This week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill to redefine “infertility” and thereby mandate insurance coverage of in vitro fertilization (IVF) for any reason for any Californian. Though the bill delivers California Democrats an easy win on the “reproductive rights” front, it marks a dangerous turn in reproductive technology and opens the door to clear abuses — in addition to the destruction of unborn lives and increased government spending already endemic to state-sponsored fertility treatment.
Everyone’s Infertile Now
Though IVF became a hot issue in the 2024 election after the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling this February, California politicians were, as usual, ahead of the leftward curve. Democrat Sen. Caroline Menjivar introduced SB 729 in February 2023, but the bill was held up for nearly a year, passing from the appropriations committee in August 2024. Over the past six weeks, the bill was speedily approved and sent to Gov. Newsom’s desk for signing.
Prior to SB 729, infertility was legally defined as the “presence of a demonstrated condition recognized by a licensed physician and surgeon as a cause of infertility,” or “the inability to conceive a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to a live birth after a year or more of regular sexual relations without contraception.”
This definition relies on a fundamental axiom: only male-female sexual relationships can be classified as “infertile.” But following the successful push for “marriage equality,” LGBTQ activists turned towards the next frontier for gay rights — fertility equality.
The passage of SB 729 marks another success for the movement. Under the bill, infertility is redefined as:
- A licensed physician’s findings, based on a patient’s medical, sexual, and reproductive history, age, physical findings, diagnostic testing, or any combination of those factors …
- A person’s inability to reproduce either as an individual or with their partner without medical intervention.
- The failure to establish a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to live birth after regular, unprotected sexual intercourse.
The second qualification expands infertility so broadly that the word loses all meaning. Everyone is infertile because no one can reproduce as an individual. Under SB 729, everyone who wants a baby is eligible for unlimited embryo transfers, all covered by insurance.
Obvious Shortcomings of Universal IVF
Scared to deter voters ahead of the election, many GOP politicians have pandered to mainstream acceptance of IVF rather than discussing the issue on its merits. With Democrats framing Republicans as the enemies of abortion access and reproductive rights, objecting to IVF comes with intrinsic political liabilities.
Even House Speaker Mike Johnson “declined to say” whether the destruction of embryos created for IVF is murder. “We support the sanctity of life, of course, and we support IVF and full access to it,” he said in March. (RELATED: Don’t Blame Trump For Amber Thurman’s Death. Blame the Abortion Pill.)
Johnson and many of his fellow Republicans want to have it both ways. But pro-life commitments — that every human person possesses intrinsic dignity, regardless of size, age, location, or stage of development — are fundamentally incompatible with support for IVF.
In order for a woman undergoing IVF treatments to have a child, doctors create a number of embryos, all with unique genetic makeup, for implantation. But clinics create more embryos than can be used in the course of treatment, leaving the remainder to be discarded as medical waste, used for research, “adopted” by other women, or simply frozen. Currently, there are approximately 1,500,000 human beings frozen due to IVF.
Despite the obvious situational differences between abortion and IVF — in the latter scenario, the mother wants to have a child — the two procedures have more in common than not. The mass creation and destruction of unborn life is just as murderous as the destruction of unborn life after weeks or months of gestation.
Even if GOP politicians didn’t want to tackle the moral question, fiscal conservatism lends a convenient talking point: IVF is extremely expensive. A single round of IVF in California can cost $15,000, or up to $30,000 per cycle with all associated costs — like genetic testing, embryo freezing, or medication — included. California’s SB 729 attempts to make fertility treatments available to all, but it does so at great cost to insurance companies, who will undoubtedly drive up insurance premiums for all.
Brave New World, Indeed
In addition to the broader problems with artificial reproduction, California’s bill creates ample opportunities for new abuses of fertility treatment. And with increasing reliance on artificial reproductive technology, eugenic practices are almost inevitable. Given the choice between multiple embryos, parents can select for gender or genetic resilience. (RELATED: IVF Parents Shop for Eggs From Girls at Ivy League Schools)
Already, California-based startup Orchid Health is offering “designer babies” through genetic testing. Scientists would evaluate embryos provided by clients and rate their probability of developing various diseases. Parents can then choose which child to implant based on Orchid’s predictions.
Of course, every parent would make sacrifices to alleviate their child’s suffering. But what happens when they’d have to sacrifice the child himself? Embryos with higher likelihoods — prenatal predictions are just possibilities, not certainties — of illness or disability are simply discarded in favor of the presumably healthier child. Countries like Denmark, where more than 95 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted, show the nightmarish future of eugenic fertility treatments. After all, the only way to eradicate a genetic disorder is to eradicate the people who carry it.
And as if that wasn’t grim enough, the California bill gives sanction to what Heritage Foundation senior research associate Emma Waters calls “baby markets.” Since the bill requires fertility treatments for all Californians desiring a baby, it necessarily relies on the continued and increased practice of surrogacy, which has flourished in the state without regulation.
“If a man purchases the egg, the womb, and the necessary paperwork, the line between a legitimate commercial surrogacy agreement, driven perhaps by unfortunate health circumstances, and outright baby selling dissolves,” Waters writes.
When children can legitimately be bought and sold through surrogacy, bad actors will always take advantage of weaknesses in the market. The system treats children as objects to be acquired for the satisfaction of an adult, not as individuals with rights of their own.
The lack of regulation surrounding surrogacy in California has permitted wide-scale abuse, including by foreign nationals who use surrogacy as a backdoor to birthright American citizenship for children. Given that almost half of international surrogacy customers are Chinese nationals — and that 75 percent of foreign intended parents use California clinics — it’s no surprise that a number of fertility clinics in the state have close connections to China.
All this is to say that California’s fertility industry is already wrapped up in layers of corruption, and SB 729 will only increase the latitude for abuse.
Mary Frances Myler is a contributing editor at The American Spectator. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2022.
READ MORE by Mary Frances Myler:
Mayor of Majority-Muslim City in Michigan Endorses Trump
