EBSA-2026-0232-0001, Gloyeske, CJ
CJ GloyeskeOtherIndividual
Summary: The commenter expresses mixed feelings toward the proposed rule, supporting the expansion of coverage for treatments addressing the root causes of infertility while opposing the inclusion of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and IVF. They argue that IVF is costly, ineffective, and ethically problematic, urging the government to focus on holistic fertility care instead.
This comment is with reference to the proposed rule on Excepted Fertility Benefits, RIN 1210-AC40. I thank the Administration for taking seriously the heartbreaking challenge of infertility while not imposing a new insurance mandate on people, especially people of faith. I support the proposal of new ways to cover treatments that can help address the root causes of infertility. I urge you to reject, however, the proposal to facilitate coverage of assisted reproductive technology, including IVF. IVF kills or freezes more children than abortion, and treats human beings like disposable products. Moreover, IVF is costly, has a relatively low effectiveness rate, and does not treat the underlying causes of one’s infertility. The government should refocus its efforts on expanding comprehensive, holistic, and restorative fertility care.