Technically Human: Dr. Naomi Whittaker
on restorative reproductive medicine, femtech, & the purpose of medicine
Few advances in reproductive technologies give me more hope than Restorative Reproductive Medicine. Commonly referred to as RRM, Restorative Reproductive Medicine seeks to work with the female body rather than against it at every stage of a woman’s reproductive life. It can help a woman avoid pregnancy, get pregnant, identify underlying health conditions like endometriosis or sometimes even cancer, or help regulate hormones during menopause (plus a lot more). It is truly good women’s healthcare, and I think it’s the future.
That’s why I wanted to interview Dr. Naomi Whittaker — the founder of RRMAcademy.org and a board-certified OBGYN fertility surgeon focused on women’s restorative reproductive medicine, compassionate healthcare, and education.
Dr. Whittaker specializes in the Creighton Model FertilityCare System and NaProTechnology, which works cooperatively with a woman’s body to treat the underlying causes of gynecologic issues and infertility, such as endometriosis and PCOS. She helps women improve their gynecologic health, and avoid or achieve pregnancy in accordance with their natural fertility using the latest research, medicine, and surgery. She currently practices in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Katelyn Shelton: Dr. Whittaker, thank you for agreeing to be the first interviewee in a series of interviews for Technically Human. I’ve admired your work for a while. Start by telling us what your day-to-day work looks like. And answer a question I get frequently: How is the work RRM doctors do different from what an IVF doctor does?
Dr. Whittaker: My goal is to care for women with nearly any reproductive health issue and help them find a genuine path toward healing. Many of my patients come to me after years of frustration within a broken healthcare model that too often defaults to “just take birth control” or “just do IVF.” Those quick fixes rarely address the root causes of problems like PCOS, endometriosis, or hormonal imbalance—and they’ve left countless women unheard and untreated.
In my clinic, I start by listening—to their stories, their symptoms, and their bodies. Through detailed cycle charting, I often gain insights no prior provider has noticed. Sometimes within the first appointment, I can tell them what’s likely going on, even before ordering more tests.
I love empowering my patients with information about their own health. When they realize someone is finally listening and explaining, you can see the relief on their faces. I often joke that the bar for care has been set so low that I could trip over it and still exceed expectations—it usually earns a laugh, but it’s sadly true.
From there, we collaborate on an individualized treatment plan—whether that involves labs, hormone support, or surgery—based on her goals and my medical expertise. Healing is not one-size-fits-all; it’s a partnership built on trust, compassion, and science.
KS: Let’s talk a little bit about that individualized treatment plan. How do you as a doctor seek to work with the female body rather than against it?
Dr. W: Most doctors and patients currently don’t have the training or time to understand a woman’s ovulatory cycle. So they rely on one size fits all birth control options to entirely suppress ovulation all together.
I was taught in med school that ovulation was a risk factor for cancer. Despite it being a normal, physiologic event, it was insinuated that birth control was the healthier option. They essentially suggested that women are born with a birth control deficiency.
Rather than flying blind like most OBGYNs when a patient walks in the door, I rely on data provided by the patient to identify the critical event of the menstrual cycle: ovulation. It’s elusive if a woman isn’t educated on how her body functions: she may not even see these subtle signs.
The major difference between me and most standard trained OBGYNs is that I have extra training to be able to interpret the language of the cycle chart. I know what the biomarkers should look like. I understand what a normal/optimal cycle is and what its biomarkers look like - not only the bleeding patterns but what the most scientifically reliable markers are for the fertile window and phases of the menstrual cycle. This is absolutely critical to understanding women’s complex hormonal design.
I use this data to run targeted, individualized hormone panels, a series of labs based on specific cycle days. I use this data to recommend precise dosing uniquely targeted in real time on a per-cycle basis. I then can use that same cycle chart to see her biomarker response: a real time report card of her reproductive health.
KS: One thing I’ve noticed in my own experience on the receiving end of women’s healthcare is a marked lack of understanding about female sex hormones. Do you think there’s a role in women’s healthcare for better understanding female hormones, and do you try to do that in your approach?
Dr. W: I’m afraid the training on hormones is abysmal and antiquated in medical school and even OBGYN residency. Many doctors do not understand the differences between bio-identical and synthetic hormones (like birth control). Many OBGYNs just use a small variety of birth control options for nearly all reproductive complaints.
This over-reliance and has led to an over-simplification of the practice of women’s healthcare. It’s a paternalistic model that women’s hormones should be the same every day and that the variations of natural hormones are a nuisance when, in fact, these pesky fluctuations matter not only for fertility, but for overall physical and mental health.
This one-size-fits-all mentality has led to a stagnation of intellectual curiosity and awe of women’s bodies and designs: and a near halt on all scientific advancement.
What I see over and over in practice is women who have been failed by this model. They seek a second opinion and are essentially just given another flavor option of birth control or, worse, are told to take two birth controls at once. Women are often shamed if they do not tolerate birth control or insist on another option.
KS: RRM seems to be gaining steam culturally, alongside another development I’m personally really excited about: femtech. The number of cycle-tracking and algorhithm-based apps for predicting ovulation that exist today did not exist ten years ago. Are you hopeful about new appraches to women’s healthcare?
Dr. W: Organically, women are rising up angry at the status quo. With social media, what felt like gaslighting of the masses won’t work anymore. The women who want better have said “enough is enough.”
What is going to fill the gap? Femtech is rushing in to fill this gap… some of it via pharmaceutical companies who see their target base looking elsewhere. The science of femtech is overwhelmingly bad. They can get away with it due to poor understanding of women’s bodies which has been enabled by decades of birth control use.
We need to educate women on valid methods of fertility awareness based methods (FABM) or Natural Family Planning (NFP) or else they will be duped by the next best marketing ad. We must focus on proper scientific education, and that’s why I founded RRM Academy, an educational nonprofit.
Women deserve scientific education to help them interpret the predatory world out there. Cutting-edge solutions specific to the reproductive needs of women — from hormones to fertility and pelvic pain — necessitate an understanding of women and what makes them healthy and unique: ovulation.
We must demand that medicine stops the misogyny of demonizing ovulation. We must respect the ovulatory cycle. In doing so, we will try to restore ovulation or mimic the benefits of ovulation by cooperative, bio-identical hormone support which mimics optimal female physiology. That is the essence of the term “restorative reproductive medicine.” It is simply using medicine to restore the healthy, physiologic state of women, which is ovulation. Just treating women as if they have an optional on/off switch for ovulation and fertility is just not working for many women.
KS: This is a great segue to my next question, regarding technology. As you know, this project, Technically Human, explores how reproductive technology may be making us less human. Do you think anything in your field is making us less human, and if so, how do you work to counter that?
Replacing natural bodily functions with medical interventions can risk stripping away human dignity and replacing it with a profit-driven mindset. This is evident, for example, with birth control—when the goal becomes financial gain rather than supporting women’s health. The idea that a woman’s natural cycle is “flawed” is deeply misogynistic and can lead to dangerous assumptions in medicine. Women are often told they are “broken” and must accept a treatment, while informed consent slowly fades from the picture.
When natural conception is bypassed entirely, as with IVF, the potential for commodifying the female body increases. It becomes easy to prioritize the lab over the natural process—to assume that technological reproduction is better. But this mindset ignores the ethical consequences. When conception is separated from the body, we risk reducing people to their parts—eggs, sperm, uteruses—like interchangeable components on an assembly line.
Technology itself is neutral; its moral value depends on how we use it. What I fear is technology without ethics, and medicine without bioethics. Progress must always be guided by a moral compass that protects human dignity. Bioethics exists precisely to help us navigate that tension—reminding us to treat humans with dignity, to follow the principle of “do no harm,” and to ask the essential question: just because we can, should we?
IVF, introduced in the 1970s as a cure-all for infertility, hasn’t fully lived up to its promise. While techniques like embryo freezing and genetic screening have advanced, little attention has been given to restoring the underlying health of patients. Male factor infertility, for example, is often ignored and circumvented through ICSI (an advanced IVF laboratory procedure used to treat severe male factor infertility), shifting the burden entirely onto women. Success rates remain modest, especially when underlying conditions go untreated.
The focus on embryos and lab techniques overlooks the health and well-being of women. High-dose hormone stimulation can even worsen inflammatory conditions such as endometriosis or PCOS. Ignoring the diseases that cause infertility erases part of our humanity. These patients aren’t just vessels for embryos—they are individuals with complex health needs and personal suffering.
True healing begins with listening—understanding each patient’s story, history, and symptoms. This is how we preserve their dignity and humanity. In my own practice, I strive to respect both the science and the soul of medicine by following the principle of “do no harm”; staying current with research in medicine and surgery; practicing compassion and deep listening; using tools like cycle charting as a diagnostic guide—my own “EKG” for the female body; and studying diverse literature, from mainstream to cellular-level research, and engaging patients as partners in discovery.
My patients have taught me the most—through their bravery, curiosity, and persistence. Working with them has allowed me to refine the science of Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM), combining rigorous data analysis with individualized, dignified care.
Ultimately, respecting the humanity of our patients means treating the whole person—not just their reproductive parts—and never losing sight of our ethical responsibility to heal rather than to harm.
KS: What kinds of advancements would you most like to see in women’s reproductive medicine?
Dr. W: We need far more research. The state of understanding around female-specific conditions is, unfortunately, not much better than it was in the 1960s or 70s. Many fundamental questions remain unanswered: What defines optimal female hormone health? What does a normal cycle truly look like for each woman?
Dr. Thomas Hilgers, who trained me and inspired much of my approach, conducted the only prospective, real-time studies tracking women’s hormones throughout their cycles. His work transformed our understanding of the luteal phase and fertility, and his legacy motivates me to continue pushing for progress.
If I could direct future advancements, I’d love to see research and innovation in the following areas:
Reversing ovarian aging and promoting ovarian longevity through therapies like cooperative hormone replacement, platelet-rich plasma, mitochondrial support, and photobiomodulation.
Improving microsurgical and robotic techniques for delicate tubal surgery and developing non-surgical options for repairing inflammation or obstruction.
Reducing inflammation triggers, especially for women with endometriosis, and preventing adhesions after surgery.
Identifying PCOS subtypes so treatments can be targeted more precisely to each pattern of disease.
Expanding research on hormonal health more broadly—including perimenopause, menopause, hormone replacement therapy, and conditions like MCAS and POTS.
Women’s health research deserves the same depth and innovation afforded to other fields of medicine. The possibilities ahead are vast—and if guided with ethics and empathy, technology can truly help us restore rather than replace what makes us human.
This interview has been lightly edited for brevity. You can find Dr. Whittaker on X at @NaomiMWhittaker, and on Instagram at @Napro_Fertility_Surgeon.
Have you used RRM, NFP, or another fertility awareness based method? How did it work for you? Has the women’s health status quo failed you — or radically succeeded — in some way? Share in the comments, or send me a DM for a chance to be featured in Technically Human.
Thank you for reading Technically Human, a yearlong exploration into the moral limits of emerging reproductive technologies. This is the first of a series of interviews and published work on reprotech and what it means to be human. Follow along here on Substack or on X at @annakateshelt, and please consider sharing.
This project is made possible by The Fund for American Studies’ Robert Novak Journalism Fellowship.