Former President Donald Trump’s recent attempt to position the Republican Party as a leader on in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) ahead of November’s election highlights a critical and complex issue within the GOP. On the surface, his proposal to push for federal or insurance coverage of IVF may seem like a step forward in addressing the needs of countless families struggling with fertility. However, when placed against the backdrop of the Republican Party’s broader stances on reproductive rights, particularly its aggressive push for foetal personhood laws, it reveals deep contradictions that could prove politically damaging.

For years, the Republican Party has championed the idea that life begins at conception. This philosophy underpins many of the party’s legislative efforts to restrict abortion, with some states even seeking to grant embryos legal personhood. While this might appeal to the party’s conservative base, it directly clashes with the realities of IVF, a process that often involves creating and sometimes discarding multiple embryos to achieve a successful pregnancy. The GOP’s push for foetal personhood could inadvertently make IVF legally precarious, forcing clinics to navigate a legal minefield where treating infertility becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible.

Mr Trump’s proposal, although lacking in specifics, seems to be a reaction to the growing realisation that the Republican stance on reproductive rights could alienate key voter demographics, especially women and younger voters. The overturning of Roe v. Wade by the US Supreme Court justices Mr Trump appointed has already intensified scrutiny on the party’s positions. Now, with IVF access potentially at risk due to conflicting GOP policies, the former president appears to be attempting a course correction. But this move may come across as too little, too late.

The Republican Party’s internal struggle to balance its anti-abortion stance with support for IVF has created an environment where voters are left questioning the sincerity and coherence of its positions. Prominent Republican figures have expressed personal support for IVF, but their actions in legislative chambers often tell a different story. The Alabama Supreme Court’s recent decision to grant embryos the legal rights of children, which temporarily halted IVF treatments in the state, is a case in point. Although a subsequent law allowed the procedures to resume, the incident highlighted the precariousness of reproductive rights under GOP-led initiatives. This inconsistency has not gone unnoticed by voters.

While polls show a majority of Americans, including many Republicans, support IVF access, the party’s actions have often been at odds with this sentiment. Attempts to establish foetal personhood through state legislation and the rejection of federal protections for IVF only reinforce the perception that the Republican Party is struggling to reconcile its ideological commitments with practical realities. In the end, Mr Trump’s attempt to rebrand the GOP as a leader on IVF is likely to face significant hurdles, both within his own party and among the broader electorate.