With limited access to abortion in many parts of the country, reproductive rights are at the forefront of so many minds this election season. But with one in six women now struggling with infertility, in vitro fertilization (IVF), is, too. And according to a newly released survey from theSkimm’s research agency and the fertility care company Kindbody, IVF could be the issue that determines the election this November.
The report, published Monday, examined the results of a survey of 2,000 mostly women, who were Kindbody and Skimm audience members. It found that a whopping 92% of respondents consider reproductive healthcare a top concern, and 75% said a candidate’s stance on care would influence their vote. When it comes to IVF, 83% of the women surveyed said they prefer a candidate who supports unrestricted access and increased funding for the care. (The respondents were mostly women, 86% white, and 76% between 25-44 in age.)
Even in a deeply divided country, reproductive care—which encompasses everything from abortion to fertility treatments—is an issue that an impressive number of women would cross party lines for. More than half of the women surveyed (51%), the vast majority of whom were registered Democrats—only 9% who took part identified as Republicans—said they would consider voting against their own party over the issue, and 32% said it was very likely that they would.
Most Americans broadly support IVF access
Abortion has absolutely dominated conversations about women’s healthcare. But Americans also overwhelmingly support access to IVF. According to a Pew Research Center survey earlier this year, 70% of adults said they support access to IVF.
However, the new report demonstrates how worried women are about not having that access. Ninety percent of the women surveyed said they were worried about fertility treatments—like egg freezing and IVF—becoming more restricted than they are now.
According to the new report, abortion care and IVF are far more difficult to separate since the Supreme Court ruling against Roe v. Wade. It’s not just abortion that has become stigmatized, but other forms of reproductive care, too.
Dr. Roohi Jeelani, reproductive endocrinologist and chief medical officer for growth at Kindbody—who worked on the new report—tells Fast Company that was the case when Alabama’s Supreme Court decided to recognize embryos as legal persons. Jeelani says, “As we saw in Alabama’s Supreme Court decision, reproductive healthcare access can change and shut down treatment at a moment’s notice.”
“Legislation that subjects embryos to legal scrutiny at the state level, like we saw in Alabama, has created fear and anxiety among IVF patients, and women nationwide, about the prospect of not having the ability to make decisions about their reproductive futures,” she adds.
High costs, long wait times, farther distances
One notable worry that could stand in the way of access is more oversight on medical professionals that may make it harder for them “to provide IVF care without legal risks,” Jeelani further explains.
Women would jump through hoops to get that care, however: 41% of survey respondents indicated that they would change jobs in favor of a position that offered a travel benefit for them to receive fertility treatment. And 50% said that if their home state restricted access to egg freezing or IVF, they would travel out of state for the treatment.
Still, travel is financially challenging for so many Americans. On its own, IVF is expensive. “The majority of people do not have healthcare benefits that cover fertility treatments, and costs can range up to $20,000 per cycle (including medication),” Jeelani says, and many women require multiple cycles.
Jeelani also says that high costs and long wait times plague those who live in states with fewer clinics, and worse, some live where there are no clinics at all.
Meanwhile, the LGBTQ+ community faces even greater barriers to fertility care access. “Insurance rarely covers fertility treatments, and when it does, it excludes the LGBTQ+ community who don’t meet the definition of infertility,” Jeelani says. “Any additional restrictions to IVF access will create further barriers to LGBTQ+ family building.”
Overall, worries about reproductive care are weighing heavily on women. Thirty-eight percent of survey respondents said that recent changes to healthcare policies have caused them personal anxiety, which is unsurprising, especially as we’re hearing about women who have now died as a result of not being able to access lifesaving abortions. Women rightly worry about not being able to access care that could not only help them get pregnant, but also save their life if needed.
Still, given that a growing number of women are seeking fertility treatment in the United States, the issue isn’t just one that women are worried about in an abstract sense—they’re personally invested. They say if their own access becomes restricted, they are ready to take political action (49%), relocate to a state where they can get access (24%), or even pursue legal action against the restrictions (17%). But no matter what other actions they take, they’re certainly going to be thinking about it at their polling stations on Election Day.