter LGBTQ ideology grips our culture, the more would-be parents will rely on assisted reproductive technologies.
In recognition of these trends, Ontario, Quebec, and other provinces have begun funding or subsidizing very expensive IVF cycles.
Market research firm Insights10 projected that the “fertility service market” in Canada would be valued at around $1.8 billion in 2024 and $2.8 billion in 2030. That’s not exclusively IVF, but much of it is.
It is insane that there are any pro-life public figures at all embracing this future, sad that so many pro-life groups are choosing to ignore it, and regrettable that even the pro-lifers who do want to address it just speak of “regulating” the industry, by, for instance, limiting how many embryos can be created. (You can play roulette with the lives of just three children, but no more.)
There are exceptions—Laura Klassen of Choice42 put out an ingenious video titled, “Build-a-Baby” and the organization Them Before Us has been changing the conversation by prioritizing the rights and well-being of children ahead of the whims of adults.
