Reproductive rights and Publicly Funded Fertility Treatment

Margaret's target this time is public funding of fertility treatments. In particular her concern is with women who hold off on having children until they have established careers only to run into difficulties getting pregnant at their relatively advanced ages. What she objects to is the argument that the government ought to pay for in-vitro fertilization treatments for such women on the grounds that women have a right to get pregnant. While acknowledging that women have such a right -- "Well, sure, of course" -- she denies that this entitles them to public funding for their fertility treatments.

For a change, Margaret is at least onto something -- the distinction between positive and negative rights: the fact that women have negative reproductive rights -- rights to government non-interference in their reproductive decisions -- does not entail that they have positive reproductive rights -- rights to government assistance in achieving their reproductive goals. But the logical point does not establish that women are not entitled to government aid, only that any such entitlement does not simply follow from the right to non-interference.

Now, of course, government resources -- that is, tax dollars -- are limited and have to be divided among competing interests. But insofar as we are genuinely committed to gender equality -- and, hence, don't think women should be forced to choose between career and family -- we are obliged dedicate a portion of these resources to aid women in achieving their reproductive goals. This does not entail that fertility treatments for women who have put off having children need to be publicly funded -- the money might be more effectively spent on programs, such as subsidized daycare, which enable younger mothers to pursue their career goals. But it does entail that women who desire to pursue both career and family are entitled to a share of government resources to help them do so.