MAHA and the New Push for Natural Family Planning

Lead

In the months after Nov. 9, 2025, a widening network of conservative activists and influencers has amplified fertility-awareness, promoting it as an alternative to hormonal contraception. Virtual instructors and new cycle-tracking apps are teaching women to read physical signs of fertility as a way to avoid pregnancy without pills or IUDs. The movement is linked to figures in the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) ecosystem and has caught the attention of federal officials discussing Title X programming and training. Proponents frame the shift as health-affirming; critics warn it could raise unintended-pregnancy risk for people who rely on highly effective hormonal methods.

Key Takeaways

• Conservative groups and MAHA influencers have broadened support for fertility-awareness-based methods (FAM), promoting them as “natural” alternatives to hormonal contraception.
• Federal discussions have included proposals to expand training on cycle-charting for Title X clinics; Title X is a nearly $300 million program serving about 2.8 million low-income patients annually.
• The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) states hormonal contraceptives have typical-use effectiveness of roughly 93–99 percent; ACOG estimates FAM typical-use effectiveness at about 77 percent.
• Researchers and clinicians warn that fertility-awareness methods require high user diligence and that wider adoption could lead to more unintended pregnancies if users misapply methods.
• Social media and new apps are accelerating interest: a KFF survey found 14 percent of women aged 18–25 had considered changing birth control because of social media influences.
• Some MAHA-aligned figures and developers are promising advanced, sensor-driven “AI” cycle-tracking devices, while critics raise privacy and efficacy concerns.

Background

Hormonal birth control became common in the United States after the 1960s and 1970s, and for decades mainstream political debate rarely targeted the pill or intrauterine devices. Opposition historically came from particular religious communities—especially some Catholic groups—that favored methods consistent with church teachings and saw some contraceptives as morally problematic. Over the last year, however, that objection has expanded beyond traditional religious circles into a broader conservative coalition.

Fertility-awareness-based methods were developed more than 50 years ago, in part by physicians connected to Catholic reproductive-health efforts. FAM relies on signs such as basal body temperature, cervical mucus, and urinary hormone markers to identify fertile windows, distinguishing it from calendar-based “rhythm” approaches that use only cycle length. Advocates argue FAM can also surface underlying reproductive-health issues, while public-health groups caution about differences between ideal and typical use.

Main Event

Small, virtual classes led by instructors such as Samantha Kopy have proliferated, showing participants how to chart cycles, measure morning temperature and observe cervical mucus as indicators of ovulation. Instructors teach couples to abstain during peak fertility as the primary pregnancy-avoidance strategy, and some organizations have signaled interest in seeking federal support to scale that training. Giovanni Vitale II, a co-founder of Whole Mission, has made public the group’s interest in funding to expand classes.

Administration officials have reportedly discussed directing resources toward fertility-awareness curricula as part of a broader public-health agenda, including Project 2025 proposals. In that context, some HHS staff considered ways to quickly train Title X clinic personnel to offer cycle-charting instruction. At the same time, the department recently restructured the office that administers Title X—a program with almost $300 million in funding that serves about 2.8 million people—drawing attention to how resources might be reallocated.

Prominent MAHA figures have publicly criticized hormonal contraception. Alex Clark, a MAHA podcaster, and others frame cycle-charting as a holistic choice that rejects what they describe as chemical suppression of natural cycles. Casey Means and other aligned health figures have characterized widespread hormonal use as a broader cultural issue; critics and professional societies push back, citing clinical evidence that profiles contraceptive safety and effectiveness.

Technology and entrepreneurship have entered the debate. Apps that ask users to record temperature, mucus, symptoms and sexual activity—some developed or promoted by conservative influencers and funded by private investors—now promise more personalized predictions. One startup backed by Peter Thiel’s network markets lifestyle guidance tied to cycle phases and is developing a wearable-based “AI” approach it says will refine fertile-window prediction.

Analysis & Implications

The push to expand fertility-awareness instruction reflects a confluence of ideology, technology and policy. For supporters, FAM is both a personal-health choice and a cultural statement about bodily autonomy without pharmaceuticals. For policymakers in sympathetic administrations, FAM can be framed as a preventive health initiative and an alternative to funding contraceptive supplies. That framing could influence program priorities and training in government-funded clinics.

From a public-health perspective, the central concern is the gap between perfect-use and typical-use effectiveness. Hormonal methods—with typical-use effectiveness commonly cited between 93 and 99 percent—offer robust pregnancy prevention for most users. ACOG’s estimate of roughly 77 percent typical-use effectiveness for FAM indicates a materially higher pregnancy risk if FAM replaces hormonal methods for people who would otherwise choose more effective options.

There are equity implications as well. Title X serves low-income patients who may rely on clinic-supplied contraceptives; reallocating staff time or funding toward cycle-charting instruction could reduce access to free or subsidized hormonal methods. Conversely, some advocates argue that teaching FAM alongside clinical options could broaden reproductive knowledge and help people identify fertility-related health issues, provided counseling is balanced and noncoercive.

Comparison & Data

The table above summarizes commonly cited typical-use figures from clinical and professional sources. These numbers illustrate why clinicians emphasize that method selection should match an individual’s ability to follow protocols, life circumstances, and pregnancy goals. Any policy or programmatic push to substitute one method for another should account for real-world adherence and access differences.

Reactions & Quotes

Supporters and critics have responded quickly; public statements reflect the divide between empowerment narratives and clinical caution.

“We want women to understand their bodies and choose nonchemical options if they prefer,”

Giovanni Vitale II, Whole Mission co-founder

Vitale’s group is among those planning to scale classes and explore federal funding, framing FAM as both health education and moral choice.

“Hormonal suppression is not the only path to reproductive autonomy,”

Alex Clark, MAHA podcaster

Clark and similar influencers use social platforms to promote cycle-charting and to question mainstream contraceptive narratives; their messaging has resonated with some audiences, especially younger women on social media.

“Claims that hormonal methods fundamentally change personality or long-term fertility are not supported by evidence,”

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (statement)

ACOG continues to recommend a wide range of contraceptives while cautioning that misinformation about harms could undermine effective family-planning choices.

Unconfirmed

• Precise plans for federal reallocations or new Title X budgets toward FAM training are under discussion but lack a public, finalized funding plan.
• Claims that hormonal contraceptives fundamentally alter personality or long-term fertility are disputed and not established by mainstream clinical data.
• Proprietary “AI birth control” devices marketed by startups promise greater accuracy; independent validation of those claims is not yet publicly available.
• Predictions that a cultural shift toward FAM will significantly reduce use of hormonal methods are plausible but not yet demonstrated by population-level data.

Bottom Line

The conservative and MAHA-associated push to normalize fertility-awareness represents both a cultural and policy challenge to the existing contraceptive landscape. Proponents present FAM as empowerment and a healthful alternative to pharmaceuticals; clinicians emphasize that effectiveness and equitable access matter when people choose a method to prevent pregnancy.

Policymakers and program administrators should weigh training, privacy, and funding implications carefully: expanding FAM instruction could complement contraceptive services if presented neutrally, but substituting FAM for clinic-provided hormonal methods risks increasing unintended pregnancies among those unable to sustain the diligence FAM demands. Independent evaluation of emerging apps and wearable-based prediction systems is essential before such technologies are promoted as replacements for established methods.

Sources

• The New York Times — news reporting on MAHA, classes, apps and HHS discussions
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) — professional medical organization statements on contraceptive effectiveness
• KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation) — health policy research cited for social-media influence data
• Heritage Foundation (Project 2025) — policy blueprint referenced in federal planning discussions
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — federal agency overseeing Title X programs