The average American supports access to IVF as a main treatment for infertility, but is unaware of the risks for moms and babies, or the underregulated nature of IVF clinics. That same regular Joe or Jane also supports access to restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) as either the first-line option or in combination with IVF. And while the medical system, from primary care offices to reproductive health practices, lacks clinical pathways to quickly and efficiently explore metabolic health as well as men’s health effects on couples’ fertility, a majority of Americans desire to have these kinds of conversations with their healthcare practitioners, especially before jumping to IVF.
Those are the main themes from two recent nationally representative surveys, as well as a study of Americans’ and Europeans’ reproductive health knowledge and opinions.
Results from two studies on Americans’ opinions on IVF and RRM
A 2026 Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine analysis summed up two nationally representative public opinion surveys, one on the topic of IVF and knowledge of its procedures, risks, ethical implications and more, and one comparing IVF with RRM. The analysis was conducted by three clinicians affiliated with the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine (IIRRM).
The first survey was conducted by J.L. Partners for The Heritage Foundation. The second survey was conducted by McLaughlin & Associates on behalf of the Women’s Reproductive Health Foundation, a RRM advocacy and research organization.
Takeaway #1: Most people support IVF, but many don’t know what it involves or the risks
The McLaughlin survey found that 79% of participants somewhat or strongly approved IVF when defined in the following way: “IVF is a process sometimes recommended for patients experiencing infertility. In this process, a woman’s ovaries are hormonally stimulated to produce eggs, and the eggs are surgically removed from her body then combined with sperm in a laboratory to create embryos. An embryo or embryos are then transferred back into her uterus with the aim of pregnancy and a baby. Extra embryos often are frozen for possible future use.” The survey then asked: “Knowing this, do you approve or disapprove of IVF?”
Similarly, in the J.L. Partners survey, IVF enjoyed broad support, with 81% of participants favorable, including 51% strongly supportive and an additional 30% somewhat supportive. At the same time, just 14% said that they were very familiar with the process and its risks, with 41% somewhat familiar, 13% not at all familiar, and 31% who had only heard of IVF.
To sum, the vast majority of Americans approve or are favorable towards IVF—at the same time, however, very few Americans are familiar with the actual IVF process and its risks.
IVF’s risks for moms
When these same individuals were asked about their knowledge of IVF risks to women, specifically including “preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, severe maternal mortality, and Cesarean section,” 52% of respondents were aware of some or all risks, while 49% were completely unaware.
IVF’s risks for babies
In the McLaughlin survey, when asked whether cost, time to conceive, or the health of the baby should matter most when it came to choosing a fertility treatment, 76% ranked the baby’s health #1.
In the McLaughlin survey, when asked whether cost, time to conceive, or the health of the baby should matter most when it came to choosing a fertility treatment, 76% ranked the baby’s health #1.
Similarly, in the J.L. Partners survey, when asked how much the risks for babies—including “higher risk for preterm birth, low birth weight, cancer, congenital heart defects, and developmental issues”—should affect consideration of IVF as an infertility treatment, 41% said they should be a major factor. 36% believed the risks should be a minor factor, with just 8% saying the risks to children shouldn’t matter, and 15% were unsure.
Takeway #2: Among survey participants who had undergone IVF, many cited reasons other than infertility
Just under 1% (96) of the J.L. Partners survey respondents had themselves utilized IVF. Surprisingly, of the 96 participants, “only 43% of these identified infertility per se as their main reason for using it.” Main reasons for utilizing IVF other than infertility included the mother’s age, avoiding having a child with genetic disorders, and selecting for specific traits (which could mean anything from desiring a boy vs a girl, to preferentially selecting embryos based on predicted intelligence level or athletic ability).
Choosing IVF in order to decide the baby’s sex represents a subtle form of sexism, especially given the uncertain fate of embryos of the undesired sex, and opting not to implant embryos due to their health status represents expensive, quiet eugenics. These non-infertility reasons for IVF exemplify the ways IVF as a whole arguably lulls prospective parents with a false sense of control over their children’s lives from their earliest moments. Research doesn’t yet exist on the ways that parents may feel entitled to certain performance or “results” from their $20,000 or $40,000 or $60,000 made-to-order babies, or the effect of those expectations on parent-child relationships.
Takeaway #3: When it’s explained simply and without drama, most people also support RRM
In a 2025 issue brief, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) denounced restorative restorative medicine, calling it a “nonmedical approach” that “When provided as the primary or only option… can expose patients to needless, painful surgical interventions; limit their access to the full range of evidence-based fertility care interventions; and delay time to pregnancy, while potentially increasing overall costs.” If this were true, who in their right mind would support it?
As it turns out, when a simpler, less politically-loaded question is asked, most Americans do, in fact, support the idea of focusing first on restoring women’s and couples’ natural fertility before resorting to IVF.
In the McLaughlin survey, respondents were asked the following:
“Another process called restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) is sometimes recommended for patients experiencing infertility. RRM focuses on finding and treating the underlying factors causing a couple’s fertility problem. RRM aims to restore reproductive function so patients can conceive and have a baby naturally. Knowing this, do you approve or disapprove of RRM?”
79% were either very favorable or somewhat favorable to RRM when defined this way.
Similarly, in the J.L. Partners survey, participants were asked, “If medical advancements made it easier to improve natural fertility without relying on IVF, which would you consider a better option for couples facing infertility?” 70% chose “Treating the infertility first,” whereas only 14% still preferred IVF as a first-line treatment option, and 16% remained unsure.
In the J.L. Partners survey, participants were asked, “If medical advancements made it easier to improve natural fertility without relying on IVF, which would you consider a better option for couples facing infertility?” 70% chose “Treating the infertility first.”
Simulation study suggests that greater access to RRM could help correct falling national birth rate
Policymakers, in particular, should pay attention to the results of the aforementioned surveys, as they have societal-level implications. A 2026 simulation study published in Frontiers in Reproductive Health projected the effect that greater access to and uptake of RRM could have on our declining national birth rate, which has been below replacement level (2.1) since 2007, and hit a record low in 2025. (According to the University of Michigan’s Department of Statistics, “simulation studies are a general term for any sort of analysis which involves repeatedly performing the same analysis on data which is in some fashion randomly generated, and aggregating the results.”)
Researchers from the University of Utah ran fifteen scenarios and found that very conservative estimates suggest increased use of RRM by couples with subfertility could lead to more than 36,000 additional births per year, assuming a 1% increase in birth rate from 2025 stats.
In a more liberal scenario, with a larger number of couples accessing RRM and higher success rates among those couples, the U.S. could see a 14.5% increase in birth rate, or an additional 522,000 births.
What’s more, pregnancies achieved via RRM present “fewer risks to patient health than IVF, including a significantly lower preterm birth rate” (according to data from The International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine).
What Americans want when it comes to infertility treatment
At this point, you might be thinking that the above-mentioned surveys and study could be biased in favor of RRM, and skeptical of whether the results are trustworthy. But the results of a survey by Carrot Fertility, an international fertility benefits vendor with whom major companies like Salesforce have partnered to administer their fertility care benefits for employees, told a similar story about individual preferences for more “comprehensive care beyond IVF.”
As reported by Carrot in March 2026, the company surveyed more than 1,000 adults from the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Canada who were currently trying to conceive, had tried in the past five years, or planned to start trying in the next five. 60% of participants were American.
Importantly, survey participants were well aware of IVF (89%), but due to its high cost and invasive nature, only 58% were interested in pursuing it. Survey participants made it clear that they wanted education on all their fertility care options, not just IVF, including timed intercourse with ovulation tracking, intrauterine insemination (IUI), addressing metabolic health, and addressing men’s health. Fully 78% were interested in prioritizing these other options, but they lacked knowledge of them.
Carrot survey participants made it clear that they wanted education on all their fertility care options, not just IVF, including timed intercourse with ovulation tracking, intrauterine insemination (IUI), addressing metabolic health, and addressing men’s health. Fully 78% were interested in prioritizing these other options, but they lacked knowledge of them.
Metabolic health and men’s health represent major gaps in fertility care
Specifically, there was tremendous interest in addressing how both metabolic health and men’s health might affect a couple’s ability to conceive. Unfortunately, only 43% had ever had a single conversation with any healthcare practitioner about these topics.
The U.S. medical system at present lacks meaningful clinical pathways to guide individuals and couples through measurements of how their metabolic health, especially the role of insulin resistance, might be affecting their fertility. The same is true for men’s health, even though sperm counts have plummeted over the last few decades.
Tammy Sun, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Carrot, summed up in a press release, “People are telling us exactly what they want—earlier guidance, more options, and care that doesn’t default to the most invasive treatment first. The gap between that demand and what the system currently delivers is not subtle, and it is not inevitable. Clinicians want to offer comprehensive care. They need benefit structures and care pathways that make room for it.”
The bottom line
Americans want infertility treatment options beyond IVF. Furthermore, when they understand what comprehensive, root-cause fertility care consists of in easy-to-grasp terms, they are receptive to and desirous of restorative reproductive medicine’s approach of healing what’s wrong rather than jumping to assisted reproductive technology. Yet many individuals lack both information and access to their full range of options for addressing subfertility and infertility.
As Live Healthillie founder and influencer Iliriana Balaj described in her May 28, 2026 op-ed for The Daily Wire, “I Thought IVF Was My Only Path To Motherhood. Then Everything Changed:”
“When you are told IVF is your only path to motherhood, you do not weigh it as one option among many. You weigh it against childlessness. That is not informed consent. That is a cornered decision. Women across this country are walking into IVF cycles not because they have chosen it freely from a range of options, but because they have been handed an illusion that this is the only door left.”
We here at Natural Womanhood are committed to relentlessly advancing education on the promise of restorative reproductive medicine and to expand awareness of the limitations and risks of IVF, until all couples who find themselves facing infertility can do so informed, accompanied, and empowered.
