Trump’s Push to Expand IVF

This is not the first time the president has sought to expand access to assisted reproductive technologies. The first key moment came after the Alabama Supreme Court’s February 2024 ruling[1], which held that frozen embryos could be treated legally as children under the state’s wrongful-death statute. The decision opened the door to potential legal liability for fertility clinics over the destruction of embryos and led some centers to temporarily suspend their services. Trump reacted quickly,  publicly backing the development of state legislation that ultimately granted legal protection to in vitro fertilization in Alabama. During the presidential campaign, in August 2024, he pledged that, if he returned to the White House, the government or insurers would pay for IVF treatments, even describing his party as “the party for IVF”[2].

Once back in the White House, Trump turned that rhetoric into administrative action. On February 18, 2025, he signed Executive Order 14216, entitled “Expanding Access to In Vitro Fertilization”[3]. The order was framed around the goal of reducing economic barriers and facilitating access to in vitro fertilization. The next step came in October 2025[4], when the Administration announced a two-part initiative: first, discounts on certain fertility drugs through TrumpRx, a program promoted by the Trump Administration to facilitate access to these treatments through direct agreements with pharmaceutical companies such as EMD Serono; and second, the development of a pathway for employers to offer fertility benefits separate from regular health insurance.

The proposal announced in May 2026[5] appears to be the next regulatory step in that plan. Under this new rule, companies could offer dedicated supplemental coverage for IVF-related fertility treatment, much as many already offer dental or vision insurance. Employer-sponsored IVF coverage already exists in the United States, although it remains far from universal: approximately one quarter[6] of U.S. companies with 200 or more employees cover the procedure. Companies such as Amazon, Apple, and Meta offer substantial fertility-treatment coverage, in many cases through specialized platforms such as Progyny. In addition, insurers such as Aetna or Cigna may include infertility and in vitro fertilization coverage depending on the plan selected by each company and the applicable rules in each state.

Because several rounds of IVF are often needed to achieve a pregnancy, the financial cost can be very high: a single round costs between $12,000 and $30,000. On average, more than $61,000 is spent to achieve a live birth or to determine that further cycles are no longer medically or financially reasonable[7]. The average lifetime maximum among employers that offer this coverage is around $20,000 per employee[8].

The Ethical Implications of In Vitro Fertilization

In vitro fertilization usually begins with ovarian stimulation (hormonal medication) so that the ovaries produce multiple mature eggs in a single cycle. The eggs are then retrieved and fertilized in the laboratory with sperm to form embryos. The embryos are cultured for a few days and, depending on the circumstances, are transferred to the uterus or frozen (cryopreserved) for later use. Several embryos can be generated from a single retrieval and transferred in batches at different times. If a transfer does not result in pregnancy, or if the couple wishes to have another child later on, subsequent transfers can be carried out using another batch of embryos, thereby avoiding the need to repeat the entire stimulation and retrieval process each time.

It is difficult to know how many embryos are created on average in an IVF cycle, because most public statistics do not count embryos created; instead, they report outcomes as live births per egg-retrieval cycle and usually use cumulative rates that include transfers carried out within the year following that retrieval. In the United States, SART’s national summary reports 431,746[9] total cycles in 2024. Using the conservative assumption adopted by The Heritage Foundation (10 embryos created per cycle)[10], this would imply approximately 4.32 million embryos created in 2024 in the United States. Comparing this figure with the national total of 100,158[11] babies born through IVF in 2024 suggests that approximately 2.32% of the estimated embryos would result in a live birth, while the remaining embryos would not. However, these statistics do not allow us to determine how many are lost in the process and how many remain in storage. Of those embryos that remain in storage, some will be transferred in the future; some will be discarded; others will be donated for research; and many will come to be considered “abandoned” or “unclaimed” in practice[12] (because of a prolonged absence of instructions or contact from the parents, or because of noncompliance with the terms of the agreement), leaving their custody and eventual disposition in the hands of the clinic in accordance with its policies and the applicable legal framework. The scale of the frozen-embryo phenomenon is sobering: in the United States, various estimates place the number of cryopreserved embryos at more than 1.5 million[13].

Another major ethical concern is embryo selection. IVF is often accompanied by preimplantation genetic testing —“preimplantation genetic diagnosis”— which allows embryos to be analyzed before transfer. In some cases, this is presented as a way of avoiding serious diseases, but the underlying logic can easily expand to include criteria of quality, preference, or discardability. More than 75% of fertility clinics offer preimplantation testing to detect genetic problems, and 73% offer testing for sex selection or traits such as hair, eye, or skin color[14]. This point connects directly with the risk of eugenics. If embryos can be selected on the basis of the absence of disease, sex, or physical characteristics, the practice fosters a mindset in which some lives are deemed preferable to others. The very structure of the process facilitates a relationship of control over nascent human life. The child is no longer seen primarily as a gift, but as the result of a technical decision, a biological selection, and an economic investment.

There are also medical risks associated with IVF. Although the scientific literature continues to debate how far these risks can be attributed to the assisted reproductive technology itself —and not to associated factors such as the parents’ underlying infertility, advanced maternal age, or prematurity— numerous studies have linked assisted reproduction to a higher incidence of certain health problems in children conceived through these techniques, including certain congenital heart defects[15], some childhood cancers[16], and neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism[17].

Catholic Doctrine on In Vitro Fertilization

The Church acknowledges the suffering of married couples facing infertility and recognizes the goodness of their desire to build a family[18]. But it distinguishes between the legitimate desire for a child and an alleged right to obtain one by any means. A child is not something owed to the parents, but a person to be welcomed as a gift[19].

From the beginning, and consistently to the present day, the Church has firmly maintained that every human life must be respected and protected from the moment of conception[20]. The Magisterium does not claim authority over the experimental sciences, but it does have the responsibility to offer moral principles for evaluating the ethical implications of techniques applied to human life[21]. At the moment of fertilization, scientific evidence indicates that the existence of a new human being begins, with its own biological identity and a continuous developmental trajectory. Consequently, Catholic doctrine teaches that the State and society have a duty to defend the fundamental right to life of every innocent human being, rooted in his or her nature and in creation in the image of God[22]. The value of human life does not depend on its stage of development, its state of health, or the circumstances of its conception: from beginning of its existance, the embryo must be recognized and treated as a person, never as a means, an object of selection, or a disposable object[23]. Consequently, the deliberate destruction of human embryos inherent in in vitro fertilization constitutes a grave violation of the right to life of an innocent human being. Likewise, the possibility of selecting embryos according to genetic criteria or of producing more embryos than the number of children desired introduces a logic of domination and instrumentalization over human life in gestation[24].

The Church, for its part, does not disapprove of reproductive medicine as such. On the contrary, it accepts interventions that assist the conjugal act in achieving its natural end. What it rejects are techniques that replace the conjugal act and place the origin of human life under technological control[25]. There is an inseparable connection between the unitive and the procreative meanings of the conjugal act[26]. Just as contraception separates sexual union from procreation, in vitro fertilization does the opositee: it separates procreation from conjugal union[27]. In this sense, in vitro fertilization introduces a logic that shifts the origin of human life from the realm of spousal love to that of technical production in a laboratory.

In response to Trump’s February[28] and October[29] 2025 measures to expand access to IVF, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops acknowledged the suffering of couples experiencing infertility and the goodness of their desire to have children, but warned that the answer cannot be a technique that destroys countless human lives and treats embryos as disposable material. The U.S. bishops further insisted that every human life, born or unborn, is sacred, and that children have the right to be conceived through the natural and exclusive act of marital love, not through a commercial technological process.

Ultimately, the desire to have a child is profoundly human, and the Church understands the real suffering of those who experience infertility. But precisely because the child possesses his or her own inviolable dignity, not every means of attaining that end is morally acceptable. Human life must be respected from the moment of conception, regardless of the circumstances in which it came into being, its stage of development, or its viability. The response to infertility cannot be built on the instrumentalization of human life.

For this reason, presenting the measures promoted by Trump as “pro-family” or “pro-life” policies is deeply contradictory. Although they seek to respond to a real problem, they ultimately reinforce an industry based on practices incompatible with the respect owed to every human person from the very beginning of life. There are also more humane and ethical alternatives aimed at addressing the root of the problem: greater research into the causes of infertility, restorative reproductive medicine, including treatments based on Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM)[30], better diagnoses, support for motherhood and fatherhood, and easier pathways to adoption. Instead of accepting embryo production and selection as inevitable, a true family policy should promote solutions that protect both the legitimate desire of parents and the inherent dignity of every human life.

From a faithful investing perspective, these policies also have important implications for investors. The Trump Administration’s push to expand assisted reproduction not only supports the growth of insurers, pharmaceutical companies, fertility clinics, and biotechnology companies directly linked to this sector, but also potentially affects companies across the economy. More and more companies are adding in vitro fertilization coverage to their employee benefits packages, raising significant ethical concerns regarding the protection of human life. For this reason, at Altum Faithful Investing, we help investors evaluate not only the products and services a company offers to its customers, but also its corporate policies and employee benefits.

[1] LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C., Supreme Court of Alabama, (Ala. 2024), decision of February 16, 2024.

[2] ABC News, “Trump calls himself ‘father of IVF,’ doubles down on ‘enemy within’ remarks in town hall,” October 16, 2024.

[3] The White House, “Expanding Access to In Vitro Fertilization,” Presidential Actions, February 18, 2025.

[4] The White House, “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Announces Actions to Lower Costs and Expand Access to In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and High-Quality Fertility Care,” October 16, 2025.

[5] U.S. Department of Labor, “Proposed Rule on Excepted Fertility Benefits,” May 10, 2026,

[6] KFF, “Annual Family Premiums for Employer Coverage Rise 7% to Average $25,572 in 2024, Benchmark Survey Finds,” KFF, October 9, 2024.

[7] Emma Waters, “Why the IVF Industry Must Be Regulated,” The Heritage Foundation, March 19, 2024.

[8] Lindsay Bower, “Delivering Efficient and Affordable IVF Coverage to Employees,” Mercer, March 6, 2025.

[9] Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), “Preliminary National Summary Report for 2024 (All SART Member Clinics),” SART CORS Online.

[10] Emma Waters, “Why the IVF Industry Must Be Regulated,” The Heritage Foundation, March 19, 2024.

[11] Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), “Preliminary National Summary Report for 2024 (All SART Member Clinics),” SART CORS Online.

[12] Kathryn J. Go, Phillip A. Romanski, Pietro Bortoletto, Jay C. Patel, Serene S. Srouji, and Elizabeth S. Ginsburg, “Meeting the challenge of unclaimed cryopreserved embryos,” Fertility and Sterility 119, no. 1 (January 2023).

[13] Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, “The Alabama Supreme Court’s Ruling on Frozen Embryos,” February 22, 2024.

[14] Emma Waters, “Why the IVF Industry Must Be Regulated,” The Heritage Foundation, March 19, 2024.

[15] European Society of Cardiology (ESC), “Babies born after fertility treatment have higher risk of heart defects,” September 27, 2024.

[16] Gao Song, Cai-qiong Zhang, Zhong-ping Bai, Rong Li, and Meng-qun Cheng, “Assisted Reproductive Technology and Risk of Childhood Cancer Among the Offspring of Parents With Infertility: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” JMIR Cancer, vol. 11, 2025.

[17] Mohammad A. Sakran et al., “Relationship Between Assisted Reproductive Technology and Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Psychiatry International, vol. 6, no. 4, 2025, art. 156, DOI.

[18] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Personae, no. 16.

[19] Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2378.

[20] Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2270.

[21] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, no. 1.

[22] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Infinita, nos. 1 and 22, April 2, 2024.

[23] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, I, no. 1. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Infinita, no. 22.

[24] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Personae, no. 15. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, II, Introduction.

[25] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, II, B, no. 5.

[26] St. Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, nos. 12 and 14.

[27] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, II, B, no. 5.

[28] United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), “IVF Destroys Human Life, Bishops Urge Ethical Alternatives,” February 20, 2025.

[29] United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), “Bishop Chairmen Respond to Administration’s Announcement on Expansion of Access to IVF and Fertility,” October 17, 2025.

[30] Restorative Reproductive Medicine: An Ethical Approach to Fertility — The National Catholic Bioethics Center.

Faith-based investing is no longer a marginal concern. In recent years, a growing number of Catholic investors, religious institutions, foundations, and families have begun to ask whether it is possible to invest professionally without compromising the principles that guide their lives.

For decades, the relationship between faith and finance was often presented as an unavoidable tension. Today, however, there is a deeper awareness that money is not morally neutral and that every investment decision has real consequences for people, society, and culture. It is in this context that Faithful Investing has gained momentum, often referred to as Catholic investing or faith-based investing grounded in Catholic values.

What does it really mean to invest in line with one’s faith?

At first glance, speaking about evangelization in the financial sphere may seem abstract. Yet speaking about Faithful Investing is not about describing a specific financial technique, but about expressing a way of understanding investment itself. Faith-based investing begins with a simple yet demanding conviction: capital should serve the common good and must not support activities that undermine human dignity, family, life, or the care of creation.

From this perspective, investing for Catholics is rooted in the Social Doctrine of the Church and applies stable moral criteria that help discern which companies, sectors, or financial instruments are legitimate investment options and which are not. This is precisely why Faithful Investing differs both from purely speculative investing and from more generic approaches to socially responsible investing.

Investing in this way does not mean withdrawing from the market, but rather engaging with it responsibly, professionally, and with moral awareness.

Catholic investing and ESG: apparent similarities, profound differences

Catholic investing is often associated with ESG investing. While both approaches share a concern for social and environmental impact, their foundations are fundamentally different. ESG relies on changing and often ambiguous indicators, whereas Faith-based investing is grounded in objective moral principles.

It is not uncommon to find companies with strong ESG ratings that are nevertheless involved in activities incompatible with Christian values. For this reason, many Catholic investment advisors and Christian-based investment companies consider ESG alone insufficient to build a truly Catholic investment portfolio.

What types of investments are excluded by Catholic Investing?

Catholic investing requires rigorous ethical discernment. Certain activities are incompatible by their very nature with faith-based investing. Given the complexity of today’s financial markets, this discernment cannot be intuitive; it requires reliable information and professional stock screening tools capable of applying Catholic values consistently and transparently.

Catholic investment funds: what investors should know

In recent years, a growing number of Catholic investment funds have emerged in response to this increasing demand. However, not all of them apply the same ethical criteria or the same level of moral analysis. For this reason, before investing in Catholic mutual funds, Christian mutual funds, or Catholic responsible investment funds, it is essential to examine their methodology and assess to what extent they genuinely integrate Catholic values in investing. This is where professional investing tools become essential.

Certified funds and ethical assurance 

In this context, certified funds play a particularly important role. At Altum, these funds are analyzed and certified according to strict faith-based investing criteria, ensuring that their investment decisions are aligned with the Social Doctrine of the Church and with Catholic values in investing. This certification is not limited to an initial review but involves ongoing monitoring, providing transparency and confidence to Catholic investors. As a result, those who choose these certified funds can be assured that their assets are managed professionally, ethically, and in full coherence with their convictions, without sacrificing rigorous financial management.

The key role of professional investing tools 

Faithful Investing is not an amateur approach to financial markets. On the contrary, it requires a high level of technical rigor. Professional investing tools enable Catholic investment advisors and Christian investment companies to apply ethical criteria while maintaining solid financial analysis.

Thanks to these tools, it is now possible to manage complex portfolios, compare faith-aligned alternatives, run scenario analyses, and make informed decisions that respect both faith and financial objectives.

Can faith-based investing be profitable? 

This is perhaps one of the most frequently asked questions. Experience shows that ethical investing and financial performance are not opposing concepts. In fact, purposeful investing often encourages a long-term perspective, reduces certain risks, and supports more sustainable business models.

The key is not to reject profitability, but to understand it as a means rather than an absolute end.

Faithful Investing is not simply an investment technique, but a way of integrating faith, reason, and economic responsibility. For many Catholic investors, it represents a concrete way of living their vocation in the financial sphere, using capital as a tool of service.

Investing in line with one’s faith is ultimately a way of affirming that the economy, too, can be placed at the service of truth, human dignity, and the common good.

For more Faithful Investing, click here.

“Tell me how you invest, and I’ll tell you who you are.”

This saying, often applied to personal relationships, is just as relevant in the world of finance. Yet many investors are unaware of where their money is actually invested and, consequently, what activities they are supporting.

When you decide to invest, you are doing more than seeking a financial return. Every dollar invested supports a specific business activity, for better or for worse. Investing is never morally neutral.

For Christians, aligning faith and finances is not optional. That is why Catholic investing offers a coherent, responsible, and professional way to manage wealth.

Here are three key reasons to invest with faith — and with sound judgment.

Every investment decision is a moral decision

Investing always has consequences. Even when it appears purely technical, it shapes the world we live in.

If you avoid certain products because they contradict your beliefs, does it make sense to invest in companies that promote those same practices — such as pornography, contraception, or abortion-related pharmaceuticals?

Ethical investing recognizes that not everything is acceptable in the pursuit of profit. From a Christian perspective, money must serve human dignity and the common good.

Catholic investing applies this principle by excluding companies whose activities or practices undermine:

• human life,
• personal dignity,
• family,
• and the care of creation.

Investing with faith means refraining from financing what contradicts our values, even indirectly.

Faith-aligned investing promotes the common good without sacrificing returns

One common misconception is that faith-based investing requires giving up profitability. Experience shows otherwise.

When faith and finance are aligned:

1. wealth is generated responsibly,
2. ethical business models are supported,
3. and society benefits as a whole.

Faith-based investing does not only exclude harmful activities. It also actively promotes good by supporting companies that respect workers, serve society, and operate responsibly. Moreover, as highlighted in the Practical Guide to Catholic Investing, portfolios built on strong ethical criteria can be just as competitive from a financial performance perspective.

Investing with faith is not investing “blindly.” It means investing with a long-term vision, clear principles, and professional investment management, fully aligned with Catholic investing and faith-based investing.

The existence of professional tools now makes Catholic investing possible

For years, Catholic investors lacked reliable tools to apply ethical criteria effectively.

How could one know what companies truly do?

How could moral discernment be applied without compromising technical excellence?

Today, professional solutions exist.

Thanks to Altum Explorer, a professional stock screening tool designed for Catholic investing, investors can analyze thousands of companies and assess whether they align with Christian values. This professional investing tool enables investors to:

• identify unethical activities,
• build fully faith-aligned portfolios,
• and make informed, responsible decisions.

Investing “with faith” means applying that analysis through clear moral principles.

Catholic investing brings both dimensions together.

Our actions define us — including our financial decisions. Catholic investing is a practical way to live out one’s faith, remain consistent, and actively contribute to the common good. Investing with faith and sound judgment is not only possible. It is a responsibility. Make sure your investments never compromise your integrity. Let your financial decisions truly reflect how you live and what you believe.