During the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump cooked up a calculated fraud to target a narrow demographic: white women in their 30s.

His strategy? Promising robust protection and funding for in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments.

“We are going to be paying for that treatment,” Trump boldly declared in an NBC News interview last August. “We’re going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.” He doubled down the following day, explaining his motivation: “Because we want more babies, to put it nicely.”

These promises resonated with a demographic that represents the vast majority of IVF users (nearly 90%) – educated white women in their 30s who often delay childbearing for career advancement and who tend to be reliable voters in suburban swing districts.

Bitler and Schmidt (27) found that infertility treatment was used much more heavily by White women and insurance mandates did not ameliorate these disparities. Seifer et al. (28) reported that in mandated states… 86.5% were performed among White women…

And guess what Trump did to his targeted demographic.

A major problem that has been identified in reproductive medicine, however, is that in the United States, access and outcomes to IVF are not equal. Black and Hispanic women are less likely than white women to access fertility care…

Removed chances of IVF, hitting the group he tricked into voting for him. His new and intentionally hypocritical executive order requests “policy recommendations” within 90 days as a delay tactic. No mandated coverage. No federal funding. No protection against state restrictions.

No IVF.

To be perfectly clear here, IVF was a targeting mechanism. Trump didn’t care about the words he used, except to navigate victims into his fraud. The GOP twice blocked the Right to IVF Act, which would have created genuine protections and coverage requirements for fertility treatments, so the delay is a failure signal.

Senator Tammy Duckworth, who sponsored the IVF legislation, called out Trump’s fraud order as “toothless” and “lip service from a known liar.”

While Trump is broadly denying young white women healthcare access, the administration also is engaged in targeted cuts. These young white women who voted for Trump, specifically because of his IVF promises, now will not only get no help with their dream of fertility treatments, they will lose all healthcare benefits as their jobs (and/or their spouses’ jobs) are aborted.

This horrible political catfishing – promising something appealing to gain support, with zero intention of following through – demonstrates the disgusting racist and mysogynist calculations of Trump. For the young white women who were victimized by him, believing their reproductive options would be cared for by “grab’em by the pussy” man, the reality is proving to be quite different than the self-centered vote they gave him.

The question now becomes whether this demographic will be able to react appropriately and hold Trump accountable, or whether new promises will once again “grab them” despite the track record of disappointment.

Related: Trump voters sooner rather than later must ask themselves, like in the Mitchell and Webb sketch, “Are we the baddies?”

Apparently a Cybertruck owner was so enamored with the flagrantly overheated Tesla marketing about safety, he couldn’t help but destroy it.

Details of the crash are private, locked away from the public, in a proprietary Instagram account run by the Local 3878 Firefighters division. We know only so far that the Cybertruck failed to safely navigate an empty deserted flat field near East University Drive and North Signal Butte Road outside Phoenix, Arizona.

The European Commission has released some excellent draft guidelines to promote faster and better AI innovations, given the first deadline of the EU’s AI Act has come into effect. The stated motivators are removing “unacceptable risk” in AI, prohibiting certain practices under European law, in order to help the industry sustainably grow.

Key Guidelines

The clarification on practices deemed unacceptable are mapped out by potential risks to human values and fundamental rights, including:

• Harmful manipulation using subliminal or deceptive techniques
• Social scoring that could lead to unfavorable treatment of individuals
• Emotion recognition in workplace and educational settings (with some exceptions)
• Real-time remote biometric identification in public spaces for law enforcement (with limited exceptions)
• Untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet to create facial recognition databases
• Biometric categorization systems that infer sensitive characteristics like race or sexual orientation
• Individual criminal risk assessment based solely on profiling

These are basically integrity breach rules, reminiscent of how SB1386 confidentiality breach rules of 2003 unleashed a decade of rapid innovation in technology and expansion of the markets related to identity and encryption.

The recent enactment of SB 1386 and SB 1 suggests California is continuing to lead the nation in efforts to protect consumer rights. This creates unique challenges for national and global companies doing business in California or with California residents.

Enforcement and Penalties

Violations of the EU AI Act face only modest penalties—up to 7% of global annual turnover or €35 million, whichever is greater. It remains to be seen whether AI developers and deployers will prioritize compliance given these financial deterrents, which some may view as merely operational costs. Historically, certain American technology companies have appeared to adopt a “catch-me-if-you-can” strategy, seemingly preferring to pay a lazy tax for doing intentional harm to their users, rather than accepting any nudges to innovate.

The prohibitions are now in effect yet enforcement is likely to be staggered as EU Member States have until August 2 to designate the authorities responsible for overseeing them. The guidelines are also currently published in draft form, while translations are still rolling out for all official EU languages.

Legal Status

The Commission emphasizes the guidelines are non-binding, because authoritative interpretations are reserved for the Court of Justice of the European Union. However, they nonetheless spark innovation through insights into how the Commission interprets prohibitions, along with practical examples to help stakeholders understand their obligations.

This initiative represents another step in the EU’s movement towards the lead of global AI with a sensible regulatory framework that balances functionality and features of technology with basic protection of human rights.