Trump's IVF subsidy proposal divides both Republicans and pro-life advocates.

The 2% of IVF births in the US has made it a significant topic in political campaigns, with some Republicans opposing their party leader, former President Trump, who has stated that he would support federally funding the procedures if elected.

Some Republicans and pro-life religious conservatives are not entirely supportive of federally funded IVF treatments.

On "This Week" on Sunday, Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., a Trump ally, stated that he would prefer to back a tax credit for IVF users to motivate individuals to have children.

"We have been accused of being against IVF treatments, but we are not."

"We might be able to find common ground here," he added, "and I'll talk to my Democratic colleagues."

According to Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., all Republicans in Congress support IVF.

"IVF is not prohibited or regulated in any state in a way that makes it unacceptable, and it is expensive for many couples. I understand that, and most Republicans would also be open to it."

Likewise, most California Republicans opposed a Democrat-sponsored bill that aimed to increase IVF access last week.

Last week, former President Trump faced criticism from his pro-life supporters for suggesting he might oppose Florida's six-week abortion ban, which he deemed "too short." However, he later announced his opposition to Amendment 4, a November ballot initiative that critics claim would protect abortion rights in the state constitution.

Trump also pledged to cover the cost of IVF treatments, stating "we want more babies," while leaving abortion access to the states. The Trump campaign did not provide a clear explanation of the distinction between state and federal issues when asked via email last week.

Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign press secretary, stated that President Trump supports universal access to contraception and IVF, while Kamala Harris and the Democrats are out of touch with the majority of Americans in their support for abortion up until birth and forcing taxpayers to fund it.

Some religious pro-lifers consider IVF, a fertility treatment that uses frozen eggs for conception, a moral dilemma. The cost of the treatment can be tens of thousands of dollars per couple.

In May, Illume Fertility, a top modern fertility treatment network, reported that when their clinic retrieves 12 eggs, about 80% of them are viable. Of these viable eggs, around 80% will successfully fertilize, resulting in about seven to eight embryos per patient, according to the report.

Eric Sammons, the executive director of faith-based magazine Crisis Pub, stated, "Although a child conceived through IVF is not inherently evil, like a child conceived through rape, the method of creation itself is not good."

Samantha D., a live action social media consultant, wrote, "It's crucial to maintain the pro-life pressure on Trump. Government-funded IVF is insane. So many lives will be lost."

Stay up-to-date with the latest news and exclusive interviews from the 2024 campaign trail at our Planet Chronicle Digital election hub.

Lila Rose, the founder of Live Action, has sparked controversy for her comments on voting for Trump and funding IVF treatments.

"How is Trump's decision to either fund IVF with tax dollars or require insurance companies to cover it morally different from Obama's contraceptive mandate?"

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that frozen embryos created through IVF are considered children. Despite a success rate of around 50% for women under 35, the rate drops with age. To increase the chances of a successful pregnancy, critics argue that clinics create more embryos than necessary, resulting in the freezing or disposal of millions of excess embryos.