Surveys show public's surprising feelings about IVF and natural fertility care

Recent surveys of approximately 3,000 Americans, including two nationally representative surveys and with a third survey of Americans and Europeans, reveal that though IVF is widely supported by the American public, only a minority understands its lack of regulations or its risks for mothers and babies.

At the same time, most are in favor of greater access to IVF alternatives, and most want infertility treatment options — like restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) — before and beyond IVF. Couples wish their healthcare practitioners were discussing these health factors with them long before six or twelve months of devastating negative pregnancy tests, and before jumping straight to IVF as their only treatment option. 

Key Takeaways:

• Recent surveys reveal that while a majority of Americans approve of IVF, close to half are unaware of IVF's risks to mothers and babies.

• A surprisingly sizable percentage of survey respondents who had used IVF did so for reasons other than infertility; some of those reasons were eugenic in nature.

• When restorative reproductive medicine was described to respondents, the vast majority responded positively to the idea, and most also welcomed the idea of attempting to treat infertility naturally before turning to IVF.

• Overwhelmingly, respondents said they wished that conversations about fertility and health would take place proactively, long before attempting to conceive a child.

The Details:

Two studies asked Americans their opinions on IVF and RRM

A new analysis published in the Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine summarized two 2025 nationally representative surveys assessing Americans’ “public awareness, perceptions, and preferences in fertility treatment.” The analysis was performed by three healthcare practitioners associated with the International Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine (IIRRM). 

Survey #1 was conducted on behalf of The Heritage Foundation by J.L. Partners. McLaughlin & Associates conducted the second survey for RRM advocacy and research organization Women’s Reproductive Health Foundation. 

Most Americans support IVF, but many don’t know what it is

According to the McLaughlin survey of 1,000 adults...

• 59% reported a very or somewhat favorable opinion of IVF generally.

• 79% somewhat or strongly approved of IVF when defined as "a process ... [in which] a woman’s ovaries are hormonally stimulated to produce eggs, and the eggs are surgically removed from her body then combined with sperm in a laboratory to create embryos. An embryo or embryos are then transferred back into her uterus with the aim of pregnancy and a baby. Extra embryos often are frozen for possible future use."

In the J.L. Partners survey...

• 81% strongly or somewhat supported IVF. 

• 56% were able to correctly identify the basics of the IVF process when given on a multiple-choice question. (This percentage corresponded closely with the 55% of respondents who considered themselves somewhat or very familiar with IVF. )

Most don't know IVF's risks

• 84% of McLaughlin survey participants agreed that “information about possible negative outcomes” was very or somewhat important when couples receive counseling on fertility treatment options.

• Concerningly, when asked about familiarity with the mom-specific risks of IVF, only 52% of J.L. Partners respondents were aware of some or all of the following possibilities: “preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, severe maternal mortality, and Cesarean section.” 

Most don't know what to do with “leftover” embryos

Neither study specifically assessed respondents’ knowledge of baby-specific IVF risks, but given the increased risk of “preterm birth, low birth weight, cancer, congenital heart defects, and developmental issues,” 41% of J.L. Partners respondents believed that these risks should play a major factor and another 36% said they should play a minor factor. 

J.L. Partners respondents were split on how to care for unimplanted embryos, with...

• 31% saying they should be donated to other couples.

• 17% advocating that they be frozen indefinitely.

• 21% advocating they be used for research.

• 11% voting to discard.

• 20% stating they were unsure.

Using IVF for reasons other than infertility

Less than 1% of J.L. Partners survey participants had used IVF, but among those who had, infertility was the main reason for less than half of these individuals (43%).

Participants’ primary reasons for using IVF also included:

• the mother’s age

• a desire to avoid passing on genetic disorders

• designer purposes (ranging from choosing the child’s sex to selecting for intelligence or athletic ability)

An unsettling 43% of J.L. Partners survey participants agreed that “[p]arents should have full control and should be able to select for traits like sex or intelligence,” while 35% disagreed and 22% were unsure.

Choosing an embryo based on sex or based on expectations about athletic ability, intelligence, or some other trait is eugenics.

There isn’t yet research into the ways that parents’ expectations of their “return on investment” for $20,000, $40,000, or $60,000 babies will shape their relationship with their children. But non-infertility reasons for IVF arguably give parents a false sense of control and certainty over their children’s lives from the very beginning. 

Support for restorative reproductive medicine

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) derided restorative reproductive medicine in a 2025 issue brief, calling it a “nonmedical approach” that, “When provided as the primary or only option… can expose patients to needless, painful surgical  interventions; limit their access to the full range of evidence-based fertility care interventions; and delay time to pregnancy, while potentially increasing overall costs.”

But when the politically-loaded language is stripped out, Americans support RRM as strongly as they do IVF. 

79% responded very or somewhat favorably to the McLaughlin survey question that read:

Another process called restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) is sometimes recommended for patients experiencing infertility. RRM focuses on finding and treating the underlying factors causing a couple’s fertility problem. RRM aims to restore reproductive function so patients can conceive and have a baby naturally. Knowing this, do you approve or disapprove of RRM? 

J.L. Partners survey participants were asked, “If medical advancements made it easier to improve natural fertility without relying on IVF, which would you consider a better option for couples facing infertility?”

• 70% opted for “treating the infertility first.”

• 14% preferred IVF as a first-line treatment.

• 16% were unsure.

Desire to proactively address metabolic and men's health

Of course, some will object that surveys funded by organizations supportive of restorative reproductive medicine are far from objective, though the survey questions for each are publicly viewable and the raw data can be requested. 

But another survey, conducted in America and Europe (a 60/40 percentage split) in 2026 by global fertility benefits vendor Carrot Fertility – which administers fertility benefits for companies like Salesforce – similarly found that couples want other infertility treatment options before and beside IVF.

Of the over 1,000 participants, 89% knew of IVF but just 58% were interested in using it for two main reasons: high cost and invasive nature. 

Fully 78% would rather have information about other options to try before IVF. 

“Other options” in the survey included:

• timed intercourse with ovulation (which is the focus of fertility awareness methods and natural family planning).

• intrauterine insemination.

• addressing metabolic health (especially insulin resistance).

• addressing men’s health factors, which are the sole cause of 20% of infertility cases and a contributing factor in up to 50%.

80% of Carrot Fertility respondents were interested in treating male factors, but just 43% of men (and even fewer women) had had a healthcare practitioner discuss this with them.

Respondents additionally specified that they wanted these kinds of conversations to be proactive as opposed to reactive, long before a couple tries to conceive.

In fact, in an op-ed for The Free Press, an IVF doctor candidly acknowledged that his industry is thriving in part because of OB/GYNs’ “silence,” noting, "The patient who arrives to my office in tears at age 33 is the one the gynecologist never had a thoughtful, baseline conversation with." 

The Bottom Line:

IVF is the first infertility treatment that comes to mind for most Americans, but most know little of its risks.

In equal numbers, they are open to restorative reproductive medicine as a first-line or additional option, and they seek information about all available treatments that aren’t predicated on undergoing months of fruitless attempts to conceive.