Former President Donald Trump’s pledge to make in vitro fertilization free if he wins a second term is putting Senate Republicans on the spot after they killed legislation in the upper chamber earlier this year that sought to do just that.
The Senate is now scheduled to hold another vote next week on the failed bill, dubbed the Right to IVF Act.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) revived the measure following Trump’s unveiling of his proposal, which would require insurance companies or taxpayers to pick up the tab for IVF treatments.
“Republicans can’t claim to be pro-family only to block protections for IVF,” Schumer said. “The American people deserve another chance to see if Republicans are for access to IVF or against it. It’s that simple.”
The bill failed in June over GOP opposition but managed to garner the support of two Republicans: Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine.
However, that was before Trump threw a wrench into the mix by proposing to make IVF, an expensive fertility treatment that is only covered in certain states and runs tens of thousands of dollars, free by requiring either insurers or the government to pay for treatments.
Still, the former president’s policy proposal hasn’t appeared to sway the minds of Senate Republicans ahead of next week’s vote.
“I have an issue anytime we’re making a political vote, and I don’t trust a thing Schumer’s trying to do right now,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) said. “He’s fighting to be leader, and he’s going to try to put a bunch of people in a bad position. It’s going to be funny, though, because he may put his own members in a bad position with the vote, too.”
Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) voiced similar resistance, chalking up the forthcoming vote to politics just weeks before Election Day.
“The mandate part is not something that attracts me because this is more about messaging at this point,” Lummis said.
She also cited concerns over potentially raising already high insurance rates for those never planning to use IVF.
“What I fear is this is a giant overreaction in a hyper political atmosphere to make a national issue out of a state issue,” she said. “Mandating insurance coverage for this can end up driving up insurance rates for people who have no intention of ever accessing IVF.”
Trump has offered few details, but he’s pledged for either the government or insurance companies to cover IVF for “all Americans that need it.”
“We’re doing this because we just think it’s great and we need great children, beautiful children in our country,” he told NBC News. “We are going to be paying for that treatment, or we’re going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.”
His comments irked conservatives, who derided the plan as worse than Obamacare.
Lummis downplayed Trump’s broad pledge.
“I think he was just trying to use it as an avenue to voice his support for IVF and not specifically demanding the insurance component of IVF,” she said. “I think this is ending up being elevated unnecessarily.”
The Right to IVF Act includes four bills that would ensure access to IVF after the Alabama Supreme Court briefly threw it into jeopardy by ruling embryos were considered people, which essentially forced treatments to halt in a post-Roe era. The legislation also requires health insurance providers to cover the costly treatment, safeguard IVF providers from legal liability, and protect access for service members and veterans.
It was part of a series of bills this summer put up for votes by Schumer that were designed to thrust reproductive rights into the spotlight, an election-year issue Democrats hope will buoy their candidates at the voting booth. A vote to overcome a filibuster was 48-47, falling well short of the required 60.
Senate Republicans counterprogrammed the vote by putting forward their own legislation on IVF, which was shot down by Democrats under a unanimous consent request. Among their concerns, Republicans cited religious liberty.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) signaled an openness to an insurance mandate if the legislation would be more narrowly tailored and rid of poison pills. He predicted that such a measure would garner enough bipartisan support to clear the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Hawley’s wife, attorney Erin Hawley, has handled a number of abortion-related cases, including an attempt to have the Supreme Court impose restrictions on the abortion-inducing medication mifepristone.
“As a mandate, that kind of thing doesn’t bother me that much,” Hawley said. “There are interesting ways to go about this, and I’m interested in all of that — if it’s about IVF. But if it’s that plus these 15 other things, then no.”
