FLASHBACK: Trump seeks to expand fertility coverage, after Tim Walz once accused him of being ‘anti-IVF'
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday requesting the Domestic Policy Council examine ways to make in vitro fertilization, known as IVF, more affordable and accessible for Americans – despite the fact Democrats cautioned that Trump would seek to ban the procedure.
"Americans need reliable access to IVF and more affordable treatment options, as the cost per cycle can range from $12,000 to $25,000," the executive order said. "Providing support, awareness, and access to affordable fertility treatments can help these families navigate their path to parenthood with hope and confidence."
Specifically, the order requires the assistant to the president for domestic policy to provide a list of policy recommendations aimed at "protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment" within 90 days, according to the order.
'Promises Kept': Trump Signs Executive Order To 'Aggressively' Make Ivf More Affordable And Accessible
The directive comes months after former Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate in the 2024 election against Trump, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, accused the Trump administration of being "anti-IVF."
Specifically, Walz singled out Trump's running mate, then-Sen. JD Vance, a practicing Catholic who voted in June against the Right to IVF Act. The Catholic Church opposes IVF, saying unused embryos pose a moral dilemma.
Read On The Fox News App
But Vance said in August 2024 he doesn't believe all his religious views should translate to public policy since the U.S. is a "democratic society," he told the New York Post.
"Catholic social teaching is obviously very robust," he told the Post. "I think that no person who, or at least no one I know who's Catholic, doesn't accept that just because the Catholic Church teaches something, doesn't mean you necessarily as a legislator need to affect that to public policy."
The Right to IVF measure would establish a nationwide right to IVF and other assisted reproductive technology, but it failed to pass in the Senate.
"JD Vance opposing the miracle of IVF is a direct attack on my family and so many others," Walz said in a social media post on X in July 2024.
Walz previously claimed that he and his wife, Gwen, struggled to conceive and shared details during the 2024 campaign about the couple's experience using IVF to become pregnant with their two children.
But Gwen Walz later clarified in August 2024 in an interview with Glamour magazine that the couple actually used intrauterine insemination, known as IUI, to conceive. The process involves using a catheter to place the sperm directly into the uterus to increase odds of conception.
Doge Scores Big Court Win, Allowed Access Data On 3 Federal Agencies
In contrast, IVF requires the removal of a woman's eggs and injecting them with sperm to create embryos, which then are placed back into the woman's uterus.
More than 85,000 babies born in 2021 were from IVF, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Costly IVF treatments are rarely fully covered by health insurance, and only 25% of employers report providing coverage to their employees, according to the White House.
Trump unveiled plans in August 2024 that he'd seek to require insurance companies to cover the cost of IVF, stating he was pushing the policy "because we want more babies, to put it nicely."
The Associated Press contributed to this report. Original article source: FLASHBACK: Trump seeks to expand fertility coverage, after Tim Walz once accused him of being 'anti-IVF'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
15 minutes ago
- Axios
Focus groups: North Carolina swing voters mostly OK with Trump's LA response
A majority of North Carolina swing voters in our latest Engagious / Sago focus groups supported President Trump's deportations and activation of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles, despite some concerns about civil rights and government overreach. The big picture: These Biden-to-Trump voters' desire to eject undocumented migrants from the U.S. — and their critical views of California and Democrats — shape how they see this massive test of executive power playing out far from their own hometowns. Seven of 12 panelists said they support the president's activation of the National Guard and Marines in L.A. despite Gov. Gavin Newsom's and local officials' objections. Three disapproved; two didn't have an opinion. Eight of the 12 said they believe Democrats prioritize illegal immigrants over American citizens. Why it matters: "Democrats who doubt their party remains out of touch with swing voters will be stunned by what these North Carolinians told us about immigration," said Rich Thau, President of Engagious, who moderated the focus groups. How it works: Axios observed two Engagious / Sago online focus groups Tuesday night with North Carolinians who said they voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and Donald Trump in 2024. The panelists included nine independents and three Republicans. While a focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, the responses show how some voters are thinking and talking about current events. What they're saying: "The stance California has on illegal immigration only enables all these people, and they're not going to stop it," said Gregory D., 43, of Greensboro. "So we need to bring it up another level. It needs to stop. California doesn't want to stop it." "It's in the best interest of the nation that we call this, I don't know, uprising, call it what you want, but yeah, that needs to get nipped in the bud, just like George Floyd and all that sh*t should have," said Alex H., 44, of Charlotte. Butch F., 58, of Mebane, said he believes illegal immigrants got government assistance that reduced North Carolinians' access to disaster funds. Gerius J., 33, of Charlotte, said he's for diversity but wants to "do it the right way. Get the right paperwork, the right documentation." He said Democrats "have always wanted illegals to come here," and if anyone objects, "you're the bad guy. And as a U.S. citizen, I'm not the bad guy. I just want things to be done the right way." The other side: Karen L., 61, of Wilmington, said of Trump's immigration actions, "When he first started out, it seemed like he was really going after the criminals — like, the ones committing murder and rape — and he was getting all of them. And we don't want them here if they're [here] illegally, especially. But now ... it's way too extreme, and he's violating civil rights, and he's causing more chaos than anything." Rachid O., 46, of Raleigh, said the administration should prioritize arresting and deporting criminals, above all undocumented immigrants. Many undocumented immigrants pay taxes "so they contribute to the country," he said. Between the lines: Shifting the focus to combating illegal immigration may help him with some voters who have cooled on his performance in other areas. Several panelists voiced concerns about the economy, tariffs and political corruption and objected to Trump's moves to cut university research, or possible Medicaid cuts in the spending and tax-cut bill before Congress. "It's getting harder and harder to afford things," said Kimberly S., 37, of Sanford. "We are just kind of told, 'Hey, you just got to bear with us just a little bit more,' and it doesn't feel like it's getting any easier." Shauna S., 54, of Harrisburg, said when it comes to tariffs, "There's no plan, and it's been erratic. It appears to be an opportunity to manipulate the markets, and I really want someone to investigate where and who's actually gaining financially every time these tariffs are being threatened and then removed. I'm just curious what's really happening."
Axios
15 minutes ago
- Axios
Israel's strike on Iran was 8 months in the making
Israel's stunning and sprawling operation overnight targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, missile sites, scientists and generals followed eight months of intensive clandestine preparations. Why it matters: The operation launched a new war in the Middle East that could draw in the U.S., demolished any hopes of a nuclear deal, and dealt arguably the biggest single blow to the Iranian regime since the 1979 revolution. And it is only just beginning. Driving the news: Israel is attempting to "eliminate" Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities in an operation expected to last at least several days, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced. Other Israeli officials said it could take weeks. Israel attempted — just in the opening hours — to assassinate nuclear scientists it claims had the know-how to make a nuclear bomb. Around 25 scientists were targeted and at least two are confirmed dead so far. Israel also targeted the entire top brass of Iran's military. The commander of the Revolutionary Guard and military chief of staff were both confirmed dead, along with another senior general. The Israeli operation didn't just include air strikes. Israel's Mossad intelligence service has operatives on the ground conducting covert sabotage operations on missile and air defense sites, officials said. Israel is expected to keep pounding Iran's underground nuclear facilities in the coming days, along with other targets. Behind the scenes: The idea for an operation simultaneously targeting Iran's missile and nuclear programs — which Netanyahu has described as existential threats to Israel — took hold after Iran struck Israel in October, during a cycle of tit-for-tat escalation between the countries. Motivated both by Iran's fast-growing missile arsenal and its weakened air defenses following Israel's retaliation, Netanyahu ordered the military and intelligence services to begin planning. The Israeli military said another factor was intelligence about nuclear weaponization research and development that indicated Iran could build a bomb more quickly if it elected to do so. The planned opening in the coming weeks of a new underground enrichment facility that would be immune to even massive U.S. bunker busters added to the urgency. Friction point: Even as President Trump pursued a nuclear deal, Israel was preparing for this strike — gathering intelligence, positioning assets and eventually conducting drills. Those preparations alarmed some in the White House, who worried Netanyahu might move even without a green light from Trump. Netanyahu assured Trump he wouldn't. The White House, for its part, told Netanyahu that if Israel attacked Iran, it would do so alone. Trump himself said several times in recent days, including several hours before the strikes, that he opposed an Israeli strike that could "blow up" the negotiations. The intrigue: But in the hours after the attack began, Israeli officials briefed reporters that this was all coordinated with Washington. Two Israeli officials claimed to Axios that Trump and his aides were only pretending to oppose an Israeli attack in public — and didn't express opposition in private. "We had a clear U.S. green light," one claimed. The goal, they say, was to convince Iran that no attack was imminent and make sure Iranians on Israel's target list wouldn't move to new locations. Netanyahu's aides even briefed Israeli reporters that Trump had tried to put the brakes on an Israeli strike in a call on Monday, when in reality the call dealt with coordination ahead of the attack, Israeli officials now say. State of play: The U.S. side has not confirmed any of that. In the hours before and after the strike, the Trump administration distanced itself from the Israeli operation in public statements and private messages to allies. Secretary of State Marco Rubio swiftly stated that Israel's attack was "unilateral" with no U.S. involvement. Hours later, Trump confirmed he knew the attack was coming but stressed the U.S. had no military involvement. The degree of U.S. intelligence, logistical and defensive support for Israel's operation remains to be seen. What to watch: Israel is now bracing for Iran to unleash hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones toward Israel, and perhaps also U.S. bases in the region.
Axios
15 minutes ago
- Axios
Padilla episode triggers five-alarm fire for Democrats
Democrats spooked by President Trump's state-sanctioned shows of force have shifted into five-alarm fire mode, warning he's pushing American democracy to the brink. Why it matters: They're pointing to what happened yesterday to Alex Padilla, California's senior senator, as a crossing-the-Rubicon moment. Driving the news: The jarring scene of Padilla, a Democrat, being forcefully removed from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's press conference after interrupting it — and then being dragged to the ground and handcuffed — felt like kerosene on the nation's political fire. To Trump's most loyal allies, Padilla's actions were merely an exercise in political theater. Back in D.C., House Speaker Mike Johnson was among the Republicans blaming Padilla, saying that "at a minimum," the senator should be censured. To Democrats, the episode crystallized fears about Trump's willingness to crush dissent, and shatter democratic norms and institutions. "This is the stuff of dictatorships. It is actually happening," said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). A few Republicans were just as alarmed. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who's repeatedly proved her independent streak, told reporters the incident was "shocking at every level. It's not the America I know." Padilla wasn't arrested, but the fallout from the incident promises to endure as Congress continues to wrestle with Trump's giant tax and spending bill. Zoom in: To fully understand the alarm that's gripping Democrats over the Padilla incident, consider two factors: 1. It took place in a mostly Democratic city where Trump's immigration agents are using military-style tactics to conduct raids and make arrests in mostly Hispanic communities and workplaces. Padilla is one of the nation's highest-ranking Hispanic public officials, and is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration panel. 2. Trump's over-the-top-enforcement seems to be about more than immigration. When Padilla interrupted Noem during her press conference to try to ask a question, the DHS secretary had just said that her agents were in Los Angeles "to liberate this city from the socialist and the burdensome leadership that this governor and this mayor have placed on this country."
