By Catrina Barker | The Center Square contributor
The Center Square

(The Center Square) – Illinois U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Schaumburg, criticizes the House speaker and the president after a provision expanding in-vitro fertilization coverage for military families was stripped from the defense bill. Opponents cite cost, capacity and ethical concerns.

Sean Tipton, chief advocacy and policy officer for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said Speaker Mike Johnson’s decision was rooted in ideology rather than fiscal realities.

“This provision passed in an overwhelming bipartisan way in both the House and the Senate,” said Tipton. “And the speaker just decided he was going to take it out. It’s undemocratic. It’s cruel to the military.”

Critics, including David Smith of the Illinois Family Institute, argue the federal government should not require taxpayers to fund IVF, which they view as an elective medical procedure.

“Taxpayers should not be funding this dubious medical procedure,” said Smith. “This is an elective medical treatment, and the government has no business expanding into that kind of care.”

In a video circulating on social media, Duckworth called on lawmakers to restore the provision.

“It should be a no-brainer that we pass IVF benefits for our military men and women and their families,” said Duckworth in the video. “The people who deserve IVF first and foremost are the men and women who go to war to defend us.”

Tipton said Duckworth’s experience as a wounded combat veteran and a mother who used IVF gives her firsthand understanding of how fertility care affects service members and military retention.

The provision would have expanded TRICARE, the military’s health insurance program, to cover IVF services for service members and their families. Tipton rejected claims that including IVF would “crowd out” other healthcare services, arguing that providing fertility care would not prevent the military from funding essential medical treatments for service members.

“I cannot follow the logic of that at all,” Tipton said. “That’s like saying if you treat a patient’s flu and don’t let them die from it, eventually you’re going to have to pay for the next disease they get. Any excuse is a lie other than his specific religious objections to reproductive healthcare. Providing healthcare for the military costs money. You can’t expect people to serve and then not get healthcare.”

Advocates of taxpayer-funded IVF projected the expansion would cost about $1.6 billion over 10 years, arguing it would be a relatively small investment to support military morale and retention.

“Most people in the military are young, generally under 25, so the need for IVF is likely limited,” Tipton said. “But for highly specialized personnel, such as fighter pilots, the military has invested significant time and resources in their training. Fertility benefits can be an important incentive for those service members to remain in the military.”

Some Republican lawmakers, including Congressmen Matt Rosendale of Montana and Josh Breechen of Oklahoma, however, have cited estimates closer to $1 billion per year.

Smith said taxpayer-funded IVF goes beyond the military’s essential responsibilities.

“The military healthcare system should focus on catastrophic illnesses and essential needs,” Smith said. “Not elective procedures that should be left to the private sector.”

TRICARE currently limits fertility coverage to service members whose infertility is a result of illness or injury sustained while on active duty.

Tipton said the debate is likely to continue.

“We anticipate the introduction of a freestanding bipartisan bill this month to provide these services for the military,” he said. “This debate isn’t over.”