Republican opposition to in vitro fertilization (IVF) is expanding beyond rhetoric into official party platforms, with five states now including specific anti-IVF language that could reshape fertility access for millions of Americans. Idaho, Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, and Oklahoma have all adopted platform language opposing IVF or calling for strict regulation of assisted reproduction, marking a significant shift in how conservative politics addresses fertility treatment.

What's Driving the Anti-IVF Movement in GOP Platforms?

The opposition stems from several interconnected concerns that conservative groups have been raising with increasing intensity. Many anti-abortion organizations, including Students for Life of America and Live Action, argue that IVF involves the destruction of embryos, which they equate to abortion. This argument is rooted in the belief that embryos and fetuses should have legal personhood rights from conception.

Beyond embryo concerns, some conservative critics oppose IVF and surrogacy because same-sex couples frequently use these methods to have children. Many conservatives believe children should be raised by heterosexual married couples, making fertility access a proxy issue for broader cultural debates. Additionally, critics connect surrogacy to immigration concerns, arguing it facilitates "birth tourism" and birthright citizenship.

The Texas Republican Party's 2026 platform exemplifies this multi-pronged approach. It opposes public funding for IVF, calls for regulation of the assisted reproduction industry including mandatory reporting on embryo creation and storage, and explicitly states that the Texas Legislature must "protect fetal life from destructive practices, such as IVF and commercial surrogacy." The platform also opposes third-party egg and sperm donations and calls for a ban on contract surrogacy involving foreign nationals.

How Are Lawmakers Using Personhood Bills to Restrict Fertility Treatment?

The push for anti-IVF policies is closely tied to broader efforts to establish legal personhood for embryos and fetuses. As of June 2026, lawmakers in at least 17 states had introduced 36 bills that would codify personhood rights, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights advocacy group. Opponents have successfully defeated many of these bills by arguing they would limit IVF access, which remains broadly popular with the American public.

This dynamic played out directly in Idaho, where Democratic state representative Iddeco Green tried to pass a bill protecting IVF access in 2024, but it failed. However, a competing bill that would have established personhood from conception also failed after Green's fertility doctor testified to a legislative committee that such a law would threaten her clinic's ability to continue offering IVF treatments.

Why IVF and Surrogacy Matter More Than You Might Think

While IVF and surrogacy represent a small percentage of total births nationwide, their use is growing steadily. In March 2026, the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology reported a historic milestone: for the first time, more than 100,000 babies were born with the help of IVF in a single year. Surrogacy is less common but still significant, with babies born through surrogacy representing about 14 out of every 100,000 deliveries between 2017 and 2020.

For many people, these technologies represent their only path to parenthood. Green's story illustrates the stakes. She underwent multiple rounds of IVF to have her first child, and was preparing to use her last remaining embryo when she was diagnosed with estrogen-fueled breast cancer. Pregnancy would have been dangerous during cancer treatment, so she turned to surrogacy to have her second child, who was born in June 2026. Years earlier, she had co-sponsored bipartisan legislation in Idaho that codified best practices for surrogacy agencies, but now finds herself navigating a political landscape increasingly hostile to the very treatments she relied on.

What Are the Key Concerns Driving Conservative Opposition?

• Embryo Destruction: Conservative groups argue that IVF involves discarding embryos, which they view as equivalent to abortion based on the belief that embryos have personhood rights from conception.
• Same-Sex Couple Access: Many conservatives oppose IVF and surrogacy because these methods allow same-sex couples to have biological children, conflicting with their belief that children should be raised by heterosexual married couples.
• Immigration and Citizenship Concerns: Critics argue that surrogacy facilitates "birth tourism" and allows foreign nationals to obtain U.S. birthright citizenship for their children, raising national security questions.
• Commercialization of Reproduction: Conservative groups oppose what they call the "commodification" of women and children through commercial surrogacy arrangements.

Emma Waters, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that produced Project 2025 policy recommendations for President Trump's second term, expressed these concerns bluntly. She referred to surrogacy as "baby selling" and noted that people from countries considered U.S. adversaries could hire surrogates and obtain citizenship. She argued that by age 35, a surrogate-born child from China could run for president, framing surrogacy as a national security issue.

What Do Reproductive Medicine Experts Say About These Restrictions?

"Party platforms are mostly about intraparty politics and jockeying for position, but at the same time, you have to pay attention, because that symbolism matters," said Sean Tipton, chief advocacy and policy officer at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Sean Tipton, Chief Advocacy and Policy Officer at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine

Tipton and other reproductive medicine advocates argue that conservative opposition to IVF and surrogacy extends beyond embryo concerns to broader cultural opposition to same-sex families. He suggested that groups like the Heritage Foundation use surrogacy opposition as a way to advance multiple conservative goals simultaneously. "For groups like Heritage, (surrogacy) is a nice synergy that allows them to be xenophobic, homophobic and anti-choice all at once," Tipton stated.

Elizabeth Carr, the first IVF baby born 44 years ago in Virginia, has been advocating against so-called fetal personhood bills for 15 years. She expressed concern that the rhetoric opposing IVF is intensifying and the threats are growing. "As somebody who is a product of this technology, I always think of it in terms of, 'Geez, I hope I'm not the last first of something,'" Carr told Stateline.

She

What Happens Next? Is Surrogacy the Next Target?

Green, the Idaho legislator who has worked to build relationships with Republicans by sharing her fertility story, believes surrogacy restrictions are coming. "We're going to see them, I have no doubt," she said, predicting that Idaho legislators will attempt to limit surrogacy in the 2027 legislative session.

Meanwhile, at the federal level, Republicans in Congress have blocked legislation that would directly protect IVF as a fertility treatment. President Trump has discussed supporting policies to lower IVF costs, which typically run tens of thousands of dollars per cycle, but concrete action from his administration has been limited so far.

The expansion of anti-IVF language in state party platforms signals that fertility access will remain a contested political issue. For people relying on these technologies to build their families, the stakes are personal and immediate.