Doesn't that just make it a cheaper policy to implement, since very few will take advantage of it?

It still might end up as yet another thing we do to women's bodies.

To be clear: I agree that it's not great policy to pressure women into doing this (which, arguably, making egg-freezing free would tend to do), bodily autonomy concerns chief among them. It's also not great policy to withhold this as an option from poor women while allowing rich ones access to it (the status quo). The third option would be to ban it, but that has obvious problems too most notably that womens' reproductive health is already surveilled and politicized enough without adding another new crime to police for around it. Allowing it in certain circumstances (a "medical waiver" or similar) just reproduces that same issues as banning it, and would probably be just a waystation on the way to a full ban.

I've yet to see a good proposal for how to regulate or handle this as a society, so my best guess is that we keep the status quo (it's expensive so only rich people can do it) for the foreseeable future UNLESS it becomes some kind of culture war issue for MAGA, which seems honestly pretty likely. Presumably they would want to ban it, but allow exceptions for certain cases that amount to "but is the patient a married white woman with acceptable politics?" in a more legally palatable form.

Then it's not a very good population policy.

It's not only hard and painful, but potentially damaging to the woman's body and could leave them with permanent hormonal issues.

So, no. It's not a good policy.

Thanks for bringing in some common sense.

yeah, what the fuck? This comment section is utterly fucking insane.