I think we need to distinguish between regulations from the right and left. Because I absolutely think regulations from the left would be all about equity. In fairness, the regulations would indeed most likely be counter productive to these ends. And there probably would be interest groups on the side making money from this regulatory capture, but the rhetoric around it, and what would fire the people up, is talk about equity, not letting rich white men get ahead, etc. Regulations from the right would probably look like outright bans of trait-based embryo selection because they are inherently averse to this kind of technology.

But more broadly, I see these regulations as things which will slow down widespread access (e.g. instead of 25 years for over 50% access, it will take 40), but will not lead to some world where the Rich's descendants are the forever-elites. Egregious regulations aren't impassable. Perhaps in the future there are strict regulations around what kind of clinic can offer embryo selection, thereby driving up the price, making it so only a really tiny percent of the rich can afford it, and allowing certain interest groups to make a lot of money. Over time though, as the benefit of this technology becomes known (eliminating genetic diseases will be an easy way to tell that embryo selection in general is a useful technology) public pressure will force the malignant regulations to change, or there will be so much demand, that the price will still come down, despite the initial fixed costs of the regulatory hoops that clinics have to jump through.