ASRM Physician Members Warn State Reporting Bills Could Turn Fertility Care Into a Political Target

July 6, 2026
For Immediate Release

Washington, DC—A new article in the New England Journal of Medicine by physician members of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) warns that a growing wave of state bills framed as fertility clinic “reporting” or “transparency” measures could turn deeply personal medical decisions into political targets.

The article, “Mandated State-Level Surveillance of Assisted Reproductive Technology: An Emerging Threat in the United States,” authored by ASRM members Christopher P. Moutos, M.D., John Y. Phelps, M.D., J.D., L.L.M., and Dean M. Moutos, M.D., examines proposals in Arkansas, Texas, and Oklahoma that would impose new reporting requirements on assisted reproductive technology (ART), including in vitro fertilization (IVF). The authors argue these measures could rewrite established medical definitions, discount the expertise of trained fertility specialists, require reporting on private embryo-related decisions, and lay the groundwork for personhood-based restrictions on IVF.

“Patients deserve fertility care guided by trained medical professionals, evidence-based standards, and their own values, not politicians bypassing medical expertise to reshape reproductive medicine through state law,” said ASRM Chief Advocacy & Policy Officer Sean Tipton. “These bills are framed as transparency, but they risk turning private medical decisions into political targets and making IVF harder to access for the families who need it.”

ASRM has long emphasized that ART is already one of the most highly regulated areas of medicine, subject to federal oversight, state medical boards, professional standards, laboratory accreditation, and clinical reporting systems. Replacing medical standards with politically driven definitions undermines patient care, distorts public understanding, and erodes trust between patients and their physicians.

The article comes as lawmakers, courts, patients, and providers continue to confront the fallout from the Alabama Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, which disrupted fertility care and raised urgent questions about the legal status of embryos created through IVF. ASRM has consistently warned that personhood measures granting legal rights or protections to embryos or other fertilized reproductive tissues could disrupt IVF, limit embryo disposition decisions, and interfere with standard medical practice.

“Fearing restrictions on embryo disposition, patients may transfer their existing embryos or seek care entirely in a state with fewer constraints. Physicians may be forced to offer less effective treatments by minimizing the number of embryos created in an IVF stimulation cycle,” wrote Drs. Moutos and Phelps. “The result will be additional financial, logistic, and emotional burdens for patients trying to build a family in a state where access to women’s reproductive healthcare is already limited.”

Read the full article online at the New England Journal of Medicine's website.