Excepted Fertility Benefits

The commenter supports the proposed action by arguing against the use of IVF, which they characterize as unethical and wasteful. They advocate for more holistic and compassionate fertility alternatives, such as the Preconception to Infancy project (P2i).

The Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) supports the proposed rule but argues that the "excepted fertility benefits" must be strictly limited to the treatment of diagnosed medical pathologies rather than "social infertility." They propose specific definitions, enforcement mechanisms, and ethical safeguards to ensure the benefits remain similar to limited-scope dental and vision plans.

Neel Upadhye, Founder of Frozen Orphans, supports the proposed "Excepted Fertility Benefits" rule. He advocates for increased funding for public education on restorative reproductive health and embryo adoption to address the lack of regulation in the fertility industry.

The Executive Director of St Gianna Center for Women's Health & FertilityCare advocates for funding to be directed toward Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) and NaProTechnology. The commenter argues that these methods address the root causes of infertility more effectively and safely than IVF and other artificial reproductive technologies.

The commenter opposes public funding for assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and IVF, citing ethical concerns regarding the commodification of fertility and the existence of cryopreserved embryos. They argue that government resources should instead be directed toward fertility education, prevention treatments, and reproductive health.

Jen Loos, a FertilityCare Practitioner representing several healthcare entities, supports the proposed regulation change to include insurance reimbursement for Restorative Reproductive Medicine. She argues that women have a right to be informed of all medical options and that current insurance exclusions for these treatments are harmful and outdated.

AFA Action, the governmental and legislative affairs affiliate of the American Family Association, supports the proposed rule but urges specific modifications to protect the dignity of human embryos. They argue that the rule should exclude coverage for selective reduction, "excess" embryo production, and all forms of surrogacy while limiting coverage to reasonable treatments like natural cycle IVF.

The commenter, a private individual, shares a positive personal experience with RRM's comprehensive fertility care, which they credit with helping them achieve a healthy pregnancy. They advocate for RRM's services to be accessible to all Americans, particularly minorities, and emphasize the importance of personalized, holistic care over standard IVF treatments.

The commenter expresses a mixed position on the proposed action, supporting the inclusion of Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) and NaProTechnology benefits while explicitly opposing the inclusion of In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) benefits. They argue that RRM is a more cost-effective and morally sound approach to fertility than IVF.

Mr. and Mrs. David & Alessandra Soares oppose the inclusion of assisted reproductive technology (IVF) in the proposed fertility benefits rule. They argue that IVF treats human life as disposable and urge the government to focus on holistic fertility care instead.