AFA Action
AdvocacySupport
Excepted Fertility Benefits
EBSA-2026-0232-0001NPRM
Comments
4,653
Last activity Jul 13, 2026
Deadline
Closed on Jul 14, 2026
Closed Jul 14, 2026
Net supportiSupport minus oppose · campaigns included
+42%
+68% excluding campaigns
Document
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Excepted Fertility Benefits
- Posted
- May 13, 2026
- Comment period
- May 13, 2026 – Jul 14, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-09479
- CFR
- 26 CFR Part 54
Analysis
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Include campaigns
Analyzed 4,610 of 4,653 comments
99%· analysis in progress
Stance breakdown
+42%
Net support
Support2,175Oppose249Other2,186Not yet analyzed43
Aggregates include form-letter campaigns. Excluding them, net support is +68% across organic comments.
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Individual
4,425
Government
1
Trade association
12
Advocacy
70
Academic
38
Business
44
Other
20
Not yet analyzed
43
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Posted May 13, 2026Deadline Jul 14, 2026
May 11May 25Jun 8Jun 22Jul 6Jul 13
Support2,175Oppose249Other2,186
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Support
Oppose
Other
Individual
46%
5%
49%
Advocacy
80%
14%
6%
Business
89%
5%
7%
Academic
76%
21%
3%
Other
65%
15%
20%
Trade association
83%
17%
0%
Government
0%
100%
0%
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Expansion of fertility benefits3,880
Restorative reproductive medicine3,382
Moral status of embryos2,338
Infertility as a medical necessity999
Fertility awareness method education131
Natural reproductive technology107
Conscience protections82
Ivf industry opposition78
Stand-alone fertility insurance options33
Alternative benefit structures28
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Uncheck an issue to choose another.
| Organization | Expansion of fertility benefits | Infertility as a medical necessity | Restorative reproductive medicine | Alternative benefit structures | Stand-alone fertility insurance options |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AFA Action AdvocacySupport AFA Action, the governmental and legislative affairs affiliate of the American Family Association, supports the proposed | · | · | · | · | · |
Alliance Defending Freedom AdvocacySupport Alliance Defending Freedom supports the proposed rule but urges the agencies to include explicit protections for restora | · | · | |||
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Trade associationOppose The American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG) opposes the proposed rule to create an excepted fertility b | · | · | |||
American Society for Reproductive Medicine Trade associationOppose The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) opposes the proposed rule on Excepted Fertility Benefits, arguing | · | · | |||
Aon BusinessSupport Aon plc, a global professional services firm, supports the proposed rules for excepted fertility benefits while advocati | · | · | · | · | |
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) Trade associationSupport The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) supports the proposed rule creating a voluntary, employer-driven pathway | · | · | |||
Center for Bioethics and Culture AdvocacySupport The Center for Bioethics and Culture supports the proposed rule establishing "Excepted Fertility Benefits" but urges the | · | · | · | · | |
Center for Reproductive Rights AdvocacyOppose The Center for Reproductive Rights opposes the proposed rule on Excepted Fertility Benefits, arguing that it is arbitrar | · | · | · | ||
College for Reproductive Biology Trade associationSupport The College of Reproductive Biology (CRB), a professional organization for reproductive biology and laboratory professio | · | · | · | ||
Family Research Council AdvocacySupport The Family Research Council, a nonprofit organization, supports the proposed rule but urges the Departments to add speci | · | · | · | · | |
Fertility Advocacy Coalition for Technology AdvocacySupport The Fertility Advocacy Coalition for Technology (FACT) supports the proposed rule to establish excepted fertility benefi | · | · | · | ||
Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America AdvocacySupport Hadassah, The Women’s Zionist Organization of America, supports the proposed rule to expand fertility care access but ur | · | · | |||
Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine of America AdvocacySupport The Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine of America (IRRMA) supports the proposed rule for excepted fertility | · | · | · | ||
IVI RMA North America BusinessSupport IVI RMA North America, a large fertility care provider, supports the proposed rule to expand access to fertility care bu | · | · | · | · | |
Maven Clinic BusinessSupport Maven Clinic, a large virtual clinic for women's and family health, strongly supports the proposed rules establishing a | · | · | · | ||
MD For Life, PLLC BusinessSupport Dr. | · | · | · | ||
Minnesota Family Council AdvocacySupport The Minnesota Family Council supports the proposed rule establishing excepted fertility benefits for root-cause care, sp | · | · | |||
MyCatholicDoctor Foundation AdvocacySupport The MyCatholicDoctor Foundation, a nonprofit medical organization, supports the proposed Excepted Fertility Benefits but | · | · | |||
National Health Law Program AdvocacyOppose The National Health Law Program (NHeLP) opposes the proposed rule to designate fertility benefits as excepted benefits, | · | · | · | · | |
NeoFertility LLC BusinessSupport NeoFertility LLC supports the proposed rule and recommends including specific terminology for "restorative reproductive | · | · | · | · | · |
Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) Trade associationSupport The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) supports the creation of a new category of limited excepted fertil | · | · | · | ||
Progyny, Inc. BusinessSupport Progyny, Inc. | · | · | |||
Reproductive Health Medicine & Gynecology BusinessSupport Reproductive Health Medicine & Gynecology (RHMG) supports the proposed rule to create an excepted fertility benefit, pra | · | · | |||
RESOLVE: The National Infertility and Family Building Association AdvocacySupport RESOLVE, a 501(c)(3) advocacy organization, supports the proposed rule to establish fertility benefits as a new category | · | · | · | ||
RRM Foundation AdvocacySupport The Restorative Reproductive Medicine Foundation, a 501(c)(3) public charity, supports the proposed rule and its inclusi | · | · | · | ||
SHRM Trade associationSupport SHRM, a trade association representing HR professionals and business executives, supports the proposed rule to create an | · | · | · | · | |
The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) Trade associationSupport The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) supports the proposed rule but urges revis | · | · | |||
The Center for Restorative Reproductive Surgery BusinessSupport The Center for Restorative Reproductive Surgery supports the creation of the new excepted fertility benefit category but | · | · | · | ||
The ERISA Industry Committee Trade associationSupport The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC), a trade association representing large employers, supports the proposed rule to est | · | · | · | · | |
The Guiding Star Project AdvocacySupport Leah Jacobson, Founder and CEO of The Guiding Star Project, supports the proposed rule for Excepted Fertility Benefits. | · | · | |||
The Nat. Catholic Bioethics Center; Catholic Medical Assoc.; National Assoc. of Catholic Nurses, USA AdvocacySupport The National Catholic Bioethics Center, the Catholic Medical Association, and the National Association of Catholic Nurse | · | · | · | · | |
Veranova Health AdvocacySupport Timothy Jakubisin, representing the nonprofit clinic Veranova Health, expresses strong support for the proposed rule on | · | · | |||
Women's Reproductive Health Foundation AdvocacySupport The Women's Reproductive Health Foundation (WRHF) supports the proposed rule but requests that it expressly recognize an | · | · |
Alliance Defending Freedom
AdvocacySupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Infertility as a medical necessity
Restorative reproductive medicine
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Trade associationOppose
Expansion of fertility benefits
Infertility as a medical necessity
Stand-alone fertility insurance options
American Society for Reproductive Medicine
Trade associationOppose
Expansion of fertility benefits
Infertility as a medical necessity
Stand-alone fertility insurance options
Aon
BusinessSupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA)
Trade associationSupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Alternative benefit structures
Stand-alone fertility insurance options
Center for Bioethics and Culture
AdvocacySupport
Restorative reproductive medicine
Center for Reproductive Rights
AdvocacyOppose
Expansion of fertility benefits
Infertility as a medical necessity
College for Reproductive Biology
Trade associationSupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Infertility as a medical necessity
Family Research Council
AdvocacySupport
Restorative reproductive medicine
Fertility Advocacy Coalition for Technology
AdvocacySupport
Infertility as a medical necessity
Restorative reproductive medicine
Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America
AdvocacySupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Infertility as a medical necessity
Stand-alone fertility insurance options
Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine of America
AdvocacySupport
Infertility as a medical necessity
Restorative reproductive medicine
IVI RMA North America
BusinessSupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Maven Clinic
BusinessSupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Alternative benefit structures
MD For Life, PLLC
BusinessSupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Infertility as a medical necessity
Minnesota Family Council
AdvocacySupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Infertility as a medical necessity
Restorative reproductive medicine
MyCatholicDoctor Foundation
AdvocacySupport
Infertility as a medical necessity
Restorative reproductive medicine
Alternative benefit structures
National Health Law Program
AdvocacyOppose
Expansion of fertility benefits
NeoFertility LLC
BusinessSupport
Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA)
Trade associationSupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Alternative benefit structures
Progyny, Inc.
BusinessSupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Alternative benefit structures
Stand-alone fertility insurance options
Reproductive Health Medicine & Gynecology
BusinessSupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Infertility as a medical necessity
Restorative reproductive medicine
RESOLVE: The National Infertility and Family Building Association
AdvocacySupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Infertility as a medical necessity
RRM Foundation
AdvocacySupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Infertility as a medical necessity
SHRM
Trade associationSupport
Alternative benefit structures
The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG)
Trade associationSupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Infertility as a medical necessity
Restorative reproductive medicine
The Center for Restorative Reproductive Surgery
BusinessSupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Infertility as a medical necessity
The ERISA Industry Committee
Trade associationSupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
The Guiding Star Project
AdvocacySupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Infertility as a medical necessity
Restorative reproductive medicine
The Nat. Catholic Bioethics Center; Catholic Medical Assoc.; National Assoc. of Catholic Nurses, USA
AdvocacySupport
Restorative reproductive medicine
Veranova Health
AdvocacySupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Infertility as a medical necessity
Restorative reproductive medicine
Women's Reproductive Health Foundation
AdvocacySupport
Expansion of fertility benefits
Infertility as a medical necessity
Restorative reproductive medicine
Form letters
Campaigns
Organized form-letter drives, separated from organic one-off comments.
54%of comments arrived through 4 form-letter campaigns — 2,523 of 4,653 comments. 2,016 are organic, and 114 are still being processed for campaign detection.
Campaign2,523Organic2,016Not yet determined114
⚑
Oppose IVF Coverage in Fertility Benefits
Sponsor unknown
2,01743.3% of total
Other
⚑
Support Root-Cause Fertility Benefits
Sponsor unknown
3798.1% of total
Support
⚑
Support Expanded Fertility Benefit Coverage
Sponsor unknown
841.8% of total
Support
⚑
Support Expanded IVF Fertility Benefits
Sponsor unknown
430.9% of total
Support
Comments
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
Filter:
- Jul 13, 2026Anonymous AnonymousSupportIndividual
An individual is submitting a comment in support of the proposed rule to expand access to fertility benefits through excepted benefit coverage. They argue that the high cost of IVF cycles is a significant barrier for people facing infertility and advocate for policies that make this care more accessible.
Read comment → - Jul 13, 2026Anonymous AnonymousSupportIndividual
An individual is submitting a comment in support of the proposed rule to expand access to fertility benefits through excepted benefit coverage. They argue that the high cost of IVF cycles is a significant barrier for people facing infertility and advocate for policies that make this care more accessible.
Read comment → - Jul 13, 2026Devorah ZimmermanSupportIndividual
An individual is submitting a comment in support of the proposed rule to expand access to fertility benefits through excepted benefit coverage. They argue that the high cost of IVF cycles is a significant barrier for people facing infertility and advocate for policies that make this care more accessible.
Read comment → - Jul 13, 2026Faigy SchreiberSupportIndividual
An individual is submitting a comment in support of the proposed rule to expand access to fertility benefits through excepted benefit coverage. They argue that the high cost of IVF cycles is a significant barrier for people facing infertility and advocate for policies that make this care more accessible.
Read comment → - Jul 13, 2026B SSupportIndividual
An individual is submitting a comment in support of the proposed rule to expand access to fertility benefits through excepted benefit coverage. They argue that the high cost of IVF cycles is a significant barrier for people facing infertility and advocate for policies that make this care more accessible.
Read comment → - Jul 13, 2026Mayer FriedrichSupportIndividual
An individual is submitting a comment in support of the proposed rule to expand access to fertility benefits through excepted benefit coverage. They argue that the high cost of IVF cycles is a significant barrier for people facing infertility and advocate for policies that make this care more accessible.
Read comment → - Jul 13, 2026Anonymous AnonymousSupportIndividual
An individual is submitting a comment in support of the proposed rule to expand access to fertility benefits through excepted benefit coverage. They argue that the high cost of IVF cycles is a significant barrier for people facing infertility and advocate for policies that make this care more accessible.
Read comment → - Jul 13, 2026Faigie ZelcerSupportIndividual
An individual is submitting a comment in support of the proposed rule to expand access to fertility benefits through excepted benefit coverage. They argue that the high cost of IVF cycles is a significant barrier for people facing infertility and advocate for policies that make this care more accessible.
Read comment → - Jul 12, 2026Anonymous AnonymousSupportIndividual
An individual is submitting a comment in support of the proposed rule to expand access to fertility benefits through excepted benefit coverage. They argue that the high cost of IVF cycles is a significant barrier for people facing infertility and advocate for policies that make this care more accessible.
Read comment → - Jul 12, 2026Anonymous AnonymousSupportIndividual
An individual is submitting a comment in support of the proposed rule to expand access to fertility benefits through excepted benefit coverage. They argue that the high cost of IVF cycles is a significant barrier for people facing infertility and advocate for policies that make this care more accessible.
Read comment →