Unfortunately for Americans, who would love to see the two sides set aside their hostility and at least try to solve the country's problems, the charm of the NDAA is always short-lived. Imagine if Republicans and Democrats tackled the health care crisis with the same intentionality? That's not to say there aren't fireworks, since the parties are more explosive than a boat full of drugs in the Caribbean. But at least in this debate, they seem to have the mutual goal of moving forward, even if they do try to score political points in the process.

On Wednesday, the House did its part to keep history alive, sending the bill to the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan margin, 312-112. The lopsided tally doesn't convey the drama that led up to the final vote, when House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) had to corral his quarrelsome members, Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), and others to flip their "no" votes to yes. But he did it, defying the odds for the millionth time.

What makes the streak even more impressive is that it's not easy to find a sweet spot on where to spend $901 billion in defense. The current bill, which clocks in at an eye-popping 3,086 pages — longer than most Bibles — is the product of months of intense debate on everything from Ukraine funding to US investments in China. But this year, the battle that sucked up most of the oxygen in the room was surprisingly extraneous: the taxpayer funding of in vitro fertilization for our men and women in uniform.

In a fight that threatened to overshadow all of the significant wins of the NDAA, Democrats (and some Republicans) continued their crusade to force Americans to foot the bill for fertility treatments that are not only morally controversial but highly ineffective. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries's (D-NY) rank-and-file disagreed, demanding that the military's health care coverage, TRICARE, include a blank check for this kind of "assisted reproductive technology" for every active-duty servicemember.

To understand why this is such a dangerous idea, you first have to know the sinister side of IVF. This is not about "crushing the dreams" of our brave men and women in uniform, as Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) would have people believe. This is about being smart with taxpayer dollars and pushing parents toward alternatives that actually work. Dr. Lauren Rubal, a reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialist, understands parents' longing for children. She used to offer IVF, she explained to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Tuesday's "Washington Watch." But the more she worked in it, the more concerned she became.

"I think the first thing to say is that these couples are truly suffering," Rubal emphasized. "And I wanted to help alleviate the suffering, to help them have children." But things changed on so many levels, she explained. "First of all, medically, I felt more and more like I was putting band-aids over causes, [and] I wasn't truly addressing the root cause of that person sitting in front of me: body, mind, soul. And in many cases, this is true. We know that IVF is kind of a blanket recommendation for most infertility diagnoses that we have."

Secondly, Rubal stressed, "there are medical issues with the practice of in vitro fertilization. Of course, part of that, like I said, is not truly addressing the full spectrum of causes that, if we heal, can lead to pregnancies on their own and healthier moms and babies in that process. But," she paused, "we know there's an increased risk of complications for moms and babies. And then, finally, the last part of this is really coming to terms with the fact that as I sat there performing my daily work, I began to realize more and more how many embryos were being destroyed in this process of in vitro fertilization." She thought she was helping life, but as a doctor and Christian, she came to the realization that "if every embryo is a human being that is a unique chromosome complement at his or her earliest stage of development," they were destroying several tiny humans "to get to that one live birth."

Probably the most frustrating part of the IVF debate, Rubal insisted, is that people assume that there are no other alternatives. That's not true. "There is another alternative that, unfortunately, has felt more and more politicized in recent months ... called restorative reproductive medicine. And [that's] identifying those root causes [of infertility] and harnessing the hormone imbalances that may be present, looking at the microbiome, trying to optimize ovulation in that woman, as well as the sperm in that man, and really the timing of intercourse as well, and using medical and surgical procedures to do so."

In terms of actual results, "this is yielding equivalent rates of live births compared to IVF cycles. The denominators are a little bit different here. And so, it does take more time. But with that being said, there is absolutely hope," Rubal emphasized. "And it is a moral and ... much less financially taxing process for couples." Sadly, she notes, only 4% of OB-GYNs and family medicine doctors are familiar with how to counsel patients on these options. There's just not the fertility awareness on these alternatives that there should be.

To be fair, Rubal pointed out, "I think that every single medical professional is trying to do their best with the tools that they're given. I can speak for myself, and I know that I feel so much more at peace. And this is what I tell patients. Not everything is in our power here, but let's try to optimize the parts that are, and then we can have a path moving forward in peace." If people wonder about the effectiveness of her approach, she tells skeptics, "Studies support that we're having babies based on these restorative reproductive medicine procedures who are healthier, who have less preterm deliveries, less multiples, and are being born at normal birth weight. So really a win-win."

To her dismay and so many others, this whole conversation has been politicized. If you're a conservative who believes taxpayers shouldn't be in the fertility business period, you're painted as "unbelievably selfish and callous," as Johnson was for having the courage to keep this dangerous language out of the bill. As it stands, Americans are already footing the bill for IVF for servicemembers whose infertility was the result of an active-duty injury, which is problematic on its own. But opening up the entire force to a pricey IVF free-for-all isn't the wisest use of American dollars.

And the speaker is to be commended for that stand. "Speaker Johnson took a lot of heat for the removal of the reckless Duckworth language," FRC's Quena Gonzalez stressed, "but the reality is that he and others in leadership who took the IVF expansion language out were speaking for a lot of rank-and-file pro-life Republicans who, although they're just as glad as we are that thousands of babies born through IVF are alive today, cannot ignore the millions more lives lost when unborn children are discard, destroyed, or experimented upon." Frankly, he said, "An industry that produces only 2.3 live births per 100 children conceived does not deserve public funding, and the military should not be hijacked as a giant social experiment in subsidizing ‘Big IVF' on the taxpayer's dime."

Across the Capitol, Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS), who's also an OB-GYN, applauded the change on "Washington Watch." "I think [the NDAA] is moving in the conservative direction. And I know you and Family Research Council have had a big emphasis and impact on that in particular. I think the policy is moving toward putting some tighter guardrails around [IVF funding]. And the good news is the technology is improving as well ... so I always appreciate your input on it."

Perkins conceded that there's "a lot of disagreement about it. But where we start ... is the sanctity of human life, that every human being has the thumbprint of God, the fingerprint of God on it, and therefore must be treated with dignity and respect. And I think that part of that issue is how this industry has been unregulated. And I think it requires a little more work before we throw taxpayer dollars into it anymore."

Thanks to conservatives, that wasn't the only win in the NDAA compromise. Republicans continue to chip away at the wokeness in the Pentagon left behind by the Biden administration, including language that would:

• Bar males from participating in athletic programs or activities designated for women or girls at military academies (Sec. 559A).
• Expand and clarify family leave policies for members of the Coast Guard (would include members of the reserve component), allowing members to take leave when they foster a child, not just when they adopt (Sec. 7225).
• Stop DEI programs and positions, including a prohibition against developing, implementing, and maintaining an employee resource group or affinity group based on certain characteristics, including SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) and religion (Sec. 901).

At the end of the day, the NDAA is a win for conservatives and yet another notch in Mike Johnson's belt as speaker. "This year's National Defense Authorization Act helps advance President Trump and Republicans' Peace Through Strength Agenda by codifying 15 of President Trump's executive orders, ending woke ideology at the Pentagon, securing the border, revitalizing the defense industrial base, and restoring the warrior ethos," the speaker said proudly. "Under President Trump, the US is rebuilding strength, restoring deterrence, and proving America will not back down. President Trump and Republicans promised peace through strength. The FY26 NDAA delivers it." Subscribe for free to Breaking Christian News here

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

To receive daily emails from Breaking Christian News to your inbox CLICK HERE

'Christmas Miracle': WV National Guard Shot in DC Ambush Moving Towards Full Recovery

Senators Introduce Bipartisan Bills to Protect Children Online

FBI Warns '764 Gang' Terrorizing Kids Online, as Australia Bans Younger Teens from Social Media

Two Recent Studies Find: COVID-19 'Vaccines' Increase Your Risk of SEVEN Major Cancers

Defense Bill Squeaks through the House with Wins on Life, DEI, and Family Leave

Somali Power Surge Raises the Question Minnesota Avoids: Where's the Assimilation?

Elon Musk Suggests Representative Ilhan Omar Committed 'Treason'

NewsNation Exposes Shocking Somali Fraud Operation in Maine

Elon Musk Reveals His Thoughts on God on Katie Miller's Podcast

Australia to Begin Enforcing Social Media Law Banning Children Under 16 from Major Platforms

Teacher Fights for His Job, Held in Jail Through Christmas in Student Pronoun Battle

Colorado School Districts Won't Be Penalized for Protecting Girls' Sports from Gender-Confused Boys

Medical School OKs $10M Religious Discrimination Settlement over COVID-19 Vax Mandate

Appeals Court Scolds Biden Judge, Sides with Pete Hegseth on Transgender Military Ban

Judge Blocks Trump's National Guard Deployment in LA

A Federal Judge Just Ordered the 2019 Epstein Documents to Be Unsealed

A Special Moment with First Lady Melania Trump at a Toys For Tots Charity Drive[VIDEO]

Give Him 15: The Power of Our Covenantal History

Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers Case: Even the ACLU Calls NJ Actions 'Censorship by Intimidation'

'Depart Immediately': State Department Warns Americans in Mali as al Qaeda Threatens to Overrun African Nation