Defense bill’s sperm freezing program raises eyebrows as taxpayers foot the bill for military fertility preservation.
At a Glance
- House passes $884 billion defense bill with controversial provisions
- Sperm freezing program for service members introduced, costing up to $10,000 per person
- Over $102 million allocated to minority-serving institutions and HBCUs
- Bill ends coverage for gender transition treatments for service members’ children
- Extends hiring freeze on DEI initiatives and bans Critical Race Theory promotion
Taxpayer-Funded Fertility Preservation: A New Military Benefit
In a move that’s raising questions about priorities and fiscal responsibility, the House has passed a massive $884 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that includes a surprising new benefit: taxpayer-funded sperm and egg freezing for service members. This unprecedented program allows for reimbursements of up to $500 for sperm preservation and a whopping $10,000 for egg preservation, all on the taxpayer’s dime.
The three-year demonstration program, outlined in Section 709 of the NDAA, aims to reimburse service members for “gamete cryopreservation” expenses. To be eligible, personnel must either be receiving hazardous duty pay or facing separation from their partner for at least 180 days. While proponents argue this protects service members’ reproductive futures, critics question whether fertility preservation should be a military priority, especially given the hefty price tag.
Look at this news article from The Daily Caller: Massive Defense Bill Creates Sperm Freezing Program, Dumps Millions Into ‘Minority Serving’ Schools https://t.co/BalviXB2JV
— Ron cohen (@Roncohe54918265) December 14, 2024
Millions Funneled to Minority-Serving Institutions
As if the fertility preservation program wasn’t controversial enough, the NDAA also allocates over $102 million to “Minority Serving Institutions” and “Historically Black Colleges and Universities” (HBCUs). This substantial sum is earmarked for various initiatives, including exchange programs and partnerships between HBCUs and Sub-Saharan Africa, ostensibly to build capacity in key development sectors.
“Our military should be focused on lethality, not far-left woke nonsense,” said Republican Alabama Rep. and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers.
While supporters claim these funds will enhance educational opportunities, skeptics argue that such expenditures fall outside the purview of national defense. The question arises: Should a defense bill be used as a vehicle for funding educational institutions, particularly those with a specific racial or ethnic focus?
Pushback Against ‘Woke’ Policies
In a move that’s sure to ruffle feathers on the left, the NDAA takes aim at several progressive initiatives within the military. The bill extends a hiring freeze for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) positions and explicitly prohibits Department of Defense funds from being used to promote Critical Race Theory. These measures signal a clear pushback against what many conservatives view as the creeping influence of left-wing ideology in our armed forces.
“House Armed Services Democrats were successful in blocking many harmful provisions that attacked DEI [Diversity, Equity and Inclusion] programs, the LGBTQ community, and women’s access to reproductive health care. It also included provisions that required bipartisan compromise. And had it remained as such, it would easily pass both chambers in a bipartisan vote. However, the final text includes a provision prohibiting medical treatment for military dependents under the age of 18 who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. This provision injected a level of partisanship not traditionally seen in defense bills. Speaker Johnson is pandering to the most extreme elements of his party to ensure that he retains his speakership,” Democratic Washington Rep. Adam Smith stated.
Perhaps most controversially, the NDAA ends coverage for gender transition treatments for service members’ children under 18. This decision has drawn sharp criticism from House Democrats, who claim it unfairly targets the LGBTQ community. However, supporters argue that taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill for elective procedures, especially for minors, and that such treatments fall outside the military’s core mission.
A Mixed Bag of Priorities
As the NDAA heads to the Senate for consideration, it’s clear that this defense bill is about much more than traditional military funding. From fertility preservation to educational funding and social policy changes, the bill reflects a complex web of priorities that extend far beyond national security. While some measures, like the pushback against Critical Race Theory, align with conservative values, others, such as the expensive sperm freezing program, raise questions about fiscal responsibility and the proper role of government.
Ultimately, this NDAA serves as a stark reminder of how our defense budget has become a battleground for social and political agendas. As taxpayers, we must ask ourselves: Is this truly the best use of nearly $884 billion in defense spending? Or have we lost sight of what our military should be focused on – namely, protecting our nation and maintaining its combat readiness in an increasingly dangerous world?
