Key Trump advisers prepare 'skeptical' report attacking IVF access

A “coalition of people want to see more babies born” in the U.S. — and President Donald Trump is takin note, according to a report from the New York Times.

The nation's birthrate in the United States has been falling since 2007 and Times reporter Caroline Kitchener called it, “A warning of a future in which a smaller workforce cannot support an aging population and the social safety net.” Adding, “If the birthrate is not turned around, [different groups] fear, the country’s economy could collapse and, ultimately, human civilization could be at risk.”

While on the campaign trail, Trump said he was going to make IVF cheaper and more accessible for Americans. Kitchener’s report claims, “Many in the movement have different reasons for wanting people to have more kids — and often disagree on how to get there.”

“I just think this administration is inherently pronatalist,” activist Simone Collins told the Times.

According to Kitchener’s report, “The Heritage Foundation has been researching the question for over two years and is preparing to release a report in the coming weeks on how it believes the administration and Congress should counter declining birth and marriage rates.”

She notes the foundation, “has also been prominent in efforts to shape what the White House might do on infertility and IVF. The group, which heralds its commitment to ‘protecting the unborn,’ is skeptical of the procedure.”

ALSO READ: 'Dictatorship, not a town hall': Families 'distraught' as MTG disruptors tased and jailed

Emma Waters, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, told the Times, “We need to channel the MAHA spirit and really dive deep into infertility. If the executive order’s goal is to increase access to infertility care, and keep costs down, the solution is not to push IVF for everyone.”

One approach Waters suggests includes “government funds to promote programs that educate women on their menstrual cycles and their ‘natural fertility,’ such as cycle-charting courses that many conservative Christian women use to try to prevent pregnancy without using birth control.”

However, The Times reports, there are medical associations that are skeptical of this approach.

These medical group claim the method is “‘political’ and not based in science.”

The report notes there is room for bipartisanship on this issue, “which brings together unlikely coalitions to push for better family policies or more funding for infertility issues.”