Verbal Testimony Against Unethical IVF Mandate S.F. 1961, Delivered by Maggee Hangge, Minnesota Catholic Conference

Chair Klein and members of the committee,

My name is Maggee Hangge, and I am the assistant director for family policy at the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy voice of the Catholic Church in Minnesota.

We are speaking today in opposition to S.F. 1961. Please vote no.

Our concerns are vast  1) We are killing many babies in the process to bring about new life, 2) this bill is a backdoor to paying for surrogacy and 3) It comes at a very high financial cost to taxpayers. There is a better approach to treating infertility: restorative reproductive medicine.

Facing infertility is a devastating reality. We acknowledge the pain that couples experience and have great compassion for their circumstances. But we must recognize that children are gifts—they are not commodities to which we have an automatic “right.”

Once we look past the emotional appeal, we face difficult ethical dilemmas. More children are killed at IVF clinics than at Planned Parenthood in a given year. Some reports say that up to 90 percent of embryos created are never born. Many are discarded as medical waste, donated to science, or left frozen for an indefinite amount of time.[1]

To determine which of the embryos will have the best chance at life, preimplantation genetic testing is often used. In 2020, this was about 50 percent of the time. PGT is problematic as it can lead to modern day eugenics—we can now create designer babies with the characteristics and sex desired by their parents.

This practice also comes with low success rates. Nationally, 37 percent of assisted reproductive technology cycles resulted in a live birth.[2] Put the other way, 63 percent of all cycles fail.

And the cost is staggering. Each IVF cycle costs between $15,000 and $30,000, and most couples need more than one cycle  because the underlying issue causing the infertility has not been properly treated. Thus, couples can easily spend upwards of $100,000 and may never achieve a successful pregnancy.

We should not be using taxpayer dollars to coerce people, including religious employers, into paying for a practice that is not good medicine or sound ethics.

One of the more alarming aspects of this bill is that it would allow for taxpayer funding for commercial surrogacy. Surrogacy creates a marketplace where wombs become commodities and children become products. It exploits women and intentionally strips a child of the only mother he or she has known for nine months. This has detrimental effects for all involved. We should certainly not be funding this practice without properly vetting it through the legislative process.

Better Path: RRM

When discussing infertility, it is important to remember that infertility is not a disease in and of itself. It is a symptom of an underlying condition like a hormonal imbalance, blocked fallopian tube, or endometriosis. Pushing couples towards IVF and related treatments without treating the underlying cause of infertility is problematic.

A better path forward is by promoting and covering restorative reproductive medicine, or RRM. RRM works with the women’s body to diagnose and treat underlying health conditions that may be inhibiting infertility. It is a tailored approach for each person based on her specific needs. RRM is often cheaper than IVF, and it is also more successful.

Couples deserve better than being funneled down the assisted reproduction path. We should not misplace our compassion by trying to play God and creating children in a lab, and in some cases, separating them from one or both biological parents. Please vote no. Thank you.

[1] https://www.acadianaobgyn.com/dr-cudihy-on-why-ivf-is-a-bad-idea/ / https://www.ewtnnews.com/world/us/more-human-embryos-destroyed-through-ivf-than-abortion-every-year

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/art/php/national-summary/index.html

[3] https://art.cdc.gov/artclinics?State=MN

In Minnesota, based on data reported by the CDC, that percentage is only about 30 percent.[3]