Trump's IVF order: Democrats allege ‘PR stunt' as anti-abortion groups bristle
Democratic lawmakers are decrying President Donald Trump's recent order on in vitro fertilization as nothing more than a 'PR stunt,' while anti-abortion groups bristled over a move that follows Trump's campaign promise to make the procedure free.
Trump issued an executive order Tuesday directing the assistant to the president for domestic policy to give him a list of policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and 'aggressively' lowering out-of-pocket and health plan costs for the procedure.
Democrats called on him to do more, perhaps looking to call his bluff.
'If he is actually serious about taking real action to accomplish his own campaign promise to make IVF free for everyone, there's a simple way he can prove it: He can call on Senate Republicans to immediately back my Right to IVF Act that would require insurance plans to cover IVF,' said Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) in a statement.
'Otherwise, it's all just lip-service from a known liar.'
Duckworth has long worked to create safeguards for the treatment that she used to conceive her two daughters after struggling with infertility for more than a decade. The Illinois senator reintroduced the Right to IVF Act last year, along with Democratic Sens. Corey Booker (N.J.) and Patty Murray (Wash). It sought to create a statutory right for Americans to access in vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments.
Senate Republicans again blocked the bill, calling it an election year stunt by Democrats, with some offering alternative legislation. A bill from Florida Sen. Rick Scott sought to expand health savings accounts to make it easier for people to save funds for IVF.
Murray has also publicly criticized Trump for his IVF order, which she called an empty gesture.
'Let's be clear: this PR stunt does NOTHING to actually expand access to IVF. Republicans created this mess by overturning Roe and they've blocked legislation MULTIPLE TIMES that WOULD make IVF care more accessible and affordable for families. Give me a break,' she wrote in a post on the social media platform X.
Members of the Congressional Reproductive Freedom Caucus argued Wednesday that Trump could have better shown his commitment to fertility treatments by directing federal agencies to expand IVF coverage for employees, veterans or service members. He could have also proven his commitment by urging House Speaker Mike Johnson and then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to pass the Right to IVF Act last year, according to a statement released by the caucus co-chairs.
'Donald Trump is not serious about protecting people's right to build their families on their terms,' wrote Representatives Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass). 'Yesterday's inaction does not change that.'
But anti-abortion advocates who are against IVF argued for Trump to do the opposite — veer away from widening access to the procedure.
During IVF, doctors fertilize an egg with sperm in a lab to create a human embryo, which is then inserted into the mother's uterus. Doctors will often retrieve multiple eggs from the ovary in preparation for IVF and fertilize multiple eggs at once, creating multiple embryos, to increase the odds that a transfer will result in a pregnancy.
Embryos that are never used are then stored, donated or destroyed.
Some anti-abortion advocates, who believe life begins at conception, oppose IVF because the process may involve the destruction of unused embryos.
Students for Life of America leader Kristan Hawkins admonished Trump for his IVF order before it was even signed.
'Rumor is President Trump is getting ready to release something about IVF funding…please stop and study the IVF Industry, which is disturbing as it preys on desperate families, kills humans in the embryonic stage and promotes eugenics,' she wrote in a post on X early Tuesday.
Lila Rose, president of the pro-life advocacy group Live Action, also took issue with Trump's order, arguing that IVF treatment is 'NOT pro-life' in a post on X.
Leadership from one anti-abortion group — Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America — had a more measured response to Trump's order, admonishing the destruction of embryos while calling on his administration to do more.
'SBA Pro-Life America does not object to ethical fertility treatments paired with strong medical safety standards that help couples struggling with infertility,' a statement issued Tuesday reads. 'We also believe human embryos should not be destroyed. Rogue practitioners who switch human embryos, fail to follow basic safety standards, or negligently destroy human embryos desired by couples must be held to account under any federal role in fertility treatment.'
The group also said it hopes the administration will at least consider health and safety precautions for couples trying to conceive and for embryos when crafting affordability recommendations requested by the order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans, some Democrats and even ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich weigh in on ex-Speaker Michael Madigan's sentence
In what's become somewhat customary once an Illinois political titan falls, leaders throughout the state responded with condemnation and called for reforms upon hearing Friday that ex-Speaker Michael Madigan was sentenced to seven and a half years in federal prison and fined $2.5 million on federal corruption charges. House Republican leader Tony McCombie of Savanna and Senate Republican leader John Curran of Downers Grove called for bipartisan ethics reforms in the wake of the sentencing, with Curran specifically requesting committee hearings and votes on potential changes — something that didn't happen this session. Madigan's sentencing was 'a stark and shameful reminder of the corruption that has plagued Illinois government for far too long,' McCombie said in a statement. 'Justice was served — but the damage to public trust runs deep.' But Illinois' last prominent statewide politician who went to federal prison, former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, held back on the chance to take a swipe at a bitter nemesis when Madigan was sentenced. Though the two were Democrats, they feuded for nearly all six years Blagojevich was in office between 2003 and 2009. 'When that guy, Madigan, was on the top of the mountain, they were all kissing his ass,' Blagojevich said. 'Now they're going to be stomping all over his grave. And it's really, it's really sort of an unappealing side of human nature.' Blagojevich said Madigan's conviction underscores the systemic problems in politics and government in the state Capitol. 'Is the system in Springfield corrupt, in many ways, absolutely,' Blagojevich said in an interview with the Tribune while insisting he didn't break the law. 'It's a system, I've been saying this from the beginning, it all too often works for itself on the backs of the people.' Blagojevich — whose 14-year federal prison sentence for corruption was commuted by President Donald Trump, who ultimately also pardoned Blagojevich — didn't want to celebrate Madigan's prison sentence despite the two's often-tense relationship. 'I just don't think it's right for me to kick a man when he's down,' Blagojevich said. 'What's happening now to him, I know what it's like. And it's really easy for these politicians to get on their high horses and start kicking someone, stomping on someone.' Senate President Don Harmon, a Democrat from Oak Park who is facing a potential fine of nearly $10 million from the Illinois State Board of Elections for improper political fundraising, said Friday's sentence represented 'a solemn reminder' that the duty of public office holders is to serve 'and that there is accountability for those who do not.'
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Column: Will Tesla suffer if Musk alienates both political wings?
Donald Trump and Elon Musk — two epic disrupters of U.S. politics and the automotive industry, respectively and vice versa. Over the past year, they united over the election and efforts to cut government spending. They parted ways amicably … and then started trashing each other. It escalated quickly with Musk suggesting that the president be impeached and that he is implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein child-prostitution scandal. Musk later reportedly called the president before posting that he regretted some of his words: 'They went too far.' It was a remarkable breakup — incredible drama between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man, who had been the closest of allies for hundreds of days of campaigning and governing. To the extent that it was a reality TV train wreck, I'd just as soon leave it be. But since the primary business in Musk's remarkable portfolio is nominally an automaker, it actually matters in this industry we cover. Sign up for Automotive Views, Automotive News' weekly showcase of opinions, insights, ideas and thought leadership. Love it or hate it, this disruptive era in which we live is providing us all with some real-life experiments in economics — the likes of which we probably thought we would never see. For decades, basically everyone who went to college was taught in an economics or history class that widespread tariffs would do more harm than good. Trump argues for a different approach, and he's pursuing it. Or he's pursuing it to negotiate for something else. In either case, we're now seeing how that works: So far, there's been a lot of paralysis, especially among suppliers and foreign automakers, but also a big investment announced recently by General Motors. His political strategy has been unorthodox, yet he's won two electoral colleges and one popular vote. He's only the 21st president to win two elections. So he's had success, whether some people like it or not. Same for Musk, of course: He approached the auto industry unlike anyone else — with an expensive electric car — had a couple of near-total collapses, and came out as the world's richest man and CEO of the world's most valuable automaker. That success helped propel his rocket business SpaceX and other ventures such as Starlink satellites and Twitter, which he bought and renamed X. But the disruptive move I'm watching was his decision to be an automaker CEO who got personally and financially involved in partisan politics. While new-vehicle sales skew to the affluent, when you sell something in the millions or tens of millions, a brand or model has to connect with a broad swath of people. And while there can be success with, say, a polarizing design, mass-market brands generally try to avoid alienating large chunks of their potential customer base. I've cited here before the story about Michael Jordan saying he didn't speak out on politics because 'Republicans buy sneakers, too.' In retrospect, he said it was just a funny line among friends. But the thing is that he wasn't wrong, and every business school graduate knows it. Musk, however, is not your typical MBA type. So out of his frustration with former President Joe Biden — who habitually sided with the UAW and its automakers against the U.S.-based global leader in EVs, even as he advocated for a carbon-neutral future — Musk threw an estimated quarter of a billion dollars behind the Trump campaign. That's an unbelievable sum of money to many of us, but when Trump won, it looked like the greatest bet ever. From late October to late December, Tesla stock more than doubled and its market cap approached $1.5 trillion. While Musk's political activism may have upset many of his loyal, environmentally motivated customers, there were a lot of reasons to be bullish on Tesla under Trump. It seemed likely that NHTSA and the SEC would take a more sympathetic view of the company's issues. Beyond that, Musk has refocused the company's future on artificial intelligence, humanoid robots and robotaxis. (Tesla said it plans to launch its service in Austin, Texas, on June 22.) A new administration with a deregulatory inclination toward self-driving cars was a significant tailwind. Now, those advantages for Tesla are gone or at least seemingly diminished. Structures that have legacy automakers paying to buy Tesla's credits for selling emission-free, fuel-efficient vehicles could be eliminated. (And let's not forget that Trump hinted at ending federal contracts with other Musk-affiliated companies.) Turning back to the auto business: The conventional wisdom is that Musk has now alienated all but the most apolitical consumers. Environmentally minded liberals might like EVs, but Musk's support of Trump (and the far-right Alternative for Deutschland party in Germany) has them seeking out other brands' offerings. There might have been an opportunity to become the preferred electric brand of the president's Make America Great Again movement — especially the tech-forward, high-income types and those motivated by the president's endorsement of the brand on the White House grounds. But after this month's blowup — with longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon arguing to deport Musk — that notion seemed ever more remote. No fans on the left, no fans on the right. Is Elon out in deep water in an electric boat surrounded by sharks with no friends to bail him out? Maybe not. There is significant animus against Musk on the EV-inclined left, especially in the wake of his DOGE team's deep and sometimes chaotic cuts to government entities and programs. Certainly, protests at auto retail outlets are rare. The damage to stores is not acceptable, but it shows the intensity of the situation. But I still have to wonder how far consumers will follow those kinds of feelings. Michiganders, for instance, often assume that Americans prefer to buy American cars made by American (union) workers. But I've been to America, and most of them don't care. They want the best car for their money, whether it's American, German, Japanese or Korean. Some are clamoring for cheap Chinese cars: If Xi Jinping wants to pay for half of their EV, they ask, why not let him? So maybe they won't care about Elon's politics. Tesla sales are down a little this year, but some of that might be attributable to production hiccups. If the Model Y — the bestselling model in the world last year — provides a great value, they'll probably buy it regardless of what they think of the CEO. And now we get to find out. Have an opinion about this story? Tell us about it and we may publish it in print. Click here to submit a letter to the editor. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump signs resolutions killing California's zero-emissions rules
This story was originally published on Trucking Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Trucking Dive newsletter. President Donald Trump moved to sever California's EPA waivers by signing a series of joint resolutions Thursday, rolling back the Golden State's strict truck and auto emissions policies. The president's signing of joint resolutions under the Congressional Review Act reverses the Biden administration's approval of California's Advanced Clean Trucks rule. That earlier rule called for requiring 75% of Class 8 trucks sold in the state to be zero-emissions vehicles by 2035. Another resolution also prevents the state's low-nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions rule for heavy-duty trucks from being implemented, per a statement by the president. The NOx rule intended to regulate emissions from manufacturers by cutting heavy-duty NOx emissions by 90% and overhaul engine testing procedures. The Trump administration has described his predecessor's environmental policies as overreach and unjustified mandates. Trump said the congressional moves he signed further restrict California from implementing a similar policy in the future. "Under the Congressional Review Act, the EPA cannot approve any future waivers that are 'substantially the same' as those disapproved in the joint resolutions," Trump said in a statement. "Accordingly, the joint resolutions prohibit the EPA from approving future waivers for California that would impose California's policy goals across the entire country and violate fundamental constitutional principles of federalism, ending the electric vehicle mandate for good," the statement said. In response, California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared the federal measures illegal and moved to sue the federal government, seeking to pursue the state's zero-emission vehicle policy. Newsom signed an executive order on Thursday for the state to continue regulation requiring that 100% of sales of new vehicles be zero emission by 2035 for cars, pickup trucks and drayage trucks and by 2045 for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Trucking leaders applauded Trump for the measures. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said the news was a big win for both men and women behind the wheel. 'Our 150,000 small-business members have been saying it all along—electric trucks just aren't a realistic option right now. They're too expensive, the charging infrastructure isn't there,' OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in an emailed press release to Trucking Dive. Industry advocates, including the American Trucking Associations and the Washington Trucking Associations, also warned that electric truck technology and charging infrastructure were not caught up to accommodate California's ambitious EV policies. 'We've done our part to reduce carbon emissions while keeping America's economy moving,' ATA President and CEO Chris Spear said in a press release. 'But what we need is federal leadership to set realistic and achievable national emissions standards. And today brings us one step closer toward that goal,' he added. Werner Enterprises truck driver Gina Jones shared a similar sentiment, speaking as part of the signing ceremony at the White House. 'We cannot allow one state's regulations to disrupt our entire nation's supply chain,' Jones said. 'Allowing California to do so would have [negatively] impacted the hundreds of thousands of truck drivers who deliver critical goods across the country each and every day.' Recommended Reading Congress revokes Advanced Clean Trucks waiver, creating ambiguity for refuse fleets Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio
