The idea is that a woman could have part of an ovary removed, sliced thin, and frozen for years. The slices could be re-implanted later, and if they take--which they seem to--the woman can stave off menopause.
This has been done with women with cancer who wanted to have children after the cancer drug treatments, which would otherwise render them sterile--and it seems to work: "without the need for IVF" (a problematic procedure, but that's another issue).
Imagine: a woman could remain fertile into her 70's at the simple cost of abdominal surgery every few years. Perhaps a mere man can't appreciate such things, but somehow I don't think doctors will be overwhelmed with requests for the procedure.
As a side note, this is their model:
The controversial notion would allow career women peace of mind with a fertility insurance policy so they can find a partner, settle down and become financially secure before starting a family.
Is it better for the husband and wife to grow their lives together into the marriage, or to try to join already-established lives? I've seen both ways work fine, but I wonder if the first isn't the easier path. There's no question that it is easier to take care of kids when you're young (no, not early teen young!), even though there's not a lot of financial security then. I'm not convinced their model is at all ideal.