Restorative reproductive medicine (often shortened to RRM) is a broad term for treatments that focus on restoring the body’s natural fertility instead of using assisted reproductive technologies (ART) like IVF or IUI.

This can include:

• Cycle tracking and hormone monitoring: closely observing ovulation, cervical mucus, basal body temperature, and blood hormone levels.
  
  
• Lifestyle interventions: changes in diet, exercise, supplements, or sleep to improve overall reproductive health.
  
  
• Medical and surgical treatments: identifying and addressing underlying conditions such as endometriosis, PCOS, thyroid dysfunction, or blocked fallopian tubes.
  
  
• Fertility-awareness methods: timing intercourse based on natural fertility signs.
  
  

On the surface, these approaches sound sensible — and in some cases, they can indeed help patients understand their fertility better or resolve issues without ART. But the controversy lies in how it’s being promoted, and who’s promoting it.

Why is it in the news?

In 2025, RRM has moved from medical margins into the political spotlight. Several Republican lawmakers, alongside conservative and anti-abortion groups, are backing legislation to fund or require coverage for RRM. President Donald Trump has publicly promised to expand access to IVF, but some in his party are simultaneously pushing natural alternatives under slogans like “Make America Healthy Again.”

Why?

• Moral concerns about embryos: IVF often involves creating embryos that may later be frozen or not used. For groups that believe life begins at conception, this raises ethical objections.
  
  
• Insurance and cost debates: RRM is framed as less expensive than IVF, and some bills propose requiring patients to try it first before ART is covered.
  
  
• Political compromise: For Republicans wanting to appeal to both IVF supporters and pro-life voters, RRM is being positioned as a “middle path.”
  
  

Arkansas has already passed a law mandating insurance coverage of RRM, and similar bills are being considered in other states. Federal funding proposals are also being floated to establish training centres in “holistic infertility care.”

What are the concerns?

While some patients may genuinely benefit from restorative approaches, fertility experts, advocacy groups, and medical societies are sounding alarms:

1. The evidence gap
RRM is not backed by the same level of rigorous, peer-reviewed research as IVF and other ART. For many causes of infertility, it simply hasn’t been shown to work as effectively.

2. Delayed access to IVF
Time is critical in fertility care, particularly for patients in their late 30s and early 40s. If insurance requires RRM first, patients may lose precious months — or years — before being able to pursue IVF.

3. Limited patient autonomy
Policies that force a “natural first” approach risk reducing choice. Every patient’s situation is unique, and treatment should be based on medical need, not politics.

4. Gendered burden
Many RRM protocols place a heavy emphasis on women’s cycles, hormones, and behaviours, while male infertility — which accounts for nearly half of cases — can be sidelined.

5. Ethical framing
By branding IVF as “unethical” and RRM as “ethical,” patients may be made to feel guilty for choosing the treatment most likely to help them conceive. Medical language should empower, not shame.

What could this mean for patients?

If these policies gain traction, people navigating infertility in the U.S. may encounter:

• Insurance restrictions: being required to exhaust RRM before IVF is covered.
  
  
• Clinic pressure: more emphasis on natural methods, even when ART is the recommended medical option.
  
  
• Longer timelines: delayed access to IVF, which can significantly impact success rates.
  
  
• Confusion and mixed messaging: patients caught between political rhetoric, insurance hurdles, and medical advice.
  
  

For some, RRM may provide useful diagnostic insights. But for others, especially those with severe infertility diagnoses or age-related factors, it could create barriers rather than solutions.

The bottom line

Restorative reproductive medicine is being promoted by some U.S. politicians as a natural, ethical alternative to IVF. While it may play a role in certain cases, it is not a replacement for assisted reproductive technologies — and should never be imposed on patients as a prerequisite to proven care.

At Gaia, we believe in reproductive rights, patient choice, and access to the full spectrum of fertility treatments. Politics should never dictate whether or how you can build your family. Everyone deserves safe, effective, evidence-based care — whether that’s restorative medicine, IVF, or a combination of both.

‍