Senate Republicans once again blocked a Democratic bill aimed at guaranteeing nationwide access to in vitro fertilization (IVF). The bill, which needed 60 votes to advance, failed in a 51-44 vote, with only two Republicans-Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine-joining Democrats in favor. This marks the second time the legislation has stalled in the Senate, further intensifying the political battle as the November elections approach.
The blocked bill is part of a broader effort by Senate Democrats to draw a clear contrast with Republicans on reproductive health issues. With the upcoming elections looming, Democrats are using the issue of IVF to galvanize voters and highlight what they describe as Republican extremism on reproductive rights. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) emphasized the stakes, stating, "If you truly support IVF, then vote for a bill that actually protects IVF through the letter of the law."
The bill, known as the Right to IVF Act, was introduced by Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), alongside Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Cory Booker (D-NJ). It aimed to establish a federal right for individuals to receive IVF treatment and for doctors to provide it, thereby overriding any state-level restrictions. The legislation also sought to make IVF more affordable by mandating coverage for fertility treatments under employer-sponsored insurance plans and certain public insurance programs.
Republicans, however, criticized the Democratic-led legislation as unnecessary overreach and dismissed the vote as a political stunt. Senator John Thune (R-SD) labeled the vote as a "show vote," arguing that Republicans support IVF but oppose the specific mandates proposed by the Democrats. "The mandate part, that's a challenging issue for lots of reasons, not the least of which is what it does to insurance costs," Thune said.
In response, Senate Republicans have put forward alternative proposals. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) introduced a bill aimed at making IVF more affordable by allowing individuals to expand contributions to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to cover the costs of the procedure. Scott, who is up for re-election, emphasized that his bill would help make IVF accessible without imposing broad mandates on insurance companies.
Another GOP-led bill, the IVF Protection Act, was introduced by Senators Katie Britt (R-AL) and Ted Cruz (R-TX). Their proposal would bar states from receiving Medicaid funding if they implement a ban on IVF, but it stops short of guaranteeing a right to IVF services. Democrats have criticized this bill, arguing that it does not go far enough to protect IVF access and leaves the door open for future restrictions.
The debate over IVF has taken on heightened significance in the wake of recent court rulings and state-level legislation that have raised concerns about access to reproductive health care. Earlier this year, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are children, a decision that reproductive rights advocates warn could have a chilling effect on infertility treatments.
Senator Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran and mother of two daughters born via IVF, has been a vocal advocate for the bill. She argues that without federal protections, access to IVF could be jeopardized in states that pass restrictive laws. "You can cover it all you want, but if there is nobody to perform the procedure, then you don't have access to it," Duckworth said, criticizing the GOP's alternative proposals as inadequate.
The blocked bill also gave Democrats an opportunity to put Republicans on the spot after former President Donald Trump expressed support for a federal mandate to cover IVF treatments. Democrats have questioned the sincerity of Trump's proposal, with Schumer linking Senate Republicans to Project 2025, a policy agenda published by the Heritage Foundation that includes restrictions on reproductive health care.
As the November elections draw closer, the issue of reproductive rights, including access to IVF, is expected to remain a central theme in both Senate and House races. Democrats are betting that voters will reject what they describe as Republican extremism on reproductive health, while Republicans are trying to position themselves as supportive of family-building options like IVF, albeit with fewer mandates.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has publicly backed access to IVF following the Alabama court ruling, but he has not advanced any legislation on the issue. Meanwhile, GOP candidates in swing districts are stressing their support for IVF in campaign ads, attempting to counter Democratic arguments that a Republican-controlled Congress would impose further restrictions on reproductive health care.
