The controversial medical practice that’s been banned in almost every country in the world is flourishing in the US, where clinics are raking in $500 million a year – and that’s bad news for men

In vitro fertilization is one of the more controversial medical practices around the world – largely due to its invasive, debilitating nature and enormous price tag.

One round will net patients at least $20,000 — a small price to pay for those struggling with fertility issues.

As for the patients, some are same-sex couples, while some are just single people trying to parent on their own.

As of this writing, 15 states – including California – require insurance plans to cover this, although more often than not the coverage is minimal.

Considered a last resort for those who are eager to become parents but face obstacles when it comes to conceiving, the treatment is still on the rise – at least in the US.

“The market is as big as the human race,” says Jeffrey Steinberg, founder of the Fertility Institutes of Los Angeles, about the popularity of the practice of assisted pregnancy.

At his clinic, patients can select characteristics such as their baby’s eye color while he collects eggs from their ovaries to be fertilized with sperm in a laboratory.

Participants can also choose the gender of their baby; an advantage that, according to him, appeals to 85 percent of patients alone

He told Slate Tuesday how he is aggressively marketing the service as figures on selective IVF for gender selection show it generates an estimated $500 million a year for clinics across the country.

That accounts for 5 percent of the roughly $8 billion generated by practices within the SS, Steinberg pointed out — citing a seemingly unlimited ceiling for growth.

Sharon Moayeri, the founder of OC Fertility in Newport Beach, said more of the same, revealing that for many Americans, the ability to choose genders is something of a silver lining — in a sea of ​​doubt caused by the difficulty of conceiving.

Unlike Steinberg’s, however, her clinic doesn’t advertise gender selection much, although she estimates that about 15 percent of patients still arrive solely for the benefit, without any fertility problems.

A doctor at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, meanwhile, said a small number of patients come in solely for gender selection, but pointed to several examples of parents who, once in the building, are more likely to ask for help. girls — a phenomenon not unique among Americans, Slate found.

The publication spoke to 15 women and a few men who plan to do IVF solely for the certainty that they will conceive a daughter, fueling debate about the level of control some parents seek amid the controversial practice.

Meanwhile, IVF is almost unheard of in countries around the world – only allowed to everyone in Spain, Belgium, Czech Republic, India, Israel, Russia, Ukraine and the US.

Germany, Austria, Italy, Britain, Egypt and Saudi Arabia also offer IVF, but only to heterosexual couples, with Britain being the only one to allow it for single women.

Furthermore, Egypt and Saudi Arabia only apply this practice to married couples, forcing unmarried wannabes to look elsewhere.

In the US, the ability to control a baby’s fate – offered mainly to single mothers, same-sex couples and families with a history of autism – remains divisive.

In an exclusive DailyMail.com poll in March, 60 percent of Americans of all ages said the treatment should remain legal, while just 12 percent said it should be illegal, according to the survey of 1,000 voters.

In contrast, 27 percent said they didn’t know.

The groups with the smallest majority are in favor test tube fertilization (IVF) were blacks and Latinos, people ages 18 to 29, and Republicans.

In contrast, the strongest support was among those over 65, whites, college graduates and Democratic voters.

The results come after fertility treatment was thrust into the spotlight last month when an Alabama court ruled that frozen embryos have the same rights as children.

While the Alabama ruling did not directly restrict IVF, it could open the door to wrongful death lawsuits over embryos that are discarded.

With the threat of prosecution looming, there are fears that doctors will stop performing IVF, limiting access to an already difficult-to-obtain treatment.

Laura Kerwin, a Harvard-trained psychologist in California, told Slate: “It’s a money-making industry.

“People need to realize that (clinics) have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to make money. They’re trying to sell you an option.’