The Fight for Restorative Reproductive Medicine

The Catholic Church morally opposes assisted reproductive technology (ART), which today is almost exclusively invitro fertilization (IVF) for a multitude of reasons. (See this excellent video by John A. DiCamillo, President of the National Catholic Bioethics Center). Among these reasons is the creation of “unwanted” embryos that remain indefinitely cryopreserved. According to the National Embryo Donation Center, the US alone has around 1.5 million surplus embryos.

Preborn children are not seen as “persons” in US law, so they have no rights. The first case stripping personhood status away was an 1884 case in Massachusetts. Courts in only four other states – Illinois (1900), New Hampshire (1908), Louisiana (1927), and New York (1969) – agreed.

In 1973, Roe v. Wade legalized abortion throughout the United States. Since that time, organized “fetal personhood” initiatives have slowly made gains in several states, as documented by legalvoice.org. In 2022, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the federal legalization of abortion, but it did not weigh in on fetal personhood. State bills seeking to outlaw abortion on the bases of fetal personhood have increased since.

Fetal Personhood Since Dobbs

In November 2022, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released its ACOG Statement on “Personhood” Measures that “opposes any proposals, laws, or policies that attempt to confer “personhood” to a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus.” In May 2023, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) released ASRM Position Statement on Personhood Measures stating it is “strongly opposed to measures granting constitutional rights or protections and ‘personhood’ status to fertilized reproductive tissues.” Such measures would have a significant negative impact on this society of IVF clinicians.

However, two years before the Dobbs, a patient at the Mobile (Alabama) Infirmary Medical Center entered the cryonursery of a fertility clinic in the same building, opened a storage unit, and handled some embryos and dropped them. Three couples sued the clinic. In February 2024, the Alabama state Supreme Court cited anti-abortion language in the Alabama constitution and ruled that the 1872 Wrongful Death of a Minor act applies to “all unborn children, regardless of their location.” This granted legal personhood status to frozen embryos. This shook the IVF world as Alabama fertility clinics stopped providing services unsure if they would be prosecuted. The legislature quickly passed a law protecting the practice.

The Arkansas RESTORE Act

In February 2025, one year after the Alabama decision, the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine (IIRRM) established its Journal for Restorative Reproductive Medicine. In March, it posted, “A summary of papers in the medical literature on the topic of RRM outcomes for patients facing fertility challenges.” Later that month, the Heritage Foundation released Treating Infertility: The New Frontier of Reproductive Medicine, a 63-page report with the following summary:

In vitro fertilization may succeed in producing an embryonic child outside of the body, but it cannot heal or improve ongoing reproductive health conditions in the body that often lead to miscarriage, the failure to implant, or painful symptoms. Advances in restorative reproductive medicine offer an incredible opportunity to identify, diagnose, and treat painful reproductive health conditions in men and women, including those that are the driving cause of infertility. Men and women are worthy of the highest standard of medical care, including personalized treatments that treat the root causes of their infertility. This report is a resource for those who want to understand best practices for treating infertility and navigating the fertility industry.

On April 17, Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed into law the “Reproductive Empowerment and Support Through Optimal Restoration (RESTORE) Act”. It requires insurance coverage for Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM), which started in August. Note that Arkansas already requires most individual and group insurers to cover IVF, though Health Maintenance Organizations and Point-of-Service plans are exempt.

IVF Fight with Restorative Reproductive Medicine

The RESTORE Act triggered the direct attacks on RRM by ASRM, ACOG, and other pro-abortion/IVF medical societies. In May, the ASRM published “Restorative Reproductive Medicine” and “Ethical IVF” are Misleading Terms That Threaten Access. In June, ACOG posted an issue brief also attacking RRM:

“Recently, a nonmedical approach called ‘restorative reproductive medicine’ (RRM) has entered fertility discussions,” it says, as well as, “The RRM movement is, at its roots, tied to the so-called personhood effort, which previously led to a temporary pause on IVF altogether in the state of Alabama, causing pain and confusion for people who were undergoing and planning to undergo IVF treatment in the state.”

IIRRM responded on July 18 when it published The Progress and Promise of RRM: IIRRM Response to Statements by ACOG and ASRM. In it, the IIRRM invites continued collaboration in reproductive medicine:

In August, ASRM, ACOG, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), and Society of Gynecological Surgeons (SGS),  sent joint open letter to the National Governors Association to affirm IVF and to not codify RRM. ASRM’s journal Fertility and Sterility also published articles critical of RRM. ASRM then organized a congressional briefing for the morning of September 16, and IIRRM organized its briefing for the same day.

On Instagram, napro_fertility_surgeon posted from the IIRRM event.

Fetal Personhood, IVF, and LGBTQ+

Many RRM clinicians do believe that embryos are persons and treat them as such; they serve couples who hold the same view. But this belief is not required to practice RRM, therefore, it is not integral to the process. Many couples seek RRM as a “natural” alternative, or because they are seeking a cure for their infertility rather than just a work-around.

ASRM, ACOG, and other IVF advocates frame the fetal personhood movement as the reason behind all RRM (“The RRM movement is, at its roots, tied to the so-called personhood effort…), yet fail to mention their own connection to promoting the LGBTQ+ agenda. RRM is, well, restorative; a couple must have the capacity to conceive without any artificial reproductive technology. Because it is biologically impossible for same-sex and transgender couples to conceive without ART or a uterine “transplant” (not yet possible), IVF is absolutely necessary them to conceive.

RRM and IVF were not at odds with one another prior to Dobbs, as the IIRRM response demonstrates. Insurance funding for RRM has no impact on IVF, which has a much larger consumer base and lobbying support. Fetal Personhood, however, does directly threaten the powerful, money-rich IVF industry as a whole. While it would be wrong to claim that IVF is “at its root, tied to” LGBTQ+ promotion, these communities represent a significant portion of their patient base. Tying RRM to Fetal Personhood is a way to turn that base against RRM – an important step in legislative action. Medical societies representing those who financially benefit from IVF are strongly motivated to discredit and destroy RRM as a means of eliminating political opposition to legislative action that would give them control over infertility management.

Editorial note: CAPPA supports RRM and upholds the Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church. CAPPA Vice President Carrie Huebner is a RRM practitioner.