WASHINGTON — Two professional organizations with different approaches to treating infertility, one backed by supporters of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement and anti-abortion groups, and the other representing in vitro fertilization providers, held separate, dueling events on Capitol Hill this week after months of escalating tension.
The briefings pitted in vitro fertilization — a process that involves retrieving eggs from the ovaries, fertilizing them with sperm in a laboratory and transferring one or more embryos into the uterus — against restorative reproductive medicine, a lesser-known approach to infertility that encompasses medication, lifestyle changes, tracking menstrual cycles or performing surgery for conditions that can decrease fertility, such as endometriosis.
While IVF providers may offer those options as well, a key distinction is that restorative reproductive medicine does not include IVF. Its providers say their methods are less invasive and more affordable and focus on identifying and treating the root causes of infertility. But restorative reproductive medicine is not a formally recognized medical specialty in the U.S. and has not been evaluated as extensively as IVF has.
Roughly 8 million babies in the U.S. have been born via in vitro fertilization.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, which represents IVF providers, and the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine, the professional association for doctors who offer this type of fertility care, each touted their approaches at separate briefings for congressional staffers on Tuesday.
“While IVF has rightfully received a great deal of attention, RRM deserves just as much,” said Heather Fitzgerald, a patient, at the restorative reproductive medicine briefing. Fitzgerald said she turned to the method after 10 miscarriages.
Meanwhile, at the briefing supporting IVF, patient advocate Jessica Hajjar credited the treatment for the birth of her two kids, while questioning the other approach.
“Restorative reproductive medicine could not have given me my children — IVF did,” she said.
The two professional organizations have recently clashed. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has repeatedly challenged the legitimacy of restorative reproductive medicine, while the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine has said patients deserve an alternative to IVF.
The back-and-forth comes amid growing nationwide skepticism toward pharmaceutical-led medicine and a push among Christian conservatives to restrict IVF access.
The Society’s briefing painted restorative reproductive medicine as a branding exercise that repackages many of the methods already used in fertility clinics nationwide. Its panelists, which included medical experts and staffers for Democratic lawmakers who support IVF, expressed concern that framing restorative reproductive medicine as an IVF alternative could steer resources away from IVF providers or give insurers an excuse to exclude coverage for IVF in the future.
Meanwhile, the restorative reproductive medicine briefing focused on the power of personal stories. The briefing featured more than a dozen patients who said their pregnancies were made possible through methods other than IVF. Many of their young children were in attendance.
One patient, Marie Guccione, said she underwent two failed rounds of IVF before a restorative reproductive medicine provider identified her endometriosis and a blocked fallopian tube. She subsequently gave birth to two daughters, she said.
“Like so many women, I was swept into the IVF establishment because I had no symptoms,” Guccione said. “If IVF is seen as the best option, it very quickly becomes the only option. But women deserve better.”
Representatives for the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine said their briefing was not meant to be an anti-IVF presentation, but instead an opportunity to bring awareness to their practices while correcting misinformation. The statements followed similar ones made by the institute in July, when it called for “improved collegiality to better serve patients.”
“The biggest piece of misinformation is that we’re just waving a magic wand and saying, ‘Go eat your vegetables and you’ll get pregnant next month,’” Dr. Monica Minjeur, the Institute’s U.S. director of communications and development, told NBC News after the briefing.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine released a fact sheet in May calling restorative reproductive medicine a “misleading” term that could “be used to promote ideologically driven restrictions that could limit patient care.”
And last week, the organization issued a letter inviting restorative reproductive medicine providers to join its society, but said it would “continue to oppose any policy that limits IVF access or prioritizes one philosophy of care at the expense of patient autonomy.”
Restorative reproductive medicine has gained popularity since President Donald Trump announced via executive order in February that his administration would expand IVF access. Several groups have subsequently pointed to restorative reproductive medicine as an IVF alternative, including conservatives and anti-abortion groups who see IVF as unethical, as well as members of the MAHAmovement who view the pharmaceutical industry as having undue influence over fertility care.
According to a recent MAHA report from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Department of Health and Human Services is seeking to identify new ways to prevent, diagnose and treat the root causes of infertility. The report said HHS will help create an “infertility training center” that educates certain government-funded health clinics on how to find and treat those underlying causes.
Support for a more holistic approach has complicated the White House’s interest in making IVF more accessible and affordable. Seven months after Trump’s executive order, the administration has still not said how it will follow through.
“The administration is putzing around with this RRM option now and the president is stepping back from his commitments,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., said at the ASRM briefing on Tuesday.
Wasserman Schultz, who herself underwent IVF, said it was important to fight back against attempts to promote restorative reproductive medicine, which she described as “driven by ideology” rather than a focus on patients.
“This is being sold to women as a newer, cheaper way to treat infertility, and that is not the case,” she said.
