The pioneers of in vitro fertilization (IVF) believed they were mocking God, not “doing God’s work,” claims one pro-life advocacy organization. Medical researcher Robert Edwards, one of the first to pursue IVF and eugenics, has said that the team’s “intent was to find out if God was in charge of human reproduction or if they were. An avowed socialist, he reveled in the fact that Christians, in particular, began using IVF,” Live Action notes. It’s with this sinister backdrop that the controversial practice evolved.

Despite outsized claims that the option can solve infertility problems, in recent years, thousands of IVF horror stories have emerged, including countless accounts of discarded human embryos, mistaken implantations, and even the disturbing trend of designing babies with “desired traits.”

Just last month, in a concerning case, a Florida couple used IVF to conceive their daughter — making the shocking discovery after birth that there had been an embryo mix-up: the child the wife carried did not share any genetic material with them. After bonding with her, the couple decided to keep her.

DuckDuckGoDuckDuckGo blocked this content to prevent Facebook from tracking youWe blocked Facebook from tracking you when the page loaded. If you unblock this content, Facebook will know your activity. Learn MoreUnblock Facebook Content

Most IVF embryos aren’t this lucky; they’re bought, sold, and traded like designer handbags. Thousands of tiny humans, viable human beings, are discarded or left in their frozen prison for years.

In fact, more human embryos are destroyed through in vitro fertilization than abortions every year, one report declared in 2024. With the growing popularity of conception through IVF, more safeguards are needed to ensure that every life created is protected, pro-life activists insist.

And yet, in May 2026, the Department of Labor announced, alongside the Departments of Health and Human Services, that “proposed rules to establish certain fertility benefits as a new category of limited excepted benefits.” According to the statement, the benefits would include services for the “diagnosis, mitigation, or treatment of infertility or infertility related reproductive health conditions and substantially all of which are provided by licensed or authorized medical professionals.” The maximum lifetime benefit dollar amount would be limited to $120,000 per participant.

Included in this rule are procedures for selective reduction, embryonic cryopreservation, genetic screening, and surrogacy. Rather than a mandate or a taxpayer-funded program, the benefits are a regulatory change that would create a new category of employer-sponsored benefits exempt from certain ACA/ERISA/HIPAA market requirements, Joy Stockbauer, policy analyst in Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity, told The Washington Stand.

On Tuesday, Family Research Council submitted a comment on a proposed rule from the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury on fertility benefits, including IVF, after the Departments noted they welcome submitted comments from concerned parties.

“Family Research Council supports adding clarifications to the proposed rule that safeguard the human dignity of embryos and provide root-cause solutions for married husbands and wives experiencing infertility,” the comment reads.

The comment, authored by Stockbauer, Vice President for Policy and Government Affairs Travis Weber, Senior Fellow for Regulatory Affairs Chris Gacek, and Legislative Assistant Chantel Hoyt, is a five-page document that focuses on ensuring the sanctity of life is recognized in the utmost manner.

“Experiencing infertility while longing desperately for a child is nothing short of heartbreaking. Married couples deserve real, tangible solutions as they fight to fulfill the good and godly desire to grow their families. The proposed excepted fertility benefits rule is a fantastic opportunity to expand the reach of effective fertility services to the Americans who need them,” Stockbauer said.

One of Family Research Council’s requests is to “protect human embryos from unethical treatment,” which includes the destruction of embryos not implanted. The comment also recognizes additional corrupt practices:

“Selective reduction. This procedure is a form of abortion that takes place after an embryo has been transferred through the IVF process, typically done due to post-implantation genetic screening or because the parents chose to implant multiple embryos while only intending to carry a smaller number of children to term. A federal rule intended to help families grow should not simultaneously promote procedures that end the life of the very children the treatments create. 

“Embryonic cryopreservation. This horrific practice places human children in storage, on ice, thus suspending their development indefinitely at their parents’ convenience, with no definite path to birth required. A federal rule seeking to help families flourish should not empower parents to recklessly create more children than they intend to actually care for and raise. 

“Genetic screening. Pre- or post-implantation genetic screening is used within the IVF process to identify genetic abnormalities such as disabilities, as well as factors like sex or physical traits. Such screening amounts to eugenics as it allows parents to create custom offspring, or “designer babies,” that suit their personal preferences, disregarding the equal worth of every individual life. 

“Destruction or donation to science. Federal benefit dollars should not finance a system in which embryos are destroyed or donated for research once a couple’s desires are met. The final rule should require that any excepted fertility benefit covering embryo creation prohibit the destruction or donation of embryos for research, and instead require a binding disposition plan ensuring every embryo created has the opportunity for birth, whether by the biological parents or through embryo adoption.”

The comment also mentions the importance of spotlighting restorative reproductive medicine (RRM), which has proven more effective at treating infertility without ethical baggage. According to FRC, RRM includes “approaches such as NaProTechnology, FEMM, and the Billings Ovulation Method, works to identify the underlying medical causes of infertility and treat them through precision care. RRM offers couples a holistic approach to fertility care by addressing conditions like endometriosis and hormonal imbalances, which can deeply affect women’s health and wellbeing even beyond the realm of fertility.”

FRC also pointed out that RRM offers a way for men to access support for fertility issues of their own if necessary.?

“By addressing barriers to long-term fertility, RRM provides families the opportunity to grow without ongoing medical intervention, rather than forcing families to revisit the same unsolved struggle with each attempted pregnancy as with IVF,” it continued.?

Additionally, FRC seeks to “ensure that the littlest members of American families can thrive,” stating that the only couples who should qualify to adopt an embryo are married couples consisting of one man and one woman.

“The federal government has a responsibility to protect the rights of all Americans, including the littlest ones still at the embryonic stage. Creating new lives should not come at the expense of others,” Stockbauer emphasized. “The goal is not to make growing a family more difficult for Americans, but actually to make it easier by prioritizing root-cause infertility treatments like restorative reproductive medicine, while also creating important guardrails that protect embryonic life.”

According to the federal agencies, the proposal would take effect on benefit plans beginning on or after January 1, 2027.