Business
Column: Ted Cruz and Katie Britt claim to be protecting IVF with a new bill. Don't believe them
Ever since the Supreme Court upended reproductive health rights in its 2022 Dobbs decision, antiabortion activists have been trying to make the case that the decision won’t have the dire effect on women and their families that its critics foresaw.
They’ve been wrong, as has been demonstrated by the rising tide of incidents in which pregnant women have been exposed to severe injury or near-death experiences for want of a therapeutic abortion.
But the case also opened the door to legal predicaments throughout the healthcare universe — most recently via a ruling on two cases by the Alabama Supreme Court in February, effectively outlawing in-vitro fertilization in that state.
Opinion polls show that giving people a route to parenthood via IVF is immensely popular, so even conservative lawmakers have scurried to enact laws to protect the method.
Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.
— Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker, concurring in an anti-IVF decision
The most recent initiative comes from Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Katie Britt of Alabama, who introduced their “IVF Protection Act” on May 20 and have been touting it in the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and elsewhere as a measure that “protects both life and IVF.”
Their bill does nothing of the kind. It’s a scam. More on that in a moment.
First, a brief primer on the IVF method. IVF isn’t abortion. Quite the contrary, it’s a means of creating, not terminating, a pregnancy.
But with the Supreme Court signaling via Dobbs and other recent rulings that it won’t interfere with state-level restrictions on reproductive healthcare, legislatures and courts in red states have turned their gunsights on healthcare rights of all varieties. The Alabama Supreme Court reached all the way back to an 1872 law to drive IVF out of the state.
IVF aims to help couples achieve pregnancy when medical issues prevent them from conceiving or they have concerns about heritable genetic mutations that might affect the health of their prospective offspring. Millions of Americans have employed IVF or know couples who have done so. There’s no question about its safety or its efficacy. Celebrities including the Obamas, Paris Hilton and Brooke Shields, and Republican politicians such as Rep. Michelle Steel (R-Seal Beach) have used IVF to conceive.
The procedure begins with the harvesting of unfertilized eggs from a woman’s ovaries. Subsequently, they’re fertilized by sperm from the woman’s partner. A few days later, an embryo — in some cases more than one — is placed in the woman’s uterus. Within another day or two the embryo implants itself in the uterine lining and is allowed to continue gestation normally.
To understand the act of misdirection that Cruz and Britt are pulling off, let’s examine that Alabama Supreme Court decision. The decision says almost nothing about the procedure that most laypersons think is the alpha and omega of IVF — the implantation of manually fertilized embryos into the uterus. To the extent that this process needs regulation, the justices held, that should be left up to the legislature.
But of course there’s more to IVF than that. IVF clinics typically produce multiple embryos but only implant one or two at a time. The idea is to give the parents further options if an implantation fails. In roughly half of all cases, the embryos are subjected to pre-implantation genetic testing to identfy potentially troublesome mutations.
Many couples choose IVF because they’re concerned that one or both prospective parents may be carriers of a genetic mutation that could cause a serious medical condition, and they want to know ahead of time.
“If this genetic mutation is discovered in an embryo, the embryo is usually discarded,” says Joanne Rosen, an expert in public health at Johns Hopkins. She asks whether the Alabama ruling means that “genetic testing should no longer take place because you can’t discard the embryos?”
Also, the thawing and implanting of embryos itself may damage or destroy an embryo. Typically, those embryos are discarded.
The Alabama decision was concerned almost entirely with that stage of the process — specifically with the legal status of the unused or discarded embryos. The court ruled that they fell within the protection of the state’s 1872 Wrongful Death of a Minor Act — largely because that antique law didn’t explicitly provide “an exception … for extrauterine children,” as Justice Jay Mitchell wrote for the court majority.
Indeed, the legal quandary that prompted Alabama’s IVF clinics to shut down after the ruling wasn’t that their right to implant embryos was now in question — it was their potential liability for the treatment of the unused embryos.
This isn’t a trivial issue. By some estimates, more than 1 million embryos are currently in cryogenic storage across the U.S. The Alabama ruling, if it percolates nationwide, “raises a huge question about what the obligations are for these frozen embryos,” Rosen said on the Johns Hopkins website. “Does this mean that they cannot be destroyed and have to be preserved into perpetuity?”
That’s what makes the Cruz/Britt measure so slippery. It purports to guarantee Americans access to in vitro fertilization by forbidding states to outlaw it, but defines IVF simply as “the practice whereby eggs are collected from ovaries and manually fertilized by sperm, for later placement inside of a uterus.”
Nothing there about how to treat the stored embryos or the legal consequences if any are injured in the process of fertilization or placement. Their proposal, moreover, says that nothing can block states from “implementing health and safety standards regarding the practice of in vitro fertilization.”
Abortion rights advocates will recognize that provision as a poisoned chalice, because even before the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade with its Dobbs ruling, numerous antiabortion states were imposing onerous regulations on abortion clinics in the name of “health and safety” — everything from dictating corridor widths to requiring that providers have admitting privileges at local hospitals.
These pernicious regulations are known as “TRAP laws,” for “targeted restrictions on abortion providers.” They’re “often pushed by anti-abortion politicians under the guise of ‘women’s health,’” in the words of Planned Parenthood, but their real purpose “is to shut down abortion providers and make it more difficult for people to access abortion.” In their bill, Cruz and Britt explicitly encourage more of this in relation to IVF.
One more point: The bill’s guarantee of rights even to its narrowly defined IVF is nothing like absolute. It’s tied to a state’s participation in Medicaid — states would be required to keep IVF legal as a condition of their receiving Medicaid payments.
How big a cudgel is this? In some states, almost none at all. We know this because 10 GOP-led states, mostly in the deep South, still have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, even though the federal government pays 90% of the cost of covering the eligible residents.
In those states, an estimated 1.5 million residents fall into the “coverage gap” — their incomes are too low to be eligible for ACA subsidies, but even though they live below the federal poverty line, their incomes are too high to be eligible for Medicaid in their states.
Those states include the home states of Britt and Cruz: Alabama (174,000 in the coverage gap) and Texas (1.2 million). It’s not hard to imagine their legislators voting to turn away Medicaid services for their poorest residents in order to preserve their status as bulwarks against reproductive health rights for women and couples.
The reaction of congressional Republicans to a proposal that would actually have protected IVF providers and patients from legal peril gives the game away. That measure, the “Access to Family Building Act,” was introduced by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who had her two children with the help of IVF.
Duckworth’s bill would have given Americans a legal right to access IVF and empowered patients and the Department of Justice to sue any state or state official who infringed that right. More to the point, it explicitly granted IVF patients “all rights regarding the use or disposition of reproductive genetic materials,” which would preempt any state from undertaking the same interference with the process endorsed by the Alabama court.
Republicans blocked Duckworth’s bill in the Senate. Asked about that on Bloomberg TV, Cruz said that her bill “seeks to back-door in broader abortion legislation.” This is just arrant claptrap. Duckworth’s measure has nothing to do with abortion; it deals explicitly and exclusively with “assisted reproductive technology” as it has been defined in federal law since 1992. Cruz’s beef with it plainly is that it is devoid of the anti-IVF loopholes that he and Britt wrote into their bill.
The cases before the Alabama Supreme Court were brought by two couples whose embryos were accidentally destroyed by an intruder at the Mobile clinic where they were frozen and stored. (Both couples had had healthy babies conceived via IVF.) The court made clear in its 8-1 decision that its rationale had nothing to do with science, and much more to do with religion.
“The theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama,” wrote Chief Justice Tom Parker in a concurring opinion, is that “human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.”
The justices adopted the doctrine of legal “personhood” beloved of the antiabortion camp. “All members of this Court,” Mitchell wrote, “agree that an unborn child is a genetically unique human being whose life begins at fertilization and ends at death.”
As for how the 1872 law applies, the court employed the “originalist” doctrine largely crafted by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who maintained that a law must be interpreted the way its original drafters understood it to mean. Scalia is cited 10 times in the Alabama decision, but in this case the justices squeezed “originalism” until it screamed for mercy.
“Unborn children are ‘children’ under the Act,” Mitchell wrote, “without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristic.” Yet the idea that 19th century lawmakers contemplated that unborn children could survive outside the womb as were the frozen embryos, and granted them legal rights is plainly absurd. The birth of Louise Brown, the very first IVF baby, was in 1978.
The sole dissenter on the Alabama court, Greg Cook, warned that “the main opinion’s holding almost certainly ends the creation of frozen embryos through in vitro fertilization in Alabama.” His concerns were dismissed by his colleagues in the majority — his “prediction does not seem to be well-founded,” sniffed Parker. Yet the IVF centers serving the bulk of patients in the state shut down in the immediate wake of the decision.
After Gov. Kay Ivey signed a protective law in March purporting to give IVF providers legal immunity, two resumed operations, but not the Mobile clinic connected with the case. And many experts are unsure whether the new law is as effective as its sponsors claim.
That’s the legacy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision. Antiabortion agitators have signaled that they’ll use any means they can persuade religiously inclined judges to accept, even outlawing contraceptives. Granting “personhood” to cryogenically frozen embryos that can’t be seen without a microscope is just one step on the path to the legal chaos they believe works in their favor.
In their Wall Street Journal op-ed, Cruz and Britt shed crocodile tears over the fact that, following the Alabama decision, “confusion and misinformation has spread, inflamed by partisan commentary.” This was a majestically dishonest take. Their own bill demonstrates that “partisan commentary” had nothing to do with the confusion. The Alabama decision was its cause. Their own bill would only make things worse, and you can be sure that they know it.
Business
Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children
Grok, the chatbot of Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, published sexualized images of children as its guardrails seem to have failed when it was prompted with vile user requests.
Users used prompts such as “put her in a bikini” under pictures of real people on X to get Grok to generate nonconsensual images of them in inappropriate attire. The morphed images created on Grok’s account are posted publicly on X, Musk’s social media platform.
The AI complied with requests to morph images of minors even though that is a violation of its own acceptable use policy.
“There are isolated cases where users prompted for and received AI images depicting minors in minimal clothing, like the example you referenced,” Grok responded to a user on X. “xAI has safeguards, but improvements are ongoing to block such requests entirely.”
xAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Its chatbot posted an apology.
“I deeply regret an incident on Dec 28, 2025, where I generated and shared an AI image of two young girls (estimated ages 12-16) in sexualized attire based on a user’s prompt,” said a post on Grok’s profile. “This violated ethical standards and potentially US laws on CSAM. It was a failure in safeguards, and I’m sorry for any harm caused. xAI is reviewing to prevent future issues.”
The government of India notified X that it risked losing legal immunity if the company did not submit a report within 72 hours on the actions taken to stop the generation and distribution of obscene, nonconsensual images targeting women.
Critics have accused xAI of allowing AI-enabled harassment, and were shocked and angered by the existence of a feature for seamless AI manipulation and undressing requests.
“How is this not illegal?” journalist Samantha Smith posted on X, decrying the creation of her own nonconsensual sexualized photo.
Musk’s xAI has positioned Grok as an “anti-woke” chatbot that is programmed to be more open and edgy than competing chatbots such as ChatGPT.
In May, Grok posted about “white genocide,” repeating conspiracy theories of Black South Africans persecuting the white minority, in response to an unrelated question.
In June, the company apologized when Grok posted a series of antisemitic remarks praising Adolf Hitler.
Companies such as Google and OpenAI, which also operate AI image generators, have much more restrictive guidelines around content.
The proliferation of nonconsensual deepfake imagery has coincided with broad AI adoption, with a 400% increase in AI child sexual abuse imagery in the first half of 2025, according to Internet Watch Foundation.
xAI introduced “Spicy Mode” in its image and video generation tool in August for verified adult subscribers to create sensual content.
Some adult-content creators on X prompted Grok to generate sexualized images to market themselves, kickstarting an internet trend a few days ago, according to Copyleaks, an AI text and image detection company.
The testing of the limits of Grok devolved into a free-for-all as users asked it to create sexualized images of celebrities and others.
xAI is reportedly valued at more than $200 billion, and has been investing billions of dollars to build the largest data center in the world to power its AI applications.
However, Grok’s capabilities still lag competing AI models such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, that have amassed more users, while Grok has turned to sexual AI companions and risque chats to boost growth.
Business
A tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy
John and Theresa Anderson meandered through the sprawling Ralph Lauren clothing store on Rodeo Drive, shopping for holiday gifts.
They emerged carrying boxy blue bags. John scored quarter-zip sweaters for himself and his father-in-law, and his wife splurged on a tweed jacket for Christmas Day.
“I’m going for quality over quantity this year,” said John, an apparel company executive and Palos Verdes Estates resident.
They strolled through the world-famous Beverly Hills shopping mecca, where there was little evidence of any big sales.
John Anderson holds his shopping bags from Ralph Lauren and Gucci at Rodeo Drive.
(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)
One mile away, shoppers at a Ralphs grocery store in West Hollywood were hunting for bargains. The chain’s website has been advertising discounts on a wide variety of products, including wine and wrapping paper.
Massi Gharibian was there looking for cream cheese and ways to save money.
“I’m buying less this year,” she said. “Everything is expensive.”
-
Share via
The tale of two Ralphs shows how Americans are experiencing radically different realities this holiday season. It represents the country’s K-shaped economy — the growing divide between those who are affluent and those trying to stretch their budgets.
Some Los Angeles residents are tightening their belts and prioritizing necessities such as groceries. Others are frequenting pricey stores such as Ralph Lauren, where doormen hand out hot chocolate and a cashmere-silk necktie sells for $250.
People shop at Ralphs in West Hollywood.
(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)
In the K-shaped economy, high-income households sit on the upward arm of the “K,” benefiting from rising pay as well as the value of their stock and property holdings. At the same time, lower-income families occupy the downward stroke, squeezed by inflation and lackluster income gains.
The model captures the country’s contradictions. Growth looks healthy on paper, yet hiring has slowed and unemployment is edging higher. Investment is booming in artificial intelligence data centers, while factories cut jobs and home sales stall.
The divide is most visible in affordability. Inflation remains a far heavier burden for households lower on the income distribution, a frustration that has spilled into politics. Voters are angry about expensive rents, groceries and imported goods.
“People in lower incomes are becoming more and more conservative in their spending patterns, and people in the upper incomes are actually driving spending and spending more,” said Kevin Klowden, an executive director at the Milken Institute, an economic think tank.
“Inflationary pressures have been much higher on lower- and middle-income people, and that has been adding up,” he said.
According to a Bank of America report released this month, higher-income employees saw their after-tax wages grow 4% from last year, while lower-income groups saw a jump of just 1.4%. Higher-income households also increased their spending year over year by 2.6%, while lower-income groups increased spending by 0.6%.
The executives at the companies behind the two Ralphs say they are seeing the trend nationwide.
Ralph Lauren reported better-than-expected quarterly sales last month and raised its forecasts, while Kroger, the grocery giant that owns Ralphs and Food 4 Less, said it sometimes struggles to attract cash-strapped customers.
“We’re seeing a split across income groups,” interim Kroger Chief Executive Ron Sargent said on a company earnings call early this month. “Middle-income customers are feeling increased pressure. They’re making smaller, more frequent trips to manage budgets, and they’re cutting back on discretionary purchases.”
People leave Ralphs with their groceries in West Hollywood.
(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)
Kroger lowered the top end of its full-year sales forecast after reporting mixed third-quarter earnings this month.
On a Ralph Lauren earnings call last month, CEO Patrice Louvet said its brand has benefited from targeting wealthy customers and avoiding discounts.
“Demand remains healthy, and our core consumer is resilient,” Louvet said, “especially as we continue … to shift our recruiting towards more full-price, less price-sensitive, higher-basket-size new customers.”
Investors have noticed the split as well.
The stock charts of the companies behind the two Ralphs also resemble a K. Shares of Ralph Lauren have jumped 37% in the last six months, while Kroger shares have fallen 13%.
To attract increasingly discerning consumers, Kroger has offered a precooked holiday meal for eight of turkey or ham, stuffing, green bean casserole, sweet potatoes, mashed potatoes, cranberry and gravy for about $11 a person.
“Stretch your holiday dollars!” said the company’s weekly newspaper advertisement.
Signs advertising low prices are posted at Ralphs.
(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)
In the Ralph Lauren on Rodeo Drive, sunglasses and polo shirts were displayed without discounts. Twinkling lights adorned trees in the store’s entryway and employees offered shoppers free cookies for the holidays.
Ralph Lauren and other luxury stores are taking the opposite approach to retailers selling basics to the middle class.
They are boosting profits from sales of full-priced items. Stores that cater to high-end customers don’t offer promotions as frequently, Klowden of the Milken Institute said.
“When the luxury stores are having sales, that’s usually a larger structural symptom of how they’re doing,” he said. “They don’t need to be having sales right now.”
Jerry Nickelsburg, faculty director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast, said upper-income earners are less affected by inflation that has driven up the price of everyday goods, and are less likely to hunt for bargains.
“The low end of the income distribution is being squeezed by inflation and is consuming less,” he said. “The upper end of the income distribution has increasing wealth and increasing income, and so they are less affected, if affected at all.”
The Andersons on Rodeo Drive also picked up presents at Gucci and Dior.
“We’re spending around the same as last year,” John Anderson said.
At Ralphs, Beverly Grove resident Mel, who didn’t want to share her last name, said the grocery store needs to go further for its consumers.
“I am 100% trying to spend less this year,” she said.
Business
Instacart ends AI pricing test that charged shoppers different prices for the same items
Instacart will stop using artificial intelligence to experiment with product pricing after a report showed that customers on the platform were paying different prices for the same items.
The report, published this month by Consumer Reports and Groundwork Collaborative, found that Instacart sometimes offered as many as five different prices for the same item at the same store and on the same day.
In a blog post Monday, Instacart said it was ending the practice effective immediately.
“We understand that the tests we ran with a small number of retail partners that resulted in different prices for the same item at the same store missed the mark for some customers,” the company said. “At a time when families are working exceptionally hard to stretch every grocery dollar, those tests raised concerns.”
Shoppers purchasing the same items from the same store on the same day will now see identical prices, the blog post said.
Instacart’s retail partners will still set product prices and may charge different prices across stores.
The report, which followed more than 400 shoppers in four cities, found that the average difference between the highest and lowest prices for the same item was 13%. Some participants in the study saw prices that were 23% higher than those offered to other shoppers.
At a Safeway supermarket in Washington, D.C., a dozen Lucerne eggs sold for $3.99, $4.28, $4.59, $4.69 and $4.79 on Instacart, depending on the shopper, the study showed.
At a Safeway in Seattle, a box of 10 Clif Chocolate Chip Energy bars sold for $19.43, $19.99 and $21.99 on Instacart.
The study found that an individual shopper on Instacart could theoretically spend up to $1,200 more on groceries in one year if they had to deal with the price differences observed in the pricing experiments.
The price experimentation was part of a program that Instacart advertised to retailers as a way to maximize revenue.
Instacart probably began adjusting prices in 2022, when the platform acquired the artificial intelligence company Eversight, whose software powers the experiments.
Instacart claimed that the Eversight experimentation would be negligible to consumers but could increase store revenue by up to 3%.
“Advances in AI enable experiments to be automatically designed, deployed, and evaluated, making it possible to rapidly test and analyze millions of price permutations across your physical and digital store network,” Instacart marketing materials said online.
The company said the price chranges were not dynamic pricing, the practice used by airlines and ride-hailing services to charge more when demand surges.
The price changes also were not based on shoppers’ personal information such as income, the company said.
“American grocery shoppers aren’t guinea pigs, and they should be able to expect a fair price when they’re shopping,” Lindsey Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, said in an interview this month.
Shares of Instacart fell 2% on Monday, closing at $45.02.
-
Entertainment1 week agoHow the Grinch went from a Yuletide bit player to a Christmas A-lister
-
Connecticut1 week agoSnow Accumulation Estimates Increase For CT: Here Are The County-By-County Projections
-
World7 days agoHamas builds new terror regime in Gaza, recruiting teens amid problematic election
-
Indianapolis, IN1 week agoIndianapolis Colts playoffs: Updated elimination scenario, AFC standings, playoff picture for Week 17
-
Southeast1 week agoTwo attorneys vanish during Florida fishing trip as ‘heartbroken’ wife pleads for help finding them
-
Business1 week agoGoogle is at last letting users swap out embarrassing Gmail addresses without losing their data
-
World1 week agoSnoop Dogg, Lainey Wilson, Huntr/x and Andrea Bocelli Deliver Christmas-Themed Halftime Show for Netflix’s NFL Lions-Vikings Telecast
-
World1 week agoBest of 2025: Top five defining moments in the European Parliament