Duckworth pushes military IVF coverage as critics warn taxpayers could
pay
[January 07, 2026]
By Catrina Barker | The Center Square contributor
(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.
[to top of second column]
|
“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.”
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
