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.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With troops in Los Angeles, echoes of the Kent State massacre
Ohio National Guard members with gas masks and rifles advance toward Kent State University students during an anti-war protest on May 4, 1970. More than a dozen students were killed or injured when the guard opened fire. (.) This article was originally published by The Trace. Earlier in June, President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard troops and Marines to quell anti-deportation protests and secure federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles. The move, some historians say, harks back 55 years to May 4, 1970, when Ohio's Republican governor summoned the National Guard to deal with students demonstrating against the Vietnam War at Kent State University. Guard members were ordered to fire over the students' heads to disperse the crowd, but some couldn't hear because they were wearing gas masks. The troops fired at the students instead, killing four and wounding another nine. The shooting served as a cautionary tale about turning the military on civilians. 'Dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting,' Brian VanDeMark, author of the book 'Kent State: An American Tragedy,' wrote this week for The Conversation. We asked VanDeMark, a history professor at the United States Naval Academy, more about the parallels between 1970 and today. His interview has been edited for length and clarity. After the Kent State shooting, it became taboo for presidents or governors to even consider authorizing military use of force against civilians. Is the shadow of Kent State looming over Los Angeles? VanDeMark: For young people today, 55 years ago seems like a very long time. For the generation that came of age during the '60s and were in college during that period, Kent State is a defining event, shaping their views of politics and the military. There are risks inherent in deploying the military to deal with crowds and protesters. At Kent State, the county prosecutor warned the governor that something terrible could happen if he didn't shut down the campus after the guard's arrival. The university's administration did not want the guard brought to campus because they understood how provocative that would be to student protesters who were very anti-war and anti-military. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The military is not trained or equipped to deal well with crowd control. It is taught to fight and kill, and to win wars. California Governor Gavin Newsom has said that deploying the guard to Los Angeles is inflammatory. What do you fear most about this new era of domestic military deployment? People's sense of history probably goes back five or 10 years rather than 40 or 50. That's regrettable. The people making these decisions — I can't unpack their motivation or perceptions — but I think their sense of history in terms of the dangers inherent in deploying U.S. troops to deal with street protests is itself a problem. There are parallels between Kent State and Los Angeles. There are protesters throwing bottles at police and setting fires. The Ohio governor called the Kent State protesters dissidents and un-American; President Trump has called the Los Angeles demonstrators insurrectionists, although he appears to have walked that back. What do you make of these similarities? The parallels are rather obvious. The general point I wish to make, without directing it at a particular individual, is that the choice of words used to describe a situation has consequences. Leaders have positions of responsibility and authority. They have a responsibility to try to keep the situation under control. Are officers today more apt to use rubber bullets and other so-called less-lethal rounds than in 1970? Even though these rounds do damage, they're less likely to kill. Could that save lives today? Most likely, yes. In 1970, the guard members at Kent State, all they had were tear gas canisters and assault rifles loaded with live ammunition. Lessons have been learned between 1970 and today, and I'm almost certain that the California National Guard is equipped with batons, plastic shields, and other tools that give them a range of options between doing nothing and killing someone. I've touched one of the bullets used at Kent State. It was five and a half inches long. You can imagine the catastrophic damage that can inflict on the human body. Those bullets will kill at 1,000 yards, so the likelihood that the military personnel in Los Angeles have live ammunition is very remote. Trump authorized the deployment of federal troops not only to Los Angeles but also to wherever protests are 'occurring or are likely to occur,' leading to speculation that the presence of troops will become permanent. Was that ever a consideration in the '60s and '70s, or are we in uncharted waters here? In the 1960s and early 1970s, presidents of both parties were very reluctant to deploy military forces against protests. Has that changed? Apparently it has. I personally believe that the military being used domestically against American citizens, or even people living here illegally, is not the answer. Generally speaking, force is not the answer. The application of force is inherently unpredictable. It's inherently uncontrollable. And very often the consequences of using it are terrible human suffering. Before the Kent State shooting, the assumption by most college-aged protesters was that there weren't physical consequences to engaging in protests. Kent State demonstrated otherwise. In Los Angeles, the governor, the mayor, and all responsible public officials have essentially said they will not tolerate violence or the destruction of property. I think that most of the protesters are peaceful. What concerns me is the small minority who are unaware of our history and don't understand the risks of being aggressive toward the authorities. In Los Angeles, we have not just the guard but also the Marines. Marines, as you mentioned, are trained to fight wars. What's the worst that could happen here? People could get killed. I don't know what's being done in terms of defining rules of engagement, but I assume that the Marines have explicitly been told not to load live ammunition in their weapons because that would risk violence and loss of life. I don't think that the guard or the Marines are particularly enthusiastic about having to apply coercive force against protesters. Their training in that regard is very limited, and their understanding of crowd psychology is probably very limited. The crowd psychology is inherently unpredictable and often nonlinear. If you don't have experience with crowds, you may end up making choices based on your lack of experience that are very regrettable. Some people are imploring the Marines and guard members to refuse the orders and stay home. You interviewed guard members who were at Kent State. Do you think the troops deployed to Los Angeles will come to regret it? Very often, and social science research has corroborated this, when authorities respond to protests and interact with protesters in a respectful fashion, that tends to have a calming effect on the protesters' behavior. But that's something learned through hard experience, and these Marines and guard members don't have that experience. The National Guard was deployed in Detroit in 1967; Washington, D.C. in 1968; Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992; and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd. Have the Marines ever been deployed? Or any other military branch? Yes. In 1992, in the wake of the Rodney King controversy, the California governor at the time, a Republican named Pete Wilson, asked President George H.W. Bush to deploy not only the guard but also the Marines to deal with street riots in Los Angeles. That's the last time it was done. And how did that go? I'm not an expert on this, but I assure you that the senior officers who commanded those Marines made it very clear that they were not to discharge their weapons without explicit permission from the officers themselves, and they were probably told not to load their weapons with live ammunition. In 1967, during the Detroit riots, the Michigan National Guard was called out to the streets of Detroit. When the ranking senior officer arrived, he ordered the soldiers to remove their bullets from their rifles. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Avoid escalation': World reacts to Israel strike on Iran
World leaders urged restraint on Friday after Israel pounded Iran, striking 100 targets including nuclear and military sites, and killing senior figures, including nuclear scientists and the armed forces chief of staff. Here is a roundup of key reactions: - 'Cannot have nuclear bomb': United States - US President Donald Trump, told Fox News he was aware Israel was going to conduct strikes on Iran before it happened and said: "Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb and we are hoping to get back to the negotiating table. We will see." Fox News also reported that "Trump noted the US is ready to defend itself and Israel if Iran retaliates." - 'Maximum restraint': UN - UN chief Antonio Guterres asked "both sides to show maximum restraint, avoiding at all costs a descent into deeper conflict, a situation that the region can hardly afford," according to a spokesperson. Guterres was "particularly concerned" by Israel's strikes on nuclear installations amid the ongoing US-Iran negotiations. - 'Deeply worried' : China - "The Chinese side... is deeply worried about the severe consequences that such actions might bring," foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian said, calling "on relevant parties to take actions that promote regional peace and stability and to avoid further escalation of tensions". - 'Reasonable reaction': Czech Republic - Czech Republic Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky said Iran "is supporting so many players, including the Hezbollah and Hamas movements, with the intention to destroy the state of Israel, and also seeking a nuclear bomb", that "I see that this was a reasonable reaction from the state of Israel towards a possible threat of a nuclear bomb". - 'Avoid any escalation' : France - "We call on all sides to exercise restraint and avoid any escalation that could undermine regional stability," France's foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on X. - 'Dangerous escalation': Hamas - "This aggression constitutes a dangerous escalation that threatens to destabilise the region," said the Iran-backed, Palestinian militant group, whose October 2023 attack on Israel sparked the Gaza war. - No 'battleground': Jordan - "Jordan has not and will not allow any violation of its airspace, reaffirming that the Kingdom will not be a battleground for any conflict," a government spokesperson told AFP after Jordan closed its airspace. - 'Dangerous approach' : Oman - Nuclear talks mediator Oman said "calls on the international community to adopt a clear and firm position to put an end to this dangerous approach, which threatens to rule out diplomatic solutions and jeopardise the security and stability of the region". - 'Strong condemnation': Qatar - Gaza mediator Qatar expressed "its strong condemnation and denunciation of the Israeli attack," the Gulf state's foreign ministry said, adding that the "dangerous escalation threatens security and stability of the region and hinders efforts to de-escalate and reach diplomatic solutions". - 'Aggressive actions': Turkey - "Israel must put an immediate end to its aggressive actions that could lead to further conflicts," Turkey's foreign ministry said in a statement. - 'Reduce tensions urgently': UK - British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a statement: "The reports of these strikes are concerning and we urge all parties to step back and reduce tensions urgently. Escalation serves no one in the region." - 'Legitimate right to defend itself': Yemen's Huthi rebels - Tehran-backed Huthi rebels said on Telegram they backed "Iran's full and legitimate right to... develop its nuclear programme" and that "we strongly condemn the brutal Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran and affirm its full and legitimate right to respond by all possible means". burs-djt/yad
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cynthia Lummis Proposes Artificial Intelligence Bill, Requiring AI Firms to Disclose Technicals
Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) has introduced the Responsible Innovation and Safe Expertise (RISE) Act of 2025, a legislative proposal designed to clarify liability frameworks for artificial intelligence (AI) used by professionals. The bill could bring transparency from AI developers – stoping short of requiring models to be open source. In a press release, Lummis said the RISE Act would mean that professionals, such as physicians, attorneys, engineers, and financial advisors, remain legally responsible for the advice they provide, even when it is informed by AI systems. At the time, AI developers who create the systems can only shield themselves from civil liability when things go awry if they publicly release model cards. The proposed bill defines model cards as detailed technical documents that disclose an AI system's training data sources, intended use cases, performance metrics, known limitations, and potential failure modes. All this is intended to help help professionals assess whether the tool is appropriate for their work. "Wyoming values both innovation and accountability; the RISE Act creates predictable standards that encourage safer AI development while preserving professional autonomy,' Lummis said in a press release. 'This legislation doesn't create blanket immunity for AI," Lummis continued. However, the immunity granted under this Act has clear boundaries. The legislation excludes protection for developers in instances of recklessness, willful misconduct, fraud, knowing misrepresentation, or when actions fall outside the defined scope of professional usage. Additionally, developers face a duty of ongoing accountability under the RISE Act. AI documentation and specifications must be updated within 30 days of deploying new versions or discovering significant failure modes, reinforcing continuous transparency obligations. The RISE Act, as it's written now, stops short of mandating that AI models become fully open source. Developers can withhold proprietary information, but only if the redacted material isn't related to safety, and each omission is accompanied by a written justification explaining the trade secret exemption. In a prior interview with CoinDesk, Simon Kim, the CEO of Hashed, one of Korea's leading VC funds, spoke about the danger of centralized, closed-source AI that's effectively a black box. "OpenAI is not open, and it is controlled by very few people, so it's quite dangerous. Making this type of [closed source] foundational model is similar to making a 'god', but we don't know how it works," Kim said at the time.
