EBSA-2026-0232-0001, Turnock, Adam
Adam TurnockSupportOther
Summary: The commenter supports the proposed action by advocating for the inclusion of restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) as a fertility benefit. They argue that RRM is superior to IVF because it focuses on root-cause treatment, avoids embryo destruction, and protects the conscience rights of pro-life individuals.
To whom it may concern, I would like to submit the following comments.
First, we need an accurate definition of “infertility,” which does not include cases such as surrogacy and same sex couples. Individuals of the same sex cannot reproduce with one another; this is a fact of biology and not a functional deficit
Secondly, IVF does not prioritize “root-cause” investigations of infertility. In contrast, restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) is the only approach that meets the “diagnose, mitigate, and treat” standard.
Thidly, unlike IVF, RRM does not involve destruction of embryos, which aligns with the Administration’s “Embryo Adoption Awareness Program,” recognizing that every embryo is a child in need of a family.
Fourthly, RRM is focused on women’s overall health, as well as male factor infertility, which are often overlooked with IVF.
Lastly, governmental support for RRM will provide conscience rights protections for faith-based employees and employers committed to pro-life principles.