Skip to main content

AOC shares her egg-freezing journey. Here’s what to know about the process.

▶ Watch Video: Key things to know about egg freezing

Washington — Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had one request for the internet as she pointed at the camera and injected the first shot of her egg-freezing protocol: “Don’t be weird about this, even though I know all of you will be.”

“That wasn’t so bad,” she said after she injected the shot into her lower abdomen. 

The 36-year-old representative from New York — and a potential 2028 presidential hopeful — is spending her August recess freezing her eggs, joining tens of thousands of women in the U.S. who have undergone the same journey in hopes of having children at some point in the future. 

After a fertility clinic is decided upon and initial tests are run, the process involves about two weeks of daily self-injections of hormones and regular visits to the fertility clinic. Next comes a “trigger shot,” followed by a retrieval of the eggs under sedation. Then, the eggs are flash-frozen and stored. 

Ocasio-Cortez said she’ll be documenting the process and answering questions women have. The cost, she said, was one of the most stressful parts for her as she considered the process — at least $8,000 for her. Those costs can run as high as $15,000 to $20,000 per cycle, plus monthly or annual storage costs, and generally aren’t covered by insurance. That doesn’t include the thawing of the eggs or the IVF process. The Trump administration has taken steps to try to bring down the cost of the medication involved. 

“My insurance does not cover one penny of this,” Ocasio-Cortez said in her Instagram story. “It is 100% out of pocket. It doesn’t go to my deductible. Nothing. It covers nothing.” 

Ocasio-Cortez’ decision to freeze her eggs is only fueling more speculation about her potential 2028 ambitions. She said on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday that she hasn’t ruled out running for president or the U.S. Senate. 

“This is a choice that I am making to feel more in control of my life,” she said on Instagram. 

Some online detractors criticized Ocasio-Cortez, noting her age and questioning why she doesn’t go ahead and have children now. Still, other women shared their stories of egg freezing and how glad they were that they went through the process. 

Katie Miller, the former White House official who is married to deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller, lauded Ocasio-Cortez for pursuing motherhood.

“We have historically low birth rates worldwide,” Miller wrote on X. “If one woman wants to preserve her right to have children, which means more than having none—we should celebrate that. … Everyone’s journey to motherhood is different, just as each of us mothers differently. I can’t wait to see how motherhood changes AOC.”

For women considering egg freezing, CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Céline Gounder said age at the time of freezing is the biggest factor in their ultimate success rate. Egg quality and quantity decline with age. 

“Age at freezing is the biggest predictor of whether you can have a live birth,” Gounder, who is also editor-at-large for public health at KFF Health News, said on “CBS Mornings.” “So women who froze at 35 or younger had about a 50% live birth rate, whereas if you wait until after 40, that drops to about 20%. So younger is better.” 

Those figures are per IVF cycle. Another thing to consider, Gounder said, is that pregnancy at an older age still carries risks for the mother and the baby, regardless of how young the woman was when she froze her eggs. 

“There is no guarantee of success,” she said. “So of the eggs that are frozen, about 80% will survive thawing, and then each step of IVF, you see a decrease in probability. The stat to ask for is live births per patient by age of freezing.” 

Women choose to freeze their eggs for a number of reasons, but lacking a current partner tops the list in surveys. 

A UCLA Health study found that relatively few women who freeze their eggs return for them in the next few years. The study, published last year, found that only 5.7% of women who froze their eggs between 2014 and 2016 returned to use them within the study’s follow-up period of five to seven years. 

Men’s fertility declines with age, too. As Gounder noted, a British study of 8,515 planned pregnancies found men 40 and older had about half the odds of conceiving within a year as their counterparts under 25.

Democrats like AOC are trying to shrug off their ‘woke’ era. That’s bad for our politics

(CNN) — Democrats would very much like to figure out how to explain away some of the far-left things they said circa 2019 and 2020 — a period often referred to as “peak woke,” “woke 1.0” or “woke 1.”Kamala Harris struggled with this during her 2024 presidential campaign (think: some transgender policies), and now it looms over some key 2026 races.Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday offered a prescription: Laugh it off.“I have a local city councilman that has this saying: ‘Woke 1 was crazy,’” the New York congresswoman said on ABC’s “This Week,” before laughing.Ocasio-Cortez, who once supported defunding the police, went on to suggest Covid had expanded the range of acceptable political discourse. But she said that it’s “not rhetoric that we would use today.”This might be a politically deft explanation for Ocasio-Cortez and her ilk. But it’s a bad one for the body politic. It continues a troubling trend of major politicians asking Americans not to take the things they say — or more specifically, that they once said — at face value.It’s a perfect recipe for a continued decline in honesty and accountability.An increasingly common argument from DemocratsOcasio-Cortez was quoting New York City Council Member Chi Ossé. Back in May, he responded to a critic who unearthed a 2021 comment of his by saying simply, “Woke 1 was crazyyyy.”The same week, former Biden White House aide Yemisi Egbewole credited Texas Senate candidate James Talarico for distancing himself from his past woke comments. “Peak woke got weird. It’s okay to say that!” Egbewole said.And this weekend, perhaps the one 2026 Democratic candidate with the biggest “peak woke” problem echoed Ocasio-Cortez’s comment.Francesca Hong is the favorite in Tuesday’s Wisconsin gubernatorial primary, but her past statements about abolishing police and canceling Thanksgiving, among others, have a lot of Democrats freaked out about her potential nomination.“I had some hot takes, some bad takes on Twitter, but when you’re a business owner running a restaurant during Covid, trying to pay bills as a student, you’re putting feelings out there into the world,” Hong told Politico. “But I’ve evolved, I’ve learned.”A growing epidemicAppearing after Ocasio-Cortez on “This Week,” Republican former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie took exception to her explanation.“After listening to the congresswoman, why should anyone trust her?” Christie said. He added that Republicans would “hold people like” Ocasio-Cortez and Hong “to what they’ve said over their careers, not what they’re trying to conveniently evolve into now.”But Christie is, to put it lightly, an imperfect messenger on this.Not only has he repeatedly changed his stance on President Donald Trump, but he has basically acknowledged having said things about Trump for political expediency.After running hard against Trump and then embracing him in 2016, Christie explained: “Yes, I disagreed with Donald Trump at the time. Big shock. I was running against him. … Of course I disagreed with him, because I was running against him.”Then, after Christie broke with Trump in 2021, the New Jersey Republican tried to disown the compliments he paid to Trump by saying he reasoned Trump would be the GOP nominee, and that he wanted to make the best of the situation.But it’s hardly just Christie. This has become an epidemic in US politics, on both sides of the aisle.The late GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham had repeatedly suggested his pro-Trump conversion was about getting things accomplished rather than what he truly believed. “If you know anything about me, it’d be odd not to do this,” he said at one point.Vice President JD Vance in both private messages and public comments has cited political calculations for his Trump stances. He told Time magazine when launching his Ohio Senate campaign in 2021: “If I actually care about these people and the things I say I care about, I need to just suck it up and support him.”Secretary of State Marco Rubio has explained comments like calling Trump a “con man” in 2016 by saying, “I didn’t know him when I ran in 2016, didn’t know him as a person.”And in 2020, Harris explained her personal attacks on Joe Biden’s past position on busing by saying, “It was a debate.” When asked if that meant she didn’t mean what she said, Harris repeated, “It was a debate,” and suggested that those kinds of comments are what you say in that forum.The most prominent example of this in recent years is Trump’s years-long assault on the truth — and his supporters defense of it. When confronted with his tens of thousands of false and misleading claims, some allies have repeatedly urged people to take Trump “seriously” rather than “literally.”Why it’s so bad for politicsImplicit in these arguments is that maybe these politicians didn’t believe what they said in real time — that they were just saying stuff. But the question then becomes: Does that also apply to what they’re saying today?Seriously-not-literally is a great set up for Trump because he can decide retroactively which comments he meant and what he was just saying for political effect.But that arrangement removes the onus on politicians to be studied stewards of the public interest — to do the hard work of coming to their positions through a sober review of the issues. And it makes it virtually impossible to hold them accountable.And once that accountability is out the window and Americans no longer demand it, politicians are liable to say whatever they think is most advantageous at the time.That’s what they do now, to some extent. But formalizing a system where comments from five days or five years ago can be explained away as unimportant ramblings from another political moment feels like a bad idea.It would be better to reward politicians who have the foresight and wisdom to take positions that they actually believe in and can stick to — and can stand the political test of time.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story