(Oldglorychronicle.com) – A crucial coverage for military families has been stripped away, sparking outrage and a sense of betrayal.
Story Snapshot
- Congress removed IVF coverage from the FY2026 NDAA, impacting military families.
- Military spouses express feelings of betrayal over the denial of promised benefits.
- Pro-life groups influenced the removal, citing ethical concerns.
- Advocates urge standalone bills for IVF coverage restoration.
Congress Removes IVF Coverage for Military Families
In a move that has left military families feeling betrayed, Congress has removed a provision from the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have expanded TRICARE insurance coverage to include in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intrauterine insemination (IUI). This coverage was initially included with bipartisan support but was quietly removed, reportedly at the direction of House Speaker Mike Johnson.
Military spouses have expressed outrage, emphasizing the financial burden and barriers to building families. This comes despite initial bipartisan support and President Trump’s campaign promise to provide free IVF.
Impact on Military Families
The removal of IVF coverage highlights a significant inequity faced by military families. TRICARE currently only covers IVF for service-related injuries or illnesses, excluding many common infertility issues such as endometriosis. Without coverage, families face costs exceeding $30,000 per cycle, alongside logistical challenges like clinic access and frequent relocations.
Advocates argue that this decision impacts military readiness and retention, as service members and their families may reconsider their commitment in light of these unmet needs. The decision also contrasts starkly with the benefits extended to federal civilian employees, including Congress members, since 2023.
Ethical Considerations and Political Dynamics
The decision to strip this provision was influenced by ethical concerns raised by pro-life groups. These groups, including the Family Research Council, oppose taxpayer-funded IVF due to ethical issues such as embryo destruction. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who reportedly directed the provision’s removal, supports IVF only if it aligns with pro-life protections.
Despite the ethical framing, many military families and advocacy groups feel the decision sends the wrong message about the value of their sacrifices. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the National Military Family Association have condemned the removal and are pushing for standalone legislative solutions.
Copyright 2025, Oldglorychronicle.com
