What The U.S. Can Learn From The U.K. About IVF Access

A new study has revealed three-person IVF treatments can prevent parents from passing genetic problems onto their babies.

By Danielle Han | July 17, 2025 | 5:27pm

Photo: iStockphoto Politics Science

What The U.S. Can Learn From The U.K. About IVF Access

Three-ways are just better. Well, sometimes.

A landmark study published by the New England Journal of Medicine reveals parents can avoid passing genetic problems onto their babies using what’s called the “three-person IVF” method. The research, which follows the lives of eight children born in the U.K., reveals new insights into the groundbreaking—albeit controversial—technique.

Most Popular

Three-person IVF is, as you may have guessed, a spin on the standard IVF procedure. The latter, or “in vitro fertilization,” replicates the complex process of sexual production, wherein: in a lab, mature eggs are retrieved from ovaries, fertilized with sperm, and, if fertilized (thus becoming an embryo), placed into a uterus. Three-person IVF adds a third to tango—offering another egg donor. With a “mitochondrial donation,” any faulty mitochondria can be swapped for healthier ones, thus decreasing the risk of genetic diseases that can cause symptoms such as seizures, learning disabilities, and heart disease.

Unfortunately, three-person IVF is banned in the U.S., and the FDA is dodging questions about considering its approval. Having only been given the green light in the U.K. in 2017, it’s controversial for all reasons, from faith-based dogma to fears around genetically-modified “designer babies.”

But before we get to work on championing (or at the very least, discussing) three-person IVF in the states, let’s review where the procedure stands after it faced a tumultuous and politically-charged year.

Outside of the anti-abortion movement’s efforts to eventually ban the procedure, obstacles such as limited information, confusing policies, and irregular insurance coverage have long curbed access to IVF, especially for underserved and marginalized groups. There are also racial disparities to consider: a paper published in 2020 suggests Black and Hispanic women are not only less likely than white women to access fertility care, but also to have a successful IVF cycle.

Inside the anti-abortion movement, they got themselves a win when, just over a year ago, the Alabama Supreme Court fucked it and ruled that clinics were liable for “wrongful death” if they lose or dispose of frozen embryos. (Disposing of unused embryos is a common practice in IVF clinics.) A number of providers were forced to quickly halt operations. While Gov. Kay Ivey (R) eventually signed a bill explicitly protecting IVF clinics from criminal prosecution—much to the dismay of anti-abortion activists—the decision still made IVF vulnerable to similar decisions from other red states.

On the surface, Donald Trump would like you to believe he supports IVF, even calling himself, confusingly (and creepily), the “father of IVF” and the “fertilization president.” In February, he signed an executive order promising to expand the procedure—but the order only asked for ideas from his staff about how to make it cheaper. Case in point: Trump gutted the CDC’s infertility research agency in April, as well as a program that studied infant and maternal health data.

But, at least for the American people, IVF is relatively bipartisan. In May 2024, the Pew Research Center reported that more than two-thirds of Americans say having access to it is a good thing.

It’s a win for now, then, that IVF is generally recognized as a helpful (and necessary) reproductive technology. Thanks to the process, more than 5 million babies have been born worldwide. And yes, we declared independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain some 250 years ago… but in this case, the U.S. could take a page from our friends across the Atlantic.

Like what you just read? You’ve got great taste. Subscribe to Jezebel, and for $5 a month or $50 a year, you’ll get access to a bunch of subscriber benefits, including getting to read the next article (and all the ones after that) ad-free. Plus, you’ll be supporting independent journalism—which, can you even imagine not supporting independent journalism in times like these? Yikes.