It is no secret that all nations in the world are shrinking in population and are below the replacement rate with births. Soon after his inauguration to his second term, “President Trump signed an executive order directing his administration to develop policy recommendations to protect access to in-vitro fertilization, expand its availability, and lower its cost to patients,” according to an article by Aaron Kheriaty published at The Blaze.
In
October [2025], the administration announced additional measures to lower costs
for IVF and common fertility drugs and explore pathways like expanded employer
benefits or excepted benefit categories for assisted reproductive technologies.
While this included joint efforts across federal agencies to make this costly
intervention more affordable, the administration stopped short of imposing
broad new federal mandates for insurance coverage or direct government funding
of IVF….
The
problem of below-replacement fertility rates in the United States – which poses
serious demographic, social, and economic challenges – has gained some
political attention since the last election.
As
of 2024, the fertility rate in the U.S. stands at a record low of 1.6 births
per woman of childbearing age, well below the replacement rate of 2.1. This
drop continues a downward trend that began in the early 2000s and accelerated
after the 2008 recession.
Kheriaty
thinks the idea that more access to IVF will solve the “fertility crisis is
pure fantasy” for two reasons: (1) It “will prove cost-prohibitive” and (2) “the
success rates tend to be low.” “Instead of putting all our eggs in one basket,
we need a capacious approach to supporting fertility that does more to address
the root causes of infertility and, whenever possible, restores reproductive
function the way nature intended.” There are also ethical reasons to try a
unique way to improve fertility.
President
Trump is not the only leader who is concerned about the declining birth rate.
In his October 2025 General Conference address, then-President of the Quorum of
the Twelve and now President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, Dallin H. Oaks gave the following counsel.
The
family proclamation, announced 30 years ago, declares that “the family is
ordained of God” and “is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny
of His children.” It also declares “that God’s commandment for His children to
multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” And “we further declare
that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed
only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.” As then-Elder
Russell M. Nelson taught a Brigham Young University audience, the family is “pivotal
to God’s plan…. In fact, a purpose of the plan is to exalt the family.”
The
Church of Jesus Christ is sometimes known as a family-centered church. It is!
Our relationship to God and the purpose of our mortal life are explained in
terms of the family. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the plan of our Heavenly
Father for the benefit of His spirit children. We can truly say that the gospel
plan was first taught to us in the council of an eternal family, it is
implemented through our mortal families, and its intended destiny is to exalt
the children of God in eternal families.
Despite
that doctrinal context, there is opposition. In the United States we are
suffering from a deterioration in marriage and childbearing. For nearly a
hundred years the proportion of households headed by married couples has
declined, and so has the birthrate. The marriages and birthrates of our Church
members are much more positive, but they have also declined significantly. It
is vital that Latter-day Saints do not lose their understanding of the purpose
of marriage and the value of children. That is the future for which we strive. “Exaltation
is a family affair,” President Nelson has taught us. “Only through the saving
ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ can families be exalted.”
The
national declines in marriage and childbearing are understandable for historic
reasons, but Latter-day Saint values and practices should improve – not follow –
those trends.
No comments:
Post a Comment