Lawmakers and Advocates Slam Removal Of IVF Coverage From NDAA; Duckworth Blames Speaker Johnson

Lawmakers and reproductive-rights advocates reacted strongly after the compromise version of Congress’s annual defense policy bill omitted a provision that would have expanded access to assisted reproductive technology, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), for active-duty service members.

Under current policy, Tricare—the military’s health insurance program—covers fertility services only when infertility is the result of a serious or severe illness or injury sustained on active duty. Earlier House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) included language to extend IVF and related fertility benefits to all active-duty members regardless of the cause of infertility, but that provision was removed from the final compromise bill released late Sunday.

The fertility-expansion language had also been left out of last year’s NDAA.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who championed the measure, accused Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) of driving the provision’s removal because of his anti-abortion beliefs. Duckworth argues that some opponents view common IVF practices—such as the disposal of unused embryos—as incompatible with a belief that personhood begins at fertilization.

“There’s nobody opposing this other than Speaker Johnson and his religious views,” Duckworth said on CNN, adding that if a fertilized egg is regarded as a human being, “some of the processes within IVF are considered murder.”

Duckworth also said the decision undermines President Donald Trump’s public commitments to make IVF more affordable and accessible. Trump has promoted initiatives intended to lower IVF-related costs, including announcing in October that his administration had helped negotiate lower prices for one commonly used IVF medication and issuing permissive guidance allowing employers to offer IVF benefits—although that guidance does not require employers to do so.

Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), another supporter of the expansion, called the provision’s removal “an unbelievably selfish and callous move” against service members and said she was disappointed that the president did not change the Speaker’s position.

A spokesperson for Speaker Johnson rejected the charge that he opposes IVF outright and emphasized the Speaker’s statements supporting access to IVF when “sufficient pro-life protections” are in place and when it is implemented “responsibly and ethically.” The spokesperson did not explicitly deny that Johnson pushed for the provision’s removal.

Sean Tipton, chief advocacy and policy officer at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), urged Congress to hold a standalone floor vote on the IVF for Military Families Act so that all members can be recorded on the issue. He said while individuals are entitled to their personal views, no single official should be able to override language that was negotiated and approved in committee and on the floors of both chambers.

The debate highlights a broader national conversation about reproductive rights, medical ethics and who should make decisions about access to fertility care for uniformed personnel. Supporters of the expansion argue military families deserve the same fertility-care options as civilians; opponents raise moral and ethical objections to certain IVF practices.

What’s next: With the IVF expansion stripped from the NDAA, advocates say they will press for a separate vote or new legislation to restore coverage for military members. Lawmakers and stakeholders are likely to watch floor action, negotiations, and any future standalone bills closely.

Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved.