Last week, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump claimed he supports in vitro fertilization, responding to a politically disastrous ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court that halted some IVF treatment in the state.

But contrary to Trump's statements, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank closely heading up a wide-ranging policy and staffing initiative for the next GOP administration, has published numerous pieces opposing assisted reproductive technology including in vitro fertilization. The think tank has also expressed support for Alabama’s ruling.

The Heritage Foundation is the lead institution supporting Trump’s agenda through Project 2025, a conservative coalition preparing to staff the next GOP administration with loyalists and implement an extreme right-wing agenda. Project 2025 has an advisory board of dozens of supportive right-wing organizations. 

The Alabama Supreme Court recently held that frozen embryos cultivated through IVF treatment have the same rights as living children, and that a person can be held liable for destroying embryos. As a result, some fertility clinics offering IVF have paused treatment, and IVF could become less accessible and more expensive. The ruling sparked backlash from reproductive rights advocates and fear among Republicans, who are reluctant to align themselves with such an unpopular policy

In one example of the Heritage Foundation’s publications on IVF, the author called the Alabama ruling an “unqualified victory” that “affirms the state’s commitment to promoting a culture of life for all its residents.”

Research associate Emma Waters, who works at the foundation’s Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion and Family, has written numerous pieces on IVF, which has appeared on the Heritage Foundation’s website, as well as in Newsweek and The Daily Signal, and been referenced in The Washington Post.

In a January piece describing biblical reasonings to not support IVF, Waters said it is important for Protestants specifically to create a concrete position on the process:

Later in the article, she made clear that “reproductive technologies” such as IVF “may violate God’s vision for marriage, sex, and procreation.” 

After the Alabama Supreme Court ruling, Waters published three articles in celebration of the decision,  describing it in one as “an unqualified victory” and arguing that the dissenting opinion “suggests that the right to destroy embryos, either willfully or through neglect, is central to the practice of IVF itself.”

The next day, she wrote that “Alabama—and other states—should consider similar laws to ensure that this decision does not contribute to the more than one million embryos frozen in the U.S.”

In a third piece, Waters defended against criticism that the ruling will severely limit IVF access in Alabama:

Waters has also claimed that the argument for expanding IVF “traces back to the pro-abortion and the LGBTQ coalitions, both of which have been quite hostile to the rights of children and the unborn.” 

In an appearance on the far-right cable network One America News, Waters called the ruling an “unqualified win” and claimed that it “does not actually limit access to in vitro fertilization itself” but rather just reveals that fertility clinics “have not been applying the best possible standard of care.

Other Heritage fellows have tweeted their support of the Alabama ruling with misleading information about how the law will restrict IVF treatments across the state. 

Senior legal fellow Thomas Jipping published an opinion piece with The Daily Signal that called the ruling “the right decision” and in a post on X suggested that the destruction of frozen embryos constitutes “homicide.” In another post Jipping argued that the ruling is not “outlawing starting a  pregnancy through IVF” as it simply allows parents “to sue when someone causes the death of an unborn child” that was “outside the womb.” 

Another senior legal fellow at Heritage, Sarah Parshall Perry, called backlash to the ruling “hysteria,” claiming that “nothing supports” the idea that “conservatives are ‘coming’ for IVF,” and argued it’s simply granting parents the opportunity to take legal action “when clinics act negligently.” Perry said of the ruling:  “A legal recourse of that kind should be good news for everyone.” 

Senior research fellow Jay Richards claimed that “the ruling is not about IVF per se” but about “the willful destruction or neglect of human embryos.” 

The Heritage Foundation is set to play a major role in the next Republican administration as its staff push hard-right policy ideas across influential right-wing media such as Steve Bannon’s War Room. As a leading institution supporting the GOP, it’s hard to take Republican pledges to protect IVF as a guarantee.