claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
The southern U.S. border 'is now open to anyone from anywhere in the world who wishes to enter our country.
|
Contradiction
|
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro accused President Joe Biden of having 'surrendered our southern border,' falsely claiming the new administration is allowing anyone to cross freely into the U.S. 'It is now open to anyone from anywhere in the world who wishes to enter our country, leaving one to wonder whether America is a sovereign nation anymore or a simple globalist landing spot,' Pirro said in a March 20 TV segment, which circulated widely on Facebook. The clip was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The number of migrants at the U.S. border with Mexico has swelled in recent months. But the border is not open for anyone to cross, immigration experts said, despite Pirro's claim, which suggested that there is no legitimate enforcement at the border. 'That claim is patently absurd,' said Nicole Hallett, an associate clinical professor of law and the director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago. 'The border has never been 'open to anyone from anywhere in the world who now wishes to enter our country.'' U.S. Customs and Border Protection data shows that most migrants they encounter arriving at the southern border are still being immediately expelled under a section of federal law former President Donald Trump invoked in March 2020 to curb the spread of COVID-19. In February, about 72% of the encounters CBP recorded at the border resulted in such expulsions. 'The border is not open, and the vast majority of people are being returned under Title 42,' CBP said in a statement, referencing the name of that section of law. The Department of Homeland Security said Pirro's claim was false. 'There are few exceptions to this closure,' including unaccompanied minors, added Erin Barbato, director of the Immigrant Justice Clinic at the University of Wisconsin Law School. 'Jeanine Pirro's claim that the border is open to anyone is absurd and reckless.' Asked for evidence, a Fox News spokesperson pointed to Pirro's own comments March 22 on the program 'The Five,' when she said she had spoken to sheriffs from locations near the border. 'I'm telling you for a fact, the border is open,' Pirro said. 'I stood there with a sheriff who showed me where they stopped the wall.' Pirro did not provide evidence for her original claim on that show either. She instead argued that due to Biden, 'there is no border, there is no wall.' However, Biden's move to stop construction of Trump's border wall did not include dismantling what was already built. The border is not open to anyone from anywhere A U.S. Customs and Border Protection vehicle is seen next to migrants after they were detained and taken into custody, Sunday, March 21, 2021, in Abram-Perezville, Texas. (AP/Cortez) The Biden administration is expelling most families and single adults encountered at the border using the same public health rule that Trump invoked during the pandemic, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a March 16 statement. Roughly 90% of single adult encounters that the Border Patrol recorded between ports of entry resulted in such expulsions, for example, according to CBP data. However, the administration is not expelling unaccompanied children, who were previously being expelled under the Trump administration until a federal judge halted the practice in November. An appeals court in January said that the government could resume the practice, but the Biden administration has not. Their arrivals have contributed to the current influx at the border. Unaccompanied minors are allowed to request asylum under U.S. law, Barbato noted. In cases where Mexico cannot receive migrant families sent immediately back from the U.S., border officials are sending those families into immigration proceedings, putting a strain on some regions of the U.S., Mayorkas said in his March 16 statement. But Mayorkas has repeatedly said - including during a March 17 congressional hearing and a March 21 interview with ABC News - that the border is not open. Before the pandemic, many migrants who arrived without a visa were swiftly deported in what are known as expedited removal proceedings, Hallett said. Only those who credibly claimed fear of persecution were cleared to stay in the U.S. while they pursued their asylum claims. 'Now, even fewer people are being allowed to enter the U.S. because Border Patrol is using a CDC regulation to expel almost everyone, even people who claim fear,' Hallett said of the use of the public health-related authority. 'Pirro's statement has no basis in fact.' The Biden administration has started gradually letting in asylum seekers who were waiting out their cases from Mexico under Trump's Remain in Mexico program, but the Border Patrol has continued apprehending some migrants caught trying to enter the U.S. unlawfully between ports of entry. CBP recorded 26,791 apprehensions in February. Migrants apprehended at the border are screened for health and security issues, PolitiFact has reported. Mayorkas told Congress March 17 that known and suspected terrorists, for example, are denied entry based on intelligence and vetting procedures. 'Individuals who pose a public safety threat will not remain in the United States,' he added. There were also 1,537 cases in February in which migrants sought to enter the U.S. through legal ports of entry but were deemed inadmissible, according to CBP data. There are many reasons why people seeking legal entry may be declared inadmissible, Hallett said. They could, for example, have criminal histories or suspected ties to terrorism, certain infectious diseases, or a previous deportation on record. 'These grounds of inadmissibility were in effect before the pandemic,' Hallet said. 'Now, it is even more difficult to gain admission to the U.S. because of the public health-related restrictions. The idea that the U.S. is letting in criminals and terrorists at the border is just false.'
|
Our ruling Pirro said the southern U.S. border 'is now open to anyone from anywhere in the world who wishes to enter our country.' That's wrong. Large numbers of migrants are attempting to cross the border, but it is not open to anyone who wants to enter the U.S., regardless of their background. Most of the encounters that CBP recorded at the border in February resulted in quick expulsions under the same public health-related authority that was invoked under the Trump administration. We rate this statement False.
|
[
"105962-proof-01-AP_21081182128716.jpg",
"105962-proof-28-06a1e9a44c2877361bdc5dbcdf1a0c58.jpg"
] |
The southern U.S. border 'is now open to anyone from anywhere in the world who wishes to enter our country.
|
Contradiction
|
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro accused President Joe Biden of having 'surrendered our southern border,' falsely claiming the new administration is allowing anyone to cross freely into the U.S. 'It is now open to anyone from anywhere in the world who wishes to enter our country, leaving one to wonder whether America is a sovereign nation anymore or a simple globalist landing spot,' Pirro said in a March 20 TV segment, which circulated widely on Facebook. The clip was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The number of migrants at the U.S. border with Mexico has swelled in recent months. But the border is not open for anyone to cross, immigration experts said, despite Pirro's claim, which suggested that there is no legitimate enforcement at the border. 'That claim is patently absurd,' said Nicole Hallett, an associate clinical professor of law and the director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago. 'The border has never been 'open to anyone from anywhere in the world who now wishes to enter our country.'' U.S. Customs and Border Protection data shows that most migrants they encounter arriving at the southern border are still being immediately expelled under a section of federal law former President Donald Trump invoked in March 2020 to curb the spread of COVID-19. In February, about 72% of the encounters CBP recorded at the border resulted in such expulsions. 'The border is not open, and the vast majority of people are being returned under Title 42,' CBP said in a statement, referencing the name of that section of law. The Department of Homeland Security said Pirro's claim was false. 'There are few exceptions to this closure,' including unaccompanied minors, added Erin Barbato, director of the Immigrant Justice Clinic at the University of Wisconsin Law School. 'Jeanine Pirro's claim that the border is open to anyone is absurd and reckless.' Asked for evidence, a Fox News spokesperson pointed to Pirro's own comments March 22 on the program 'The Five,' when she said she had spoken to sheriffs from locations near the border. 'I'm telling you for a fact, the border is open,' Pirro said. 'I stood there with a sheriff who showed me where they stopped the wall.' Pirro did not provide evidence for her original claim on that show either. She instead argued that due to Biden, 'there is no border, there is no wall.' However, Biden's move to stop construction of Trump's border wall did not include dismantling what was already built. The border is not open to anyone from anywhere A U.S. Customs and Border Protection vehicle is seen next to migrants after they were detained and taken into custody, Sunday, March 21, 2021, in Abram-Perezville, Texas. (AP/Cortez) The Biden administration is expelling most families and single adults encountered at the border using the same public health rule that Trump invoked during the pandemic, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a March 16 statement. Roughly 90% of single adult encounters that the Border Patrol recorded between ports of entry resulted in such expulsions, for example, according to CBP data. However, the administration is not expelling unaccompanied children, who were previously being expelled under the Trump administration until a federal judge halted the practice in November. An appeals court in January said that the government could resume the practice, but the Biden administration has not. Their arrivals have contributed to the current influx at the border. Unaccompanied minors are allowed to request asylum under U.S. law, Barbato noted. In cases where Mexico cannot receive migrant families sent immediately back from the U.S., border officials are sending those families into immigration proceedings, putting a strain on some regions of the U.S., Mayorkas said in his March 16 statement. But Mayorkas has repeatedly said - including during a March 17 congressional hearing and a March 21 interview with ABC News - that the border is not open. Before the pandemic, many migrants who arrived without a visa were swiftly deported in what are known as expedited removal proceedings, Hallett said. Only those who credibly claimed fear of persecution were cleared to stay in the U.S. while they pursued their asylum claims. 'Now, even fewer people are being allowed to enter the U.S. because Border Patrol is using a CDC regulation to expel almost everyone, even people who claim fear,' Hallett said of the use of the public health-related authority. 'Pirro's statement has no basis in fact.' The Biden administration has started gradually letting in asylum seekers who were waiting out their cases from Mexico under Trump's Remain in Mexico program, but the Border Patrol has continued apprehending some migrants caught trying to enter the U.S. unlawfully between ports of entry. CBP recorded 26,791 apprehensions in February. Migrants apprehended at the border are screened for health and security issues, PolitiFact has reported. Mayorkas told Congress March 17 that known and suspected terrorists, for example, are denied entry based on intelligence and vetting procedures. 'Individuals who pose a public safety threat will not remain in the United States,' he added. There were also 1,537 cases in February in which migrants sought to enter the U.S. through legal ports of entry but were deemed inadmissible, according to CBP data. There are many reasons why people seeking legal entry may be declared inadmissible, Hallett said. They could, for example, have criminal histories or suspected ties to terrorism, certain infectious diseases, or a previous deportation on record. 'These grounds of inadmissibility were in effect before the pandemic,' Hallet said. 'Now, it is even more difficult to gain admission to the U.S. because of the public health-related restrictions. The idea that the U.S. is letting in criminals and terrorists at the border is just false.'
|
Our ruling Pirro said the southern U.S. border 'is now open to anyone from anywhere in the world who wishes to enter our country.' That's wrong. Large numbers of migrants are attempting to cross the border, but it is not open to anyone who wants to enter the U.S., regardless of their background. Most of the encounters that CBP recorded at the border in February resulted in quick expulsions under the same public health-related authority that was invoked under the Trump administration. We rate this statement False.
|
[
"105962-proof-01-AP_21081182128716.jpg",
"105962-proof-28-06a1e9a44c2877361bdc5dbcdf1a0c58.jpg"
] |
''He's low risk,' said Obama before freeing ISIS leader al Baghdadi.
|
Contradiction
|
A spam website republished satire as genuine news in an effort to spread misinformation about former President Barack Obama and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The hoax story was posted Jan. 14 to AJUANews.com, a website with a long track record of republishing false, satirical stories without their original context. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The story falsely claims that Obama freed al-Baghdadi, who died in a raid by U.S. forces in October 2019, from U.S. custody. Its headline: ''He's low risk,' said Obama before freeing ISIS leader al Baghdadi.' But that allegation about Obama is False. We've fact-checked it several times before. Obama wasn't in office when the United States had al-Baghdadi The AJUANews.com story seems to have been lifted word-for-word from a November article with the same headline on ObamaWatcher, a site that says it posts conservative satire. That ObamaWatcher story is tagged as 'Barack Obama Fan Fiction' on the site. It says Obama was responsible for al-Baghdadi's release from U.S. custody in 2004. Obama, however, was first elected president in 2008. When we first looked into al-Baghdadi's release, the Defense Department told us the future ISIS leader was held at a U.S. detention facility in Iraq known as Camp Bucca from early February 2004 until early December 2004. There's no record of him being held at any other time. Baghdadi was not freed by the United States, either. Rather, the United States handed him over to the Iraqis, who released him some time later. Some politicians, pundits and news outlets have inaccurately claimed Obama let al-Baghdadi go in 2009. That misconception tracks back to a Daily Beast interview with Army Col. Kenneth King, the former commander of Camp Bucca. King said he recalled al-Baghdadi leaving in 2009 and saying, 'I'll see you guys in New York.' King later told ABC News he 'could be mistaken' and that al-Baghdadi's 'face is very familiar.' A U.S.-Iraq agreement did drive the transfer of many detainees to Iraq in 2009, but that framework was set up by President George W. Bush in 2008. The Defense Department said al-Baghdadi was not in U.S. custody in 2009. And an article in the Guardian quoted another ISIS commander talking about meeting al-Baghdadi at Camp Bucca in 2004. The article said he was transferred because officials saw nothing of concern. We also found no evidence that Obama, then an Illinois state senator who had just won election to the Senate, said al-Baghdadi was 'low risk' when he was released in 2004 - or ever. The Obama administration designated al-Baghdadi a global terrorist in a 2011 federal notice.
|
Our ruling AJUANews.com said, ''He's low risk,' said Obama before freeing ISIS leader al Baghdadi.' The ISIS leader was removed from U.S. custody and handed over to Iraq in 2004, before Obama was president. There's no evidence Obama played any role in that transfer. We rate this statement False.
|
[] |
''He's low risk,' said Obama before freeing ISIS leader al Baghdadi.
|
Contradiction
|
A spam website republished satire as genuine news in an effort to spread misinformation about former President Barack Obama and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The hoax story was posted Jan. 14 to AJUANews.com, a website with a long track record of republishing false, satirical stories without their original context. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The story falsely claims that Obama freed al-Baghdadi, who died in a raid by U.S. forces in October 2019, from U.S. custody. Its headline: ''He's low risk,' said Obama before freeing ISIS leader al Baghdadi.' But that allegation about Obama is False. We've fact-checked it several times before. Obama wasn't in office when the United States had al-Baghdadi The AJUANews.com story seems to have been lifted word-for-word from a November article with the same headline on ObamaWatcher, a site that says it posts conservative satire. That ObamaWatcher story is tagged as 'Barack Obama Fan Fiction' on the site. It says Obama was responsible for al-Baghdadi's release from U.S. custody in 2004. Obama, however, was first elected president in 2008. When we first looked into al-Baghdadi's release, the Defense Department told us the future ISIS leader was held at a U.S. detention facility in Iraq known as Camp Bucca from early February 2004 until early December 2004. There's no record of him being held at any other time. Baghdadi was not freed by the United States, either. Rather, the United States handed him over to the Iraqis, who released him some time later. Some politicians, pundits and news outlets have inaccurately claimed Obama let al-Baghdadi go in 2009. That misconception tracks back to a Daily Beast interview with Army Col. Kenneth King, the former commander of Camp Bucca. King said he recalled al-Baghdadi leaving in 2009 and saying, 'I'll see you guys in New York.' King later told ABC News he 'could be mistaken' and that al-Baghdadi's 'face is very familiar.' A U.S.-Iraq agreement did drive the transfer of many detainees to Iraq in 2009, but that framework was set up by President George W. Bush in 2008. The Defense Department said al-Baghdadi was not in U.S. custody in 2009. And an article in the Guardian quoted another ISIS commander talking about meeting al-Baghdadi at Camp Bucca in 2004. The article said he was transferred because officials saw nothing of concern. We also found no evidence that Obama, then an Illinois state senator who had just won election to the Senate, said al-Baghdadi was 'low risk' when he was released in 2004 - or ever. The Obama administration designated al-Baghdadi a global terrorist in a 2011 federal notice.
|
Our ruling AJUANews.com said, ''He's low risk,' said Obama before freeing ISIS leader al Baghdadi.' The ISIS leader was removed from U.S. custody and handed over to Iraq in 2004, before Obama was president. There's no evidence Obama played any role in that transfer. We rate this statement False.
|
[] |
''He's low risk,' said Obama before freeing ISIS leader al Baghdadi.
|
Contradiction
|
A spam website republished satire as genuine news in an effort to spread misinformation about former President Barack Obama and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The hoax story was posted Jan. 14 to AJUANews.com, a website with a long track record of republishing false, satirical stories without their original context. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The story falsely claims that Obama freed al-Baghdadi, who died in a raid by U.S. forces in October 2019, from U.S. custody. Its headline: ''He's low risk,' said Obama before freeing ISIS leader al Baghdadi.' But that allegation about Obama is False. We've fact-checked it several times before. Obama wasn't in office when the United States had al-Baghdadi The AJUANews.com story seems to have been lifted word-for-word from a November article with the same headline on ObamaWatcher, a site that says it posts conservative satire. That ObamaWatcher story is tagged as 'Barack Obama Fan Fiction' on the site. It says Obama was responsible for al-Baghdadi's release from U.S. custody in 2004. Obama, however, was first elected president in 2008. When we first looked into al-Baghdadi's release, the Defense Department told us the future ISIS leader was held at a U.S. detention facility in Iraq known as Camp Bucca from early February 2004 until early December 2004. There's no record of him being held at any other time. Baghdadi was not freed by the United States, either. Rather, the United States handed him over to the Iraqis, who released him some time later. Some politicians, pundits and news outlets have inaccurately claimed Obama let al-Baghdadi go in 2009. That misconception tracks back to a Daily Beast interview with Army Col. Kenneth King, the former commander of Camp Bucca. King said he recalled al-Baghdadi leaving in 2009 and saying, 'I'll see you guys in New York.' King later told ABC News he 'could be mistaken' and that al-Baghdadi's 'face is very familiar.' A U.S.-Iraq agreement did drive the transfer of many detainees to Iraq in 2009, but that framework was set up by President George W. Bush in 2008. The Defense Department said al-Baghdadi was not in U.S. custody in 2009. And an article in the Guardian quoted another ISIS commander talking about meeting al-Baghdadi at Camp Bucca in 2004. The article said he was transferred because officials saw nothing of concern. We also found no evidence that Obama, then an Illinois state senator who had just won election to the Senate, said al-Baghdadi was 'low risk' when he was released in 2004 - or ever. The Obama administration designated al-Baghdadi a global terrorist in a 2011 federal notice.
|
Our ruling AJUANews.com said, ''He's low risk,' said Obama before freeing ISIS leader al Baghdadi.' The ISIS leader was removed from U.S. custody and handed over to Iraq in 2004, before Obama was president. There's no evidence Obama played any role in that transfer. We rate this statement False.
|
[] |
The COVID-19 vaccines make people 'magnetized. They can put a key on their forehead, it sticks. They can put spoons and forks all over them, and they can stick.
|
Contradiction
|
An anti-vaccine activist falsely claimed during a hearing with Ohio state legislators that the COVID-19 vaccines are magnetizing people who get them. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, an Ohio-based osteopathic physician who wrote a book called 'Saying No to Vaccines,' has been identified by the news site rating service Newsguard as a 'super-spreader' of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. A watchdog group found that she is one of 12 influencers responsible for 65% of anti-vaccine misinformation spread on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. Tenpenny has previously pushed false claims that the COVID-19 vaccines can cause death and autoimmune disease, disrupt pregnancies and 'shed' to affect unvaccinated people. Her latest comments came as she testified at the invitation of Ohio's Republican lawmakers in favor of a bill that would prevent businesses or the government from requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination, according to the Columbus Dispatch. 'I'm sure you've seen the pictures all over the internet of people who've had these shots, and now they're magnetized,' Tenpenny said during the June 8 hearing. 'They can put a key on their forehead, it sticks. They can put spoons and forks all over them, and they can stick. Because now we think that there's a metal piece to that.' Those claims are baseless. There are no metallic ingredients in any of the COVID-19 vaccines approved in the U.S. for emergency use, from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. The Food and Drug Administration has published the ingredients for each online. 'There's nothing there that a magnet can interact with,' Thomas Hope, a vaccine researcher at Northwestern University, previously told AFP Fact Check. 'It's protein and lipids, salts, water and chemicals that maintain the pH. That's basically it, so this is not possible.' PolitiFact and several other fact-checkers previously debunked the videos and 'pictures all over the internet' that Tenpenny cited as proof, which purported to show magnets sticking to vaccinated people. The social media posts about vaccine magnetism were so widespread that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention addressed them on its website: 'Can receiving a COVID-19 vaccine cause you to be magnetic? No. Receiving a COVID-19 vaccine will not make you magnetic, including at the site of vaccination which is usually your arm. COVID-19 vaccines do not contain ingredients that can produce an electromagnetic field at the site of your injection. All COVID-19 vaccines are free from metals such as iron, nickel, cobalt, lithium, and rare earth alloys, as well as any manufactured products such as microelectronics, electrodes, carbon nanotubes, and nanowire semiconductors. In addition, the typical dose for a COVID-19 vaccine is less than a milliliter, which is not enough to allow magnets to be attracted to your vaccination site even if the vaccine was filled with a magnetic metal.' Florian Krammer, a professor of vaccinology at New York's Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, previously told PolitiFact the claims about vaccine magnetism were 'utter nonsense.' Other experts told AFP Fact Check that the metal objects highlighted in various online videos and images are likely sticking for other reasons. They could have tape or another adhesive on them, for example. Or they could appear to stick because of the oil on a person's skin. Later on in the Ohio House hearing, a nurse tried unsuccessfully to prove Tenpenny's theory by positioning a key and a bobby pin against her neck. 'Explain to me why the key sticks to me. It sticks to my neck too,' she said, even as the key she pressed to her neck did not stick. Wow. An anti-vaccine nurse in Ohio tried to prove the Vaccines Cause Magnetism theory in an state legislative committee. The demonstration did not go to plan pic.twitter.com/0ubELst4E8- Tyler Buchanan (@Tylerjoelb) June 9, 2021 Tenpenny also claimed that there is 'some sort of an interface, 'yet to be defined' interface, between what's being injected in these shots and all of the 5G towers,' and that the vaccines have caused thousands of deaths in the U.S. Both of those claims are inaccurate. Tenpenny did not immediately respond to a request for comment from PolitiFact. She told the Washington Post that she stood by her testimony. We rate her claim that the vaccines make people 'magnetized' False. CORRECTION, July 21, 2021: A previous version of this story erroneously reported that the watchdog group that identified 12 influencers responsible for most anti-vaccine misinformation on social media was a part of McGill University in Montreal. It is not.
|
We rate her claim that the vaccines make people 'magnetized' False. CORRECTION, July 21, 2021: A previous version of this story erroneously reported that the watchdog group that identified 12 influencers responsible for most anti-vaccine misinformation on social media was a part of McGill University in Montreal. It is not.
|
[
"105973-proof-25-4b36facf8f513c735428812fb8a2b659.jpg"
] |
The COVID-19 vaccines make people 'magnetized. They can put a key on their forehead, it sticks. They can put spoons and forks all over them, and they can stick.
|
Contradiction
|
An anti-vaccine activist falsely claimed during a hearing with Ohio state legislators that the COVID-19 vaccines are magnetizing people who get them. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, an Ohio-based osteopathic physician who wrote a book called 'Saying No to Vaccines,' has been identified by the news site rating service Newsguard as a 'super-spreader' of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. A watchdog group found that she is one of 12 influencers responsible for 65% of anti-vaccine misinformation spread on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. Tenpenny has previously pushed false claims that the COVID-19 vaccines can cause death and autoimmune disease, disrupt pregnancies and 'shed' to affect unvaccinated people. Her latest comments came as she testified at the invitation of Ohio's Republican lawmakers in favor of a bill that would prevent businesses or the government from requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination, according to the Columbus Dispatch. 'I'm sure you've seen the pictures all over the internet of people who've had these shots, and now they're magnetized,' Tenpenny said during the June 8 hearing. 'They can put a key on their forehead, it sticks. They can put spoons and forks all over them, and they can stick. Because now we think that there's a metal piece to that.' Those claims are baseless. There are no metallic ingredients in any of the COVID-19 vaccines approved in the U.S. for emergency use, from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. The Food and Drug Administration has published the ingredients for each online. 'There's nothing there that a magnet can interact with,' Thomas Hope, a vaccine researcher at Northwestern University, previously told AFP Fact Check. 'It's protein and lipids, salts, water and chemicals that maintain the pH. That's basically it, so this is not possible.' PolitiFact and several other fact-checkers previously debunked the videos and 'pictures all over the internet' that Tenpenny cited as proof, which purported to show magnets sticking to vaccinated people. The social media posts about vaccine magnetism were so widespread that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention addressed them on its website: 'Can receiving a COVID-19 vaccine cause you to be magnetic? No. Receiving a COVID-19 vaccine will not make you magnetic, including at the site of vaccination which is usually your arm. COVID-19 vaccines do not contain ingredients that can produce an electromagnetic field at the site of your injection. All COVID-19 vaccines are free from metals such as iron, nickel, cobalt, lithium, and rare earth alloys, as well as any manufactured products such as microelectronics, electrodes, carbon nanotubes, and nanowire semiconductors. In addition, the typical dose for a COVID-19 vaccine is less than a milliliter, which is not enough to allow magnets to be attracted to your vaccination site even if the vaccine was filled with a magnetic metal.' Florian Krammer, a professor of vaccinology at New York's Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, previously told PolitiFact the claims about vaccine magnetism were 'utter nonsense.' Other experts told AFP Fact Check that the metal objects highlighted in various online videos and images are likely sticking for other reasons. They could have tape or another adhesive on them, for example. Or they could appear to stick because of the oil on a person's skin. Later on in the Ohio House hearing, a nurse tried unsuccessfully to prove Tenpenny's theory by positioning a key and a bobby pin against her neck. 'Explain to me why the key sticks to me. It sticks to my neck too,' she said, even as the key she pressed to her neck did not stick. Wow. An anti-vaccine nurse in Ohio tried to prove the Vaccines Cause Magnetism theory in an state legislative committee. The demonstration did not go to plan pic.twitter.com/0ubELst4E8- Tyler Buchanan (@Tylerjoelb) June 9, 2021 Tenpenny also claimed that there is 'some sort of an interface, 'yet to be defined' interface, between what's being injected in these shots and all of the 5G towers,' and that the vaccines have caused thousands of deaths in the U.S. Both of those claims are inaccurate. Tenpenny did not immediately respond to a request for comment from PolitiFact. She told the Washington Post that she stood by her testimony. We rate her claim that the vaccines make people 'magnetized' False. CORRECTION, July 21, 2021: A previous version of this story erroneously reported that the watchdog group that identified 12 influencers responsible for most anti-vaccine misinformation on social media was a part of McGill University in Montreal. It is not.
|
We rate her claim that the vaccines make people 'magnetized' False. CORRECTION, July 21, 2021: A previous version of this story erroneously reported that the watchdog group that identified 12 influencers responsible for most anti-vaccine misinformation on social media was a part of McGill University in Montreal. It is not.
|
[
"105973-proof-25-4b36facf8f513c735428812fb8a2b659.jpg"
] |
The COVID-19 vaccines make people 'magnetized. They can put a key on their forehead, it sticks. They can put spoons and forks all over them, and they can stick.
|
Contradiction
|
An anti-vaccine activist falsely claimed during a hearing with Ohio state legislators that the COVID-19 vaccines are magnetizing people who get them. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, an Ohio-based osteopathic physician who wrote a book called 'Saying No to Vaccines,' has been identified by the news site rating service Newsguard as a 'super-spreader' of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. A watchdog group found that she is one of 12 influencers responsible for 65% of anti-vaccine misinformation spread on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. Tenpenny has previously pushed false claims that the COVID-19 vaccines can cause death and autoimmune disease, disrupt pregnancies and 'shed' to affect unvaccinated people. Her latest comments came as she testified at the invitation of Ohio's Republican lawmakers in favor of a bill that would prevent businesses or the government from requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination, according to the Columbus Dispatch. 'I'm sure you've seen the pictures all over the internet of people who've had these shots, and now they're magnetized,' Tenpenny said during the June 8 hearing. 'They can put a key on their forehead, it sticks. They can put spoons and forks all over them, and they can stick. Because now we think that there's a metal piece to that.' Those claims are baseless. There are no metallic ingredients in any of the COVID-19 vaccines approved in the U.S. for emergency use, from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. The Food and Drug Administration has published the ingredients for each online. 'There's nothing there that a magnet can interact with,' Thomas Hope, a vaccine researcher at Northwestern University, previously told AFP Fact Check. 'It's protein and lipids, salts, water and chemicals that maintain the pH. That's basically it, so this is not possible.' PolitiFact and several other fact-checkers previously debunked the videos and 'pictures all over the internet' that Tenpenny cited as proof, which purported to show magnets sticking to vaccinated people. The social media posts about vaccine magnetism were so widespread that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention addressed them on its website: 'Can receiving a COVID-19 vaccine cause you to be magnetic? No. Receiving a COVID-19 vaccine will not make you magnetic, including at the site of vaccination which is usually your arm. COVID-19 vaccines do not contain ingredients that can produce an electromagnetic field at the site of your injection. All COVID-19 vaccines are free from metals such as iron, nickel, cobalt, lithium, and rare earth alloys, as well as any manufactured products such as microelectronics, electrodes, carbon nanotubes, and nanowire semiconductors. In addition, the typical dose for a COVID-19 vaccine is less than a milliliter, which is not enough to allow magnets to be attracted to your vaccination site even if the vaccine was filled with a magnetic metal.' Florian Krammer, a professor of vaccinology at New York's Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, previously told PolitiFact the claims about vaccine magnetism were 'utter nonsense.' Other experts told AFP Fact Check that the metal objects highlighted in various online videos and images are likely sticking for other reasons. They could have tape or another adhesive on them, for example. Or they could appear to stick because of the oil on a person's skin. Later on in the Ohio House hearing, a nurse tried unsuccessfully to prove Tenpenny's theory by positioning a key and a bobby pin against her neck. 'Explain to me why the key sticks to me. It sticks to my neck too,' she said, even as the key she pressed to her neck did not stick. Wow. An anti-vaccine nurse in Ohio tried to prove the Vaccines Cause Magnetism theory in an state legislative committee. The demonstration did not go to plan pic.twitter.com/0ubELst4E8- Tyler Buchanan (@Tylerjoelb) June 9, 2021 Tenpenny also claimed that there is 'some sort of an interface, 'yet to be defined' interface, between what's being injected in these shots and all of the 5G towers,' and that the vaccines have caused thousands of deaths in the U.S. Both of those claims are inaccurate. Tenpenny did not immediately respond to a request for comment from PolitiFact. She told the Washington Post that she stood by her testimony. We rate her claim that the vaccines make people 'magnetized' False. CORRECTION, July 21, 2021: A previous version of this story erroneously reported that the watchdog group that identified 12 influencers responsible for most anti-vaccine misinformation on social media was a part of McGill University in Montreal. It is not.
|
We rate her claim that the vaccines make people 'magnetized' False. CORRECTION, July 21, 2021: A previous version of this story erroneously reported that the watchdog group that identified 12 influencers responsible for most anti-vaccine misinformation on social media was a part of McGill University in Montreal. It is not.
|
[
"105973-proof-25-4b36facf8f513c735428812fb8a2b659.jpg"
] |
Assembly Republicans 'have come to the table' and were part of 'give and take' compromise on a coronavirus bill.
|
Contradiction
|
After going through the last eight months of 2020 without passing a single bill, Wisconsin's Republican-led Legislature is taking another run at addressing the coronavirus pandemic. The Legislature was at odds with Democratic Gov. Tony Evers throughout the past year, and rebuffed numerous attempts by Evers to force them into session. But the state Senate signaled a potential move toward the middle when it passed a coronavirus relief package Jan. 12, 2021, that had been negotiated with Evers. Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, said that bill 'addresses the critically-important needs of school districts, non-profit organizations, and small employers.' Evers called that bill - an amended version of an Assembly bill - 'a good faith effort in compromise and bipartisanship' and urged the Assembly to pass it as amended and send it to his desk for a signature. Instead, the Assembly added back in many of the elements the Senate had removed, passing their own version on Jan. 26. This new version now goes back to the Senate, which must decide whether it's close enough to their version to approve. If approved, Evers would have to decide whether he is comfortable signing it as well. Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke, R-Kaukauna, touted the bill this way on Twitter: 'Here in Madison, you learn quickly that give and take is needed to get things done,' Steineke said. 'Assembly Republicans have come to the table and made concessions to get this much-needed relief to hard-working Wisconsin families.' This paints a picture of a back-and-forth where Assembly Republicans worked with the other side to reach a consensus. Is that really what happened? Let's take a closer look at how Steineke's words and actions line up. Actions speak louder We're coming out of a year in which the Wisconsin Legislature did less than almost any other state legislative body to address the ongoing pandemic, even though it is one of just 10 full-time legislatures in the nation. The Legislature has passed no bills on the topic since mid-April, when both bodies passed wide-ranging legislation addressing unemployment, health care, education and government procedures, many of which applied only during the first public health emergency that Evers declared in March. The state Senate moved to block this partisan logjam in negotiating with Evers - a step that was rarely taken between the legislative and executive branches in 2020 - by producing the compromise bill. The Republican-run Senate passed the bill 29-2, and Evers promised to sign it. The Assembly, which had expected the Senate to pass its original version, balked at the changes. Their updated version doesn't restore all the elements of the original, but it does add back in elements the Senate removed amid its negotiations with Evers. In short, the Assembly rejected the Senate's bipartisan deal that Evers would have signed in favor of its own version that 'fights for the conservative ideals we know are important to our constituents throughout the state,' as Steineke phrased it in another tweet. Alesha Emmert, a spokeswoman for Steineke, said Jan. 26 the 'give and take' he referenced was with his own party. She said Republican leaders of the Assembly and Senate 'discussed amendment language ahead of today's floor period to see if common ground could be achieved.' But LeMahieu, the Senate leader, disputed that characterization. 'We are concerned that the changes that the Assembly made will cause the governor to veto the bill, and all along we wanted to make sure that we produced a bill that the governor could sign and would address the needs of Wisconsin,' LeMahieu told WisPolitics.com after the Assembly vote. And Britt Cudaback, a spokeswoman for Gov. Tony Evers, said the Assembly didn't work with Evers on their new version of the coronavirus bill.
|
Our ruling After the Assembly ignored a Senate-backed compromise to pass its own coronavirus bill, Steineke said, 'Here in Madison, you learn quickly that give and take is needed to get things done,' claiming Assembly Republicans had 'come to the table' and compromised. This characterization of the Assembly action is disingenuous at best. Steineke's verbiage referencing compromise - typically used to refer to politicians from opposing parties finding a middle ground - doesn't reference bipartisanship at all. Evers wasn't part of this process. And whatever negotiations occurred between the GOP leaders of the Senate and Assembly, this description clearly overreaches given LeMahieu's immediate criticism of the result. That's not getting things done, and it's not in line with Steineke's 'give and take' description. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"105975-proof-12-87007dc1bbc00d34e8666bc9276a0280.jpg"
] |
Assembly Republicans 'have come to the table' and were part of 'give and take' compromise on a coronavirus bill.
|
Contradiction
|
After going through the last eight months of 2020 without passing a single bill, Wisconsin's Republican-led Legislature is taking another run at addressing the coronavirus pandemic. The Legislature was at odds with Democratic Gov. Tony Evers throughout the past year, and rebuffed numerous attempts by Evers to force them into session. But the state Senate signaled a potential move toward the middle when it passed a coronavirus relief package Jan. 12, 2021, that had been negotiated with Evers. Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, said that bill 'addresses the critically-important needs of school districts, non-profit organizations, and small employers.' Evers called that bill - an amended version of an Assembly bill - 'a good faith effort in compromise and bipartisanship' and urged the Assembly to pass it as amended and send it to his desk for a signature. Instead, the Assembly added back in many of the elements the Senate had removed, passing their own version on Jan. 26. This new version now goes back to the Senate, which must decide whether it's close enough to their version to approve. If approved, Evers would have to decide whether he is comfortable signing it as well. Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke, R-Kaukauna, touted the bill this way on Twitter: 'Here in Madison, you learn quickly that give and take is needed to get things done,' Steineke said. 'Assembly Republicans have come to the table and made concessions to get this much-needed relief to hard-working Wisconsin families.' This paints a picture of a back-and-forth where Assembly Republicans worked with the other side to reach a consensus. Is that really what happened? Let's take a closer look at how Steineke's words and actions line up. Actions speak louder We're coming out of a year in which the Wisconsin Legislature did less than almost any other state legislative body to address the ongoing pandemic, even though it is one of just 10 full-time legislatures in the nation. The Legislature has passed no bills on the topic since mid-April, when both bodies passed wide-ranging legislation addressing unemployment, health care, education and government procedures, many of which applied only during the first public health emergency that Evers declared in March. The state Senate moved to block this partisan logjam in negotiating with Evers - a step that was rarely taken between the legislative and executive branches in 2020 - by producing the compromise bill. The Republican-run Senate passed the bill 29-2, and Evers promised to sign it. The Assembly, which had expected the Senate to pass its original version, balked at the changes. Their updated version doesn't restore all the elements of the original, but it does add back in elements the Senate removed amid its negotiations with Evers. In short, the Assembly rejected the Senate's bipartisan deal that Evers would have signed in favor of its own version that 'fights for the conservative ideals we know are important to our constituents throughout the state,' as Steineke phrased it in another tweet. Alesha Emmert, a spokeswoman for Steineke, said Jan. 26 the 'give and take' he referenced was with his own party. She said Republican leaders of the Assembly and Senate 'discussed amendment language ahead of today's floor period to see if common ground could be achieved.' But LeMahieu, the Senate leader, disputed that characterization. 'We are concerned that the changes that the Assembly made will cause the governor to veto the bill, and all along we wanted to make sure that we produced a bill that the governor could sign and would address the needs of Wisconsin,' LeMahieu told WisPolitics.com after the Assembly vote. And Britt Cudaback, a spokeswoman for Gov. Tony Evers, said the Assembly didn't work with Evers on their new version of the coronavirus bill.
|
Our ruling After the Assembly ignored a Senate-backed compromise to pass its own coronavirus bill, Steineke said, 'Here in Madison, you learn quickly that give and take is needed to get things done,' claiming Assembly Republicans had 'come to the table' and compromised. This characterization of the Assembly action is disingenuous at best. Steineke's verbiage referencing compromise - typically used to refer to politicians from opposing parties finding a middle ground - doesn't reference bipartisanship at all. Evers wasn't part of this process. And whatever negotiations occurred between the GOP leaders of the Senate and Assembly, this description clearly overreaches given LeMahieu's immediate criticism of the result. That's not getting things done, and it's not in line with Steineke's 'give and take' description. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"105975-proof-12-87007dc1bbc00d34e8666bc9276a0280.jpg"
] |
Assembly Republicans 'have come to the table' and were part of 'give and take' compromise on a coronavirus bill.
|
Contradiction
|
After going through the last eight months of 2020 without passing a single bill, Wisconsin's Republican-led Legislature is taking another run at addressing the coronavirus pandemic. The Legislature was at odds with Democratic Gov. Tony Evers throughout the past year, and rebuffed numerous attempts by Evers to force them into session. But the state Senate signaled a potential move toward the middle when it passed a coronavirus relief package Jan. 12, 2021, that had been negotiated with Evers. Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, said that bill 'addresses the critically-important needs of school districts, non-profit organizations, and small employers.' Evers called that bill - an amended version of an Assembly bill - 'a good faith effort in compromise and bipartisanship' and urged the Assembly to pass it as amended and send it to his desk for a signature. Instead, the Assembly added back in many of the elements the Senate had removed, passing their own version on Jan. 26. This new version now goes back to the Senate, which must decide whether it's close enough to their version to approve. If approved, Evers would have to decide whether he is comfortable signing it as well. Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke, R-Kaukauna, touted the bill this way on Twitter: 'Here in Madison, you learn quickly that give and take is needed to get things done,' Steineke said. 'Assembly Republicans have come to the table and made concessions to get this much-needed relief to hard-working Wisconsin families.' This paints a picture of a back-and-forth where Assembly Republicans worked with the other side to reach a consensus. Is that really what happened? Let's take a closer look at how Steineke's words and actions line up. Actions speak louder We're coming out of a year in which the Wisconsin Legislature did less than almost any other state legislative body to address the ongoing pandemic, even though it is one of just 10 full-time legislatures in the nation. The Legislature has passed no bills on the topic since mid-April, when both bodies passed wide-ranging legislation addressing unemployment, health care, education and government procedures, many of which applied only during the first public health emergency that Evers declared in March. The state Senate moved to block this partisan logjam in negotiating with Evers - a step that was rarely taken between the legislative and executive branches in 2020 - by producing the compromise bill. The Republican-run Senate passed the bill 29-2, and Evers promised to sign it. The Assembly, which had expected the Senate to pass its original version, balked at the changes. Their updated version doesn't restore all the elements of the original, but it does add back in elements the Senate removed amid its negotiations with Evers. In short, the Assembly rejected the Senate's bipartisan deal that Evers would have signed in favor of its own version that 'fights for the conservative ideals we know are important to our constituents throughout the state,' as Steineke phrased it in another tweet. Alesha Emmert, a spokeswoman for Steineke, said Jan. 26 the 'give and take' he referenced was with his own party. She said Republican leaders of the Assembly and Senate 'discussed amendment language ahead of today's floor period to see if common ground could be achieved.' But LeMahieu, the Senate leader, disputed that characterization. 'We are concerned that the changes that the Assembly made will cause the governor to veto the bill, and all along we wanted to make sure that we produced a bill that the governor could sign and would address the needs of Wisconsin,' LeMahieu told WisPolitics.com after the Assembly vote. And Britt Cudaback, a spokeswoman for Gov. Tony Evers, said the Assembly didn't work with Evers on their new version of the coronavirus bill.
|
Our ruling After the Assembly ignored a Senate-backed compromise to pass its own coronavirus bill, Steineke said, 'Here in Madison, you learn quickly that give and take is needed to get things done,' claiming Assembly Republicans had 'come to the table' and compromised. This characterization of the Assembly action is disingenuous at best. Steineke's verbiage referencing compromise - typically used to refer to politicians from opposing parties finding a middle ground - doesn't reference bipartisanship at all. Evers wasn't part of this process. And whatever negotiations occurred between the GOP leaders of the Senate and Assembly, this description clearly overreaches given LeMahieu's immediate criticism of the result. That's not getting things done, and it's not in line with Steineke's 'give and take' description. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"105975-proof-12-87007dc1bbc00d34e8666bc9276a0280.jpg"
] |
'It wasn't a big deal when Bill Clinton held up the Bible in front of the same exact church (as Donald Trump).
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump drew widespread criticism after hoisting a Bible for a June 1 photo op in front of a Washington church damaged by protesters. After a speech in which Trump raised the specter of military deployment to quell protests, police forcibly cleared demonstrators so the president could walk across Lafayette Square to St. John's Church. The imagery was praised by some Trump supporters in the faith community, but many others decried it as a stunt. One defender turned to history to make her case, saying, 'It wasn't a big deal when (President) Bill Clinton held up the Bible in front of the same exact church.' The Facebook post, from June 3, was shared more than 5,000 times. The caption appeared above a photo of Clinton holding a Bible in front of a church sign, which like the one in Trump's photo had white lettering on a black background. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook). Did Clinton really raise a Bible in front of the same church, and is the implied similarity between the two images reasonable? Not the same in any way The short answer to both questions is no. The photo of Clinton was taken July 9, 2000, by Manny Ceneta and distributed by Getty Images. The caption says it shows Clinton waving his Bible 'following a church service at Foundry United Methodist Church.' Clinton worshipped there 'most Sundays when he's in town,' according to a 1998 Washington Post article. So it's not the same church. And the post's underlying implication about the similarity of the two situations is just as off base. Clinton was pictured carrying his Bible after attending a church service at his church. Trump's circumstances were ... different. Trump has attended the church a few times, but he's hardly a regular. The Post reports he attended a service before his swearing-in ceremony in 2017 - following a tradition dating back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt - as well as one other time in 2017 and once in 2019. The church was boarded up at the time of Trump's June 1 visit, after a fire was set in the basement amid the protests over the death of George Floyd while in the custody of Minneapolis police. It hadn't hosted services since mid-March due to the coronavirus restrictions. Critics have noted the moment's stark contrast to what preceded it. Before going to St. John's, Trump had delivered a Rose Garden address where he called himself an 'ally of peaceful protesters' but also invoked strong military language. He condemned protest violence as 'domestic terror,' urged governors to deploy National Guard to 'dominate the streets' and promised to deploy the military to 'quickly solve the problems for them' if state and local officials didn't take action. Trump closed by saying, 'now I'm going to pay my respects to a very, very special place.' Trump didn't say much during the stop, where he posed alone and with a group of aides, holding a Bible handed to him by his daughter, Ivanka Trump. When a reporter asked if the Bible was his, Trump responded, 'It's a Bible.' When asked more generally for his thoughts, Trump talked about America being a 'great country.' And the entire photo op occurred without the permission or involvement of the church, which later condemned the visit. Trump did not inform church leadership he was coming. No one associated with the church was present. He did not enter the building. He did not quote any Scripture. He did not pray. Rev. Mariann Budde, who oversees the church's denomination in Washington, D.C., said she was 'outraged' to see the resulting images. 'I am the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington and was not given even a courtesy call, that they would be clearing (the area) with tear gas so they could use one of our churches as a prop,' Budde told the Washington Post. Budde is referring to what preceded the four-minute walk Trump and his entourage took to reach the church. That's a key reason USA TODAY noted this 'may become a defining event of Trump's presidency.' To clear a path to St. John's, police had forcibly removed White House demonstrators the New York Times described as a 'generally peaceful crowd.' The nature of that removal remains a topic of debate: Park Police told USA TODAY they did not use tear gas (as many media outlets reported) but did use pepper balls, a chemical irritant. The White House and Park Police said rubber bullets were not used.
|
Our ruling A viral Facebook post claimed 'It wasn't a big deal when Bill Clinton held up the Bible in front of the same exact church (as Donald Trump).' The image of Clinton in the post is not from the same church. And attempting to draw a parallel between the two incidents is a big stretch. Clinton was holding his Bible as he left a service he attended. Trump was manufacturing a photo op that had no other religious content and occurred without the church's involvement, which was preceded by police forcibly removing protesters to clear a path. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"105977-proof-00-d7316975e70f4c0821c90edf3130c49f.jpg"
] |
'It wasn't a big deal when Bill Clinton held up the Bible in front of the same exact church (as Donald Trump).
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump drew widespread criticism after hoisting a Bible for a June 1 photo op in front of a Washington church damaged by protesters. After a speech in which Trump raised the specter of military deployment to quell protests, police forcibly cleared demonstrators so the president could walk across Lafayette Square to St. John's Church. The imagery was praised by some Trump supporters in the faith community, but many others decried it as a stunt. One defender turned to history to make her case, saying, 'It wasn't a big deal when (President) Bill Clinton held up the Bible in front of the same exact church.' The Facebook post, from June 3, was shared more than 5,000 times. The caption appeared above a photo of Clinton holding a Bible in front of a church sign, which like the one in Trump's photo had white lettering on a black background. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook). Did Clinton really raise a Bible in front of the same church, and is the implied similarity between the two images reasonable? Not the same in any way The short answer to both questions is no. The photo of Clinton was taken July 9, 2000, by Manny Ceneta and distributed by Getty Images. The caption says it shows Clinton waving his Bible 'following a church service at Foundry United Methodist Church.' Clinton worshipped there 'most Sundays when he's in town,' according to a 1998 Washington Post article. So it's not the same church. And the post's underlying implication about the similarity of the two situations is just as off base. Clinton was pictured carrying his Bible after attending a church service at his church. Trump's circumstances were ... different. Trump has attended the church a few times, but he's hardly a regular. The Post reports he attended a service before his swearing-in ceremony in 2017 - following a tradition dating back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt - as well as one other time in 2017 and once in 2019. The church was boarded up at the time of Trump's June 1 visit, after a fire was set in the basement amid the protests over the death of George Floyd while in the custody of Minneapolis police. It hadn't hosted services since mid-March due to the coronavirus restrictions. Critics have noted the moment's stark contrast to what preceded it. Before going to St. John's, Trump had delivered a Rose Garden address where he called himself an 'ally of peaceful protesters' but also invoked strong military language. He condemned protest violence as 'domestic terror,' urged governors to deploy National Guard to 'dominate the streets' and promised to deploy the military to 'quickly solve the problems for them' if state and local officials didn't take action. Trump closed by saying, 'now I'm going to pay my respects to a very, very special place.' Trump didn't say much during the stop, where he posed alone and with a group of aides, holding a Bible handed to him by his daughter, Ivanka Trump. When a reporter asked if the Bible was his, Trump responded, 'It's a Bible.' When asked more generally for his thoughts, Trump talked about America being a 'great country.' And the entire photo op occurred without the permission or involvement of the church, which later condemned the visit. Trump did not inform church leadership he was coming. No one associated with the church was present. He did not enter the building. He did not quote any Scripture. He did not pray. Rev. Mariann Budde, who oversees the church's denomination in Washington, D.C., said she was 'outraged' to see the resulting images. 'I am the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington and was not given even a courtesy call, that they would be clearing (the area) with tear gas so they could use one of our churches as a prop,' Budde told the Washington Post. Budde is referring to what preceded the four-minute walk Trump and his entourage took to reach the church. That's a key reason USA TODAY noted this 'may become a defining event of Trump's presidency.' To clear a path to St. John's, police had forcibly removed White House demonstrators the New York Times described as a 'generally peaceful crowd.' The nature of that removal remains a topic of debate: Park Police told USA TODAY they did not use tear gas (as many media outlets reported) but did use pepper balls, a chemical irritant. The White House and Park Police said rubber bullets were not used.
|
Our ruling A viral Facebook post claimed 'It wasn't a big deal when Bill Clinton held up the Bible in front of the same exact church (as Donald Trump).' The image of Clinton in the post is not from the same church. And attempting to draw a parallel between the two incidents is a big stretch. Clinton was holding his Bible as he left a service he attended. Trump was manufacturing a photo op that had no other religious content and occurred without the church's involvement, which was preceded by police forcibly removing protesters to clear a path. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"105977-proof-00-d7316975e70f4c0821c90edf3130c49f.jpg"
] |
'It wasn't a big deal when Bill Clinton held up the Bible in front of the same exact church (as Donald Trump).
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump drew widespread criticism after hoisting a Bible for a June 1 photo op in front of a Washington church damaged by protesters. After a speech in which Trump raised the specter of military deployment to quell protests, police forcibly cleared demonstrators so the president could walk across Lafayette Square to St. John's Church. The imagery was praised by some Trump supporters in the faith community, but many others decried it as a stunt. One defender turned to history to make her case, saying, 'It wasn't a big deal when (President) Bill Clinton held up the Bible in front of the same exact church.' The Facebook post, from June 3, was shared more than 5,000 times. The caption appeared above a photo of Clinton holding a Bible in front of a church sign, which like the one in Trump's photo had white lettering on a black background. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook). Did Clinton really raise a Bible in front of the same church, and is the implied similarity between the two images reasonable? Not the same in any way The short answer to both questions is no. The photo of Clinton was taken July 9, 2000, by Manny Ceneta and distributed by Getty Images. The caption says it shows Clinton waving his Bible 'following a church service at Foundry United Methodist Church.' Clinton worshipped there 'most Sundays when he's in town,' according to a 1998 Washington Post article. So it's not the same church. And the post's underlying implication about the similarity of the two situations is just as off base. Clinton was pictured carrying his Bible after attending a church service at his church. Trump's circumstances were ... different. Trump has attended the church a few times, but he's hardly a regular. The Post reports he attended a service before his swearing-in ceremony in 2017 - following a tradition dating back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt - as well as one other time in 2017 and once in 2019. The church was boarded up at the time of Trump's June 1 visit, after a fire was set in the basement amid the protests over the death of George Floyd while in the custody of Minneapolis police. It hadn't hosted services since mid-March due to the coronavirus restrictions. Critics have noted the moment's stark contrast to what preceded it. Before going to St. John's, Trump had delivered a Rose Garden address where he called himself an 'ally of peaceful protesters' but also invoked strong military language. He condemned protest violence as 'domestic terror,' urged governors to deploy National Guard to 'dominate the streets' and promised to deploy the military to 'quickly solve the problems for them' if state and local officials didn't take action. Trump closed by saying, 'now I'm going to pay my respects to a very, very special place.' Trump didn't say much during the stop, where he posed alone and with a group of aides, holding a Bible handed to him by his daughter, Ivanka Trump. When a reporter asked if the Bible was his, Trump responded, 'It's a Bible.' When asked more generally for his thoughts, Trump talked about America being a 'great country.' And the entire photo op occurred without the permission or involvement of the church, which later condemned the visit. Trump did not inform church leadership he was coming. No one associated with the church was present. He did not enter the building. He did not quote any Scripture. He did not pray. Rev. Mariann Budde, who oversees the church's denomination in Washington, D.C., said she was 'outraged' to see the resulting images. 'I am the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington and was not given even a courtesy call, that they would be clearing (the area) with tear gas so they could use one of our churches as a prop,' Budde told the Washington Post. Budde is referring to what preceded the four-minute walk Trump and his entourage took to reach the church. That's a key reason USA TODAY noted this 'may become a defining event of Trump's presidency.' To clear a path to St. John's, police had forcibly removed White House demonstrators the New York Times described as a 'generally peaceful crowd.' The nature of that removal remains a topic of debate: Park Police told USA TODAY they did not use tear gas (as many media outlets reported) but did use pepper balls, a chemical irritant. The White House and Park Police said rubber bullets were not used.
|
Our ruling A viral Facebook post claimed 'It wasn't a big deal when Bill Clinton held up the Bible in front of the same exact church (as Donald Trump).' The image of Clinton in the post is not from the same church. And attempting to draw a parallel between the two incidents is a big stretch. Clinton was holding his Bible as he left a service he attended. Trump was manufacturing a photo op that had no other religious content and occurred without the church's involvement, which was preceded by police forcibly removing protesters to clear a path. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"105977-proof-00-d7316975e70f4c0821c90edf3130c49f.jpg"
] |
'It wasn't a big deal when Bill Clinton held up the Bible in front of the same exact church (as Donald Trump).
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump drew widespread criticism after hoisting a Bible for a June 1 photo op in front of a Washington church damaged by protesters. After a speech in which Trump raised the specter of military deployment to quell protests, police forcibly cleared demonstrators so the president could walk across Lafayette Square to St. John's Church. The imagery was praised by some Trump supporters in the faith community, but many others decried it as a stunt. One defender turned to history to make her case, saying, 'It wasn't a big deal when (President) Bill Clinton held up the Bible in front of the same exact church.' The Facebook post, from June 3, was shared more than 5,000 times. The caption appeared above a photo of Clinton holding a Bible in front of a church sign, which like the one in Trump's photo had white lettering on a black background. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook). Did Clinton really raise a Bible in front of the same church, and is the implied similarity between the two images reasonable? Not the same in any way The short answer to both questions is no. The photo of Clinton was taken July 9, 2000, by Manny Ceneta and distributed by Getty Images. The caption says it shows Clinton waving his Bible 'following a church service at Foundry United Methodist Church.' Clinton worshipped there 'most Sundays when he's in town,' according to a 1998 Washington Post article. So it's not the same church. And the post's underlying implication about the similarity of the two situations is just as off base. Clinton was pictured carrying his Bible after attending a church service at his church. Trump's circumstances were ... different. Trump has attended the church a few times, but he's hardly a regular. The Post reports he attended a service before his swearing-in ceremony in 2017 - following a tradition dating back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt - as well as one other time in 2017 and once in 2019. The church was boarded up at the time of Trump's June 1 visit, after a fire was set in the basement amid the protests over the death of George Floyd while in the custody of Minneapolis police. It hadn't hosted services since mid-March due to the coronavirus restrictions. Critics have noted the moment's stark contrast to what preceded it. Before going to St. John's, Trump had delivered a Rose Garden address where he called himself an 'ally of peaceful protesters' but also invoked strong military language. He condemned protest violence as 'domestic terror,' urged governors to deploy National Guard to 'dominate the streets' and promised to deploy the military to 'quickly solve the problems for them' if state and local officials didn't take action. Trump closed by saying, 'now I'm going to pay my respects to a very, very special place.' Trump didn't say much during the stop, where he posed alone and with a group of aides, holding a Bible handed to him by his daughter, Ivanka Trump. When a reporter asked if the Bible was his, Trump responded, 'It's a Bible.' When asked more generally for his thoughts, Trump talked about America being a 'great country.' And the entire photo op occurred without the permission or involvement of the church, which later condemned the visit. Trump did not inform church leadership he was coming. No one associated with the church was present. He did not enter the building. He did not quote any Scripture. He did not pray. Rev. Mariann Budde, who oversees the church's denomination in Washington, D.C., said she was 'outraged' to see the resulting images. 'I am the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington and was not given even a courtesy call, that they would be clearing (the area) with tear gas so they could use one of our churches as a prop,' Budde told the Washington Post. Budde is referring to what preceded the four-minute walk Trump and his entourage took to reach the church. That's a key reason USA TODAY noted this 'may become a defining event of Trump's presidency.' To clear a path to St. John's, police had forcibly removed White House demonstrators the New York Times described as a 'generally peaceful crowd.' The nature of that removal remains a topic of debate: Park Police told USA TODAY they did not use tear gas (as many media outlets reported) but did use pepper balls, a chemical irritant. The White House and Park Police said rubber bullets were not used.
|
Our ruling A viral Facebook post claimed 'It wasn't a big deal when Bill Clinton held up the Bible in front of the same exact church (as Donald Trump).' The image of Clinton in the post is not from the same church. And attempting to draw a parallel between the two incidents is a big stretch. Clinton was holding his Bible as he left a service he attended. Trump was manufacturing a photo op that had no other religious content and occurred without the church's involvement, which was preceded by police forcibly removing protesters to clear a path. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"105977-proof-00-d7316975e70f4c0821c90edf3130c49f.jpg"
] |
Hospitals get paid $750 for patients who die from the flu, $17,500 for COVID-19.
|
Contradiction
|
Medicare is adding 20% to its regular reimbursements to hospitals for the treatment of COVID-19 victims. That's a result of a federal stimulus law that was passed in response to the coronavirus pandemic. But do hospitals get paid 23 times as much for a patient who dies from COVID-19 as for a patient who dies from the flu? That's the claim of a Facebook post that says: 'Check this out! Hospitals get $750 if you die from the flu, and $17,500 if you died from COVID-19. Now think about that!' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We've looked into other claims that point to the differences in reimbursement levels to suggest that hospitals have a financial incentive to improperly diagnose cases as COVID-19. But experts say if anything, the illness is being underdiagnosed. In any case, the dollar amounts claimed in this post about flu and COVID-19 are misleading. The main thing to know is there are no set amounts paid to hospitals for either type of patient. The $17,500 claimed roughly matches the average amount Medicare paid hospitals before this year's outbreak for a patient with a COVID-like respiratory infection, such as pneumonia, who needed a certain amount of care. But private insurance typically pays twice as much as Medicare does, Tricia Neuman, who leads Kaiser Family Foundation's program on Medicare policy, told PolitiFact. As for the amount claimed for a flu patient, 'no hospitalization ever costs $750 and has not in 30 years,' said Gerard Anderson, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Center for Hospital Finance and Management. The 20% add-on The federal government has decided to pay hospitals extra for treating COVID-19 patients on Medicare. Congress added the provision because hospitals have lost revenue from routine care and elective surgeries that they couldn't provide during the crisis, and because the cost of providing even routine services to COVID patients has increased. From March through June, hospitals will lose an estimated $202.6 billion as a result of the high cost of COVID-19 care and lost revenue from canceled procedures, according to the American Hospital Association. Under the CARES Act, the largest of the three federal stimulus laws enacted in response to the coronavirus, Medicare pays hospitals a 20% 'add on' to its regular payment for COVID-19 patients. But there is no indication that hospitals are over-identifying patients as having COVID-19 for the sake of padding their revenue. If anything, evidence suggests the illness is being underdiagnosed. Dollar amounts in the claim are off Medicare pays hospitals based on a diagnosis; whether a patient dies does not affect the amount. And even then, the same diagnosis might trigger one reimbursement amount at one hospital, and a different payment at a hospital in another location, to take into account wage differences across the country and other factors. Neuman said $17,500 was roughly the average amount paid for a particular type of patient with a COVID-related diagnosis - one who has respiratory infection with complications and who needs a ventilator for up to 96 hours. That's based on estimates Kaiser did in 2017. The 20% add-on would raise that payment to nearly $21,000. As for the Facebook post's claim of a $750 payment for a flu patient, 'there is almost nothing in a hospital that only costs $750,' said Dr. Bob Kocher, a partner at the Venrock venture-capital firm and a senior fellow at the Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California. 'An emergency-room visit costs more than that.' Moreover, a patient with the flu who is admitted to a hospital and then dies typically would have multiple comorbidities, such as a heart condition, requiring a range of treatments and incurring costs substantially larger than $750, said Joseph Antos, a scholar in health care at the American Enterprise Institute. 'There is no single number that correctly characterizes Medicare's payment, but it is fair to say that the numbers presented here do not represent a true average Medicare payment for either type of patient,' Antos said.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that hospitals get paid $750 for patients who die from the flu, $17,500 for COVID-19. The $17,500 was roughly the average amount Medicare paid for a particular type of patient with a COVID-related diagnosis - one who has respiratory infection with complications and who needs a ventilator for up to 96 hours, according to Kaiser Family Foundation estimates for 2017. But hospitals are not paid set amounts for patients who die from the flu or from COVID-19. Medicare pays hospitals based primarily on a diagnosis, and the amount is not directly affected by whether a patient dies. And payments vary based on how much treatment a patient needs, the location of a hospital, to take into account wage differences, and other factors. The post misrepresents the way hospital reimbursements are determined and uses misleading numbers. We rate it False.
|
[] |
Hospitals get paid $750 for patients who die from the flu, $17,500 for COVID-19.
|
Contradiction
|
Medicare is adding 20% to its regular reimbursements to hospitals for the treatment of COVID-19 victims. That's a result of a federal stimulus law that was passed in response to the coronavirus pandemic. But do hospitals get paid 23 times as much for a patient who dies from COVID-19 as for a patient who dies from the flu? That's the claim of a Facebook post that says: 'Check this out! Hospitals get $750 if you die from the flu, and $17,500 if you died from COVID-19. Now think about that!' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We've looked into other claims that point to the differences in reimbursement levels to suggest that hospitals have a financial incentive to improperly diagnose cases as COVID-19. But experts say if anything, the illness is being underdiagnosed. In any case, the dollar amounts claimed in this post about flu and COVID-19 are misleading. The main thing to know is there are no set amounts paid to hospitals for either type of patient. The $17,500 claimed roughly matches the average amount Medicare paid hospitals before this year's outbreak for a patient with a COVID-like respiratory infection, such as pneumonia, who needed a certain amount of care. But private insurance typically pays twice as much as Medicare does, Tricia Neuman, who leads Kaiser Family Foundation's program on Medicare policy, told PolitiFact. As for the amount claimed for a flu patient, 'no hospitalization ever costs $750 and has not in 30 years,' said Gerard Anderson, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Center for Hospital Finance and Management. The 20% add-on The federal government has decided to pay hospitals extra for treating COVID-19 patients on Medicare. Congress added the provision because hospitals have lost revenue from routine care and elective surgeries that they couldn't provide during the crisis, and because the cost of providing even routine services to COVID patients has increased. From March through June, hospitals will lose an estimated $202.6 billion as a result of the high cost of COVID-19 care and lost revenue from canceled procedures, according to the American Hospital Association. Under the CARES Act, the largest of the three federal stimulus laws enacted in response to the coronavirus, Medicare pays hospitals a 20% 'add on' to its regular payment for COVID-19 patients. But there is no indication that hospitals are over-identifying patients as having COVID-19 for the sake of padding their revenue. If anything, evidence suggests the illness is being underdiagnosed. Dollar amounts in the claim are off Medicare pays hospitals based on a diagnosis; whether a patient dies does not affect the amount. And even then, the same diagnosis might trigger one reimbursement amount at one hospital, and a different payment at a hospital in another location, to take into account wage differences across the country and other factors. Neuman said $17,500 was roughly the average amount paid for a particular type of patient with a COVID-related diagnosis - one who has respiratory infection with complications and who needs a ventilator for up to 96 hours. That's based on estimates Kaiser did in 2017. The 20% add-on would raise that payment to nearly $21,000. As for the Facebook post's claim of a $750 payment for a flu patient, 'there is almost nothing in a hospital that only costs $750,' said Dr. Bob Kocher, a partner at the Venrock venture-capital firm and a senior fellow at the Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California. 'An emergency-room visit costs more than that.' Moreover, a patient with the flu who is admitted to a hospital and then dies typically would have multiple comorbidities, such as a heart condition, requiring a range of treatments and incurring costs substantially larger than $750, said Joseph Antos, a scholar in health care at the American Enterprise Institute. 'There is no single number that correctly characterizes Medicare's payment, but it is fair to say that the numbers presented here do not represent a true average Medicare payment for either type of patient,' Antos said.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that hospitals get paid $750 for patients who die from the flu, $17,500 for COVID-19. The $17,500 was roughly the average amount Medicare paid for a particular type of patient with a COVID-related diagnosis - one who has respiratory infection with complications and who needs a ventilator for up to 96 hours, according to Kaiser Family Foundation estimates for 2017. But hospitals are not paid set amounts for patients who die from the flu or from COVID-19. Medicare pays hospitals based primarily on a diagnosis, and the amount is not directly affected by whether a patient dies. And payments vary based on how much treatment a patient needs, the location of a hospital, to take into account wage differences, and other factors. The post misrepresents the way hospital reimbursements are determined and uses misleading numbers. We rate it False.
|
[] |
Hospitals get paid $750 for patients who die from the flu, $17,500 for COVID-19.
|
Contradiction
|
Medicare is adding 20% to its regular reimbursements to hospitals for the treatment of COVID-19 victims. That's a result of a federal stimulus law that was passed in response to the coronavirus pandemic. But do hospitals get paid 23 times as much for a patient who dies from COVID-19 as for a patient who dies from the flu? That's the claim of a Facebook post that says: 'Check this out! Hospitals get $750 if you die from the flu, and $17,500 if you died from COVID-19. Now think about that!' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We've looked into other claims that point to the differences in reimbursement levels to suggest that hospitals have a financial incentive to improperly diagnose cases as COVID-19. But experts say if anything, the illness is being underdiagnosed. In any case, the dollar amounts claimed in this post about flu and COVID-19 are misleading. The main thing to know is there are no set amounts paid to hospitals for either type of patient. The $17,500 claimed roughly matches the average amount Medicare paid hospitals before this year's outbreak for a patient with a COVID-like respiratory infection, such as pneumonia, who needed a certain amount of care. But private insurance typically pays twice as much as Medicare does, Tricia Neuman, who leads Kaiser Family Foundation's program on Medicare policy, told PolitiFact. As for the amount claimed for a flu patient, 'no hospitalization ever costs $750 and has not in 30 years,' said Gerard Anderson, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Center for Hospital Finance and Management. The 20% add-on The federal government has decided to pay hospitals extra for treating COVID-19 patients on Medicare. Congress added the provision because hospitals have lost revenue from routine care and elective surgeries that they couldn't provide during the crisis, and because the cost of providing even routine services to COVID patients has increased. From March through June, hospitals will lose an estimated $202.6 billion as a result of the high cost of COVID-19 care and lost revenue from canceled procedures, according to the American Hospital Association. Under the CARES Act, the largest of the three federal stimulus laws enacted in response to the coronavirus, Medicare pays hospitals a 20% 'add on' to its regular payment for COVID-19 patients. But there is no indication that hospitals are over-identifying patients as having COVID-19 for the sake of padding their revenue. If anything, evidence suggests the illness is being underdiagnosed. Dollar amounts in the claim are off Medicare pays hospitals based on a diagnosis; whether a patient dies does not affect the amount. And even then, the same diagnosis might trigger one reimbursement amount at one hospital, and a different payment at a hospital in another location, to take into account wage differences across the country and other factors. Neuman said $17,500 was roughly the average amount paid for a particular type of patient with a COVID-related diagnosis - one who has respiratory infection with complications and who needs a ventilator for up to 96 hours. That's based on estimates Kaiser did in 2017. The 20% add-on would raise that payment to nearly $21,000. As for the Facebook post's claim of a $750 payment for a flu patient, 'there is almost nothing in a hospital that only costs $750,' said Dr. Bob Kocher, a partner at the Venrock venture-capital firm and a senior fellow at the Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California. 'An emergency-room visit costs more than that.' Moreover, a patient with the flu who is admitted to a hospital and then dies typically would have multiple comorbidities, such as a heart condition, requiring a range of treatments and incurring costs substantially larger than $750, said Joseph Antos, a scholar in health care at the American Enterprise Institute. 'There is no single number that correctly characterizes Medicare's payment, but it is fair to say that the numbers presented here do not represent a true average Medicare payment for either type of patient,' Antos said.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that hospitals get paid $750 for patients who die from the flu, $17,500 for COVID-19. The $17,500 was roughly the average amount Medicare paid for a particular type of patient with a COVID-related diagnosis - one who has respiratory infection with complications and who needs a ventilator for up to 96 hours, according to Kaiser Family Foundation estimates for 2017. But hospitals are not paid set amounts for patients who die from the flu or from COVID-19. Medicare pays hospitals based primarily on a diagnosis, and the amount is not directly affected by whether a patient dies. And payments vary based on how much treatment a patient needs, the location of a hospital, to take into account wage differences, and other factors. The post misrepresents the way hospital reimbursements are determined and uses misleading numbers. We rate it False.
|
[] |
Says President Donald Trump said, 'People are dying who have never died before.
|
Contradiction
|
The spread of the novel coronavirus has put President Donald Trump on TV screens across the nation as the White House task force gives regular press briefings on the U.S. response. We've documented many of his remarks. But Trump never said that 'people are dying who have never died before,' despite what a number of social media posts have claimed. One Facebook post, which said Trump made the comment on March 18, was flagged as part Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We searched Google, Nexis and Factba.se, an interactive transcript website that tracks Trump's public comments. We found no mention that 'people are dying who have never died before.' We also checked the official White House and C-Span transcripts for Trump's midday press briefing with the White House task force and his afternoon press briefing following a meeting with nurses, both of which occurred March 18. We saw nothing there, either. Finally, we found no tweets on the president's account that included the made-up quote in question. Nor did we find any deleted Trump tweets on Politwoops, a database of deleted political tweets maintained by ProPublica, a nonprofit journalism organization. Other fact-checkers also found no proof that Trump made the comment. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire!
|
We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire!
|
[
"106011-proof-16-fecf3df738694f26448bc43d20e3a859.jpg"
] |
Businesses aren't allowed to ask customers if they've been vaccinated because 'there are HIPPA laws.
|
Contradiction
|
Misinformation is spreading on social media claiming that businesses aren't allowed to ask customers if they've received a COVID-19 vaccine because it would violate health privacy laws. But that's wrong, and some posts making these claims have been flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Consumer privacy protections under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 - better known as HIPAA - are implemented with what's called the Privacy Rule. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rule established a set of national standards to address how health care providers, insurers and other entities use and share people's health information. The law is designed to prevent them from disclosing a patient's private health information without that person's permission. The law doesn't prohibit businesses from asking customers about their vaccination status. Kayte Spector-Bagdady, a lawyer and associate director at the University of Michigan's Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, told WKYC, an NBC News affiliate in Cleveland, that people often think HIPAA protects them from having to answer questions about their medical information, or prohibits others from asking. 'Neither is true,' Spector-Bagdady said. 'HIPAA prohibits health professionals, such as your doctor, from sharing your identified health information without your permission in most circumstances. People can always ask about your health information, and you can almost always decline to answer. But not answering health questions might come at a cost - such as not being able to enter your workplace or board a plane.' We rate this post as False.
|
We rate this post as False.
|
[] |
Businesses aren't allowed to ask customers if they've been vaccinated because 'there are HIPPA laws.
|
Contradiction
|
Misinformation is spreading on social media claiming that businesses aren't allowed to ask customers if they've received a COVID-19 vaccine because it would violate health privacy laws. But that's wrong, and some posts making these claims have been flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Consumer privacy protections under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 - better known as HIPAA - are implemented with what's called the Privacy Rule. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rule established a set of national standards to address how health care providers, insurers and other entities use and share people's health information. The law is designed to prevent them from disclosing a patient's private health information without that person's permission. The law doesn't prohibit businesses from asking customers about their vaccination status. Kayte Spector-Bagdady, a lawyer and associate director at the University of Michigan's Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, told WKYC, an NBC News affiliate in Cleveland, that people often think HIPAA protects them from having to answer questions about their medical information, or prohibits others from asking. 'Neither is true,' Spector-Bagdady said. 'HIPAA prohibits health professionals, such as your doctor, from sharing your identified health information without your permission in most circumstances. People can always ask about your health information, and you can almost always decline to answer. But not answering health questions might come at a cost - such as not being able to enter your workplace or board a plane.' We rate this post as False.
|
We rate this post as False.
|
[] |
Raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour 'would destroy up to 3.7 million jobs.
|
Contradiction
|
Would raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour 'destroy up to 3.7 million jobs' in the United States? That's what GOP House Minority Leader and California Rep. Kevin McCarthy claimed in the headline of a press release on Tuesday as Democrats in Congress began debating the move. On Twitter the same day, McCarthy wrote the wage hike 'could put nearly 4 million Americans out of work.' This is a screen shot of the headline from McCarthy's press release. The Biden Administration last month proposed raising the federal minimum hourly pay from $7.25 to $15, with increases of about $1.50 every year for five years. To make that happen, Congressional Democrats introduced the Raise the Wage Act of 2021 last month and began considering the legislation in the House Committee on Education and Labor this week. Here's what McCarthy said in the body of the press release: 'At this critical point, the Democrats' big, creative response is to raise the federal national wage to $15 an hour - a move the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office previously found could cost nearly 4 million workers their jobs.' President Joe Biden initially included the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour in his $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill. But he predicted last week it would be left out due to opposition from Republicans and centrist Democrats. Given the debate over raising the wage and its impact on jobs, we decided to take a closer look at McCarthy's claim in this fact check. Our Research In his press release and tweet, McCarthy linked to an analysis of the wage proposal by the Congressional Budget Office published on Monday. The CBO, a nonpartisan research service, predicted the wage hike would eliminate jobs, but would also raise wages for an estimated 17 million people and lift 900,000 people out of poverty. It doesn't say anything about destroying an estimated '3.7 million' positions as McCarthy claimed. Instead, the CBO said 'the average estimate is that employment would be reduced by 1.4 million workers.' The report goes on to say there's a 'one-third chance' the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthy's number. 'Young, less educated people would account for a disproportionate share of those reductions in employment,' the report adds. A spokesperson for McCarthy did not respond to questions. Deborah Kilroe, a spokesperson for the CBO, said McCarthy likely got his figure from a July 2019 CBO report that also examined raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. That older analysis predicted the 'median estimate' for job losses would be 1.3 million. Meanwhile, it said 'there is a two thirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a decrease of 3.7 million workers.' That last figure lines up with McCarthy's statement of 'nearly 4 million workers,' but it comes from the high-end of an old report and ignores what the CBO published this week. Last month, FactCheck.org found Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul also distorted the facts on this topic. The senator told Fox News that 'the government estimates are close to 4 million people will lose their jobs,' if the minimum wage hike goes through. FactCheck.org examined the July 2019 CBO report [the current report had yet to be published] and found Paul cherry-picked the high-end of that report. Our Ruling Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour 'would destroy up to 3.7 million jobs.' McCarthy appears to be citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis from 2019 that said, at the high-end, 3.7 million jobs could be lost from the wage hike. But in his statement, he linked to the CBO's new analysis published this week which found an average estimate of 1.4 million jobs would be lost, a figure he omitted. The new CBO report added there's a 'one-third chance' the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthy's claim. In the end, we found McCarthy cherry-picked a figure from an old report while ignoring current data on the topic that tells a different story. We rated his claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate.
|
Our Ruling Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour 'would destroy up to 3.7 million jobs.' McCarthy appears to be citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis from 2019 that said, at the high-end, 3.7 million jobs could be lost from the wage hike. But in his statement, he linked to the CBO's new analysis published this week which found an average estimate of 1.4 million jobs would be lost, a figure he omitted. The new CBO report added there's a 'one-third chance' the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthy's claim. In the end, we found McCarthy cherry-picked a figure from an old report while ignoring current data on the topic that tells a different story. We rated his claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate.
|
[
"106056-proof-33-2721c3fa9107e0fdac822e56ba97fe20.jpg",
"106056-proof-37-ktID8X25NzbkGAw8dOlPLoy5U4DgYO3_5p1oqewdpQd-eISkqv32SoD_rA8idgISvN6FwmUnRHjOjXn9.jpg"
] |
Raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour 'would destroy up to 3.7 million jobs.
|
Contradiction
|
Would raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour 'destroy up to 3.7 million jobs' in the United States? That's what GOP House Minority Leader and California Rep. Kevin McCarthy claimed in the headline of a press release on Tuesday as Democrats in Congress began debating the move. On Twitter the same day, McCarthy wrote the wage hike 'could put nearly 4 million Americans out of work.' This is a screen shot of the headline from McCarthy's press release. The Biden Administration last month proposed raising the federal minimum hourly pay from $7.25 to $15, with increases of about $1.50 every year for five years. To make that happen, Congressional Democrats introduced the Raise the Wage Act of 2021 last month and began considering the legislation in the House Committee on Education and Labor this week. Here's what McCarthy said in the body of the press release: 'At this critical point, the Democrats' big, creative response is to raise the federal national wage to $15 an hour - a move the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office previously found could cost nearly 4 million workers their jobs.' President Joe Biden initially included the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour in his $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill. But he predicted last week it would be left out due to opposition from Republicans and centrist Democrats. Given the debate over raising the wage and its impact on jobs, we decided to take a closer look at McCarthy's claim in this fact check. Our Research In his press release and tweet, McCarthy linked to an analysis of the wage proposal by the Congressional Budget Office published on Monday. The CBO, a nonpartisan research service, predicted the wage hike would eliminate jobs, but would also raise wages for an estimated 17 million people and lift 900,000 people out of poverty. It doesn't say anything about destroying an estimated '3.7 million' positions as McCarthy claimed. Instead, the CBO said 'the average estimate is that employment would be reduced by 1.4 million workers.' The report goes on to say there's a 'one-third chance' the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthy's number. 'Young, less educated people would account for a disproportionate share of those reductions in employment,' the report adds. A spokesperson for McCarthy did not respond to questions. Deborah Kilroe, a spokesperson for the CBO, said McCarthy likely got his figure from a July 2019 CBO report that also examined raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. That older analysis predicted the 'median estimate' for job losses would be 1.3 million. Meanwhile, it said 'there is a two thirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a decrease of 3.7 million workers.' That last figure lines up with McCarthy's statement of 'nearly 4 million workers,' but it comes from the high-end of an old report and ignores what the CBO published this week. Last month, FactCheck.org found Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul also distorted the facts on this topic. The senator told Fox News that 'the government estimates are close to 4 million people will lose their jobs,' if the minimum wage hike goes through. FactCheck.org examined the July 2019 CBO report [the current report had yet to be published] and found Paul cherry-picked the high-end of that report. Our Ruling Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour 'would destroy up to 3.7 million jobs.' McCarthy appears to be citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis from 2019 that said, at the high-end, 3.7 million jobs could be lost from the wage hike. But in his statement, he linked to the CBO's new analysis published this week which found an average estimate of 1.4 million jobs would be lost, a figure he omitted. The new CBO report added there's a 'one-third chance' the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthy's claim. In the end, we found McCarthy cherry-picked a figure from an old report while ignoring current data on the topic that tells a different story. We rated his claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate.
|
Our Ruling Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour 'would destroy up to 3.7 million jobs.' McCarthy appears to be citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis from 2019 that said, at the high-end, 3.7 million jobs could be lost from the wage hike. But in his statement, he linked to the CBO's new analysis published this week which found an average estimate of 1.4 million jobs would be lost, a figure he omitted. The new CBO report added there's a 'one-third chance' the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthy's claim. In the end, we found McCarthy cherry-picked a figure from an old report while ignoring current data on the topic that tells a different story. We rated his claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate.
|
[
"106056-proof-33-2721c3fa9107e0fdac822e56ba97fe20.jpg",
"106056-proof-37-ktID8X25NzbkGAw8dOlPLoy5U4DgYO3_5p1oqewdpQd-eISkqv32SoD_rA8idgISvN6FwmUnRHjOjXn9.jpg"
] |
Raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour 'would destroy up to 3.7 million jobs.
|
Contradiction
|
Would raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour 'destroy up to 3.7 million jobs' in the United States? That's what GOP House Minority Leader and California Rep. Kevin McCarthy claimed in the headline of a press release on Tuesday as Democrats in Congress began debating the move. On Twitter the same day, McCarthy wrote the wage hike 'could put nearly 4 million Americans out of work.' This is a screen shot of the headline from McCarthy's press release. The Biden Administration last month proposed raising the federal minimum hourly pay from $7.25 to $15, with increases of about $1.50 every year for five years. To make that happen, Congressional Democrats introduced the Raise the Wage Act of 2021 last month and began considering the legislation in the House Committee on Education and Labor this week. Here's what McCarthy said in the body of the press release: 'At this critical point, the Democrats' big, creative response is to raise the federal national wage to $15 an hour - a move the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office previously found could cost nearly 4 million workers their jobs.' President Joe Biden initially included the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour in his $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill. But he predicted last week it would be left out due to opposition from Republicans and centrist Democrats. Given the debate over raising the wage and its impact on jobs, we decided to take a closer look at McCarthy's claim in this fact check. Our Research In his press release and tweet, McCarthy linked to an analysis of the wage proposal by the Congressional Budget Office published on Monday. The CBO, a nonpartisan research service, predicted the wage hike would eliminate jobs, but would also raise wages for an estimated 17 million people and lift 900,000 people out of poverty. It doesn't say anything about destroying an estimated '3.7 million' positions as McCarthy claimed. Instead, the CBO said 'the average estimate is that employment would be reduced by 1.4 million workers.' The report goes on to say there's a 'one-third chance' the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthy's number. 'Young, less educated people would account for a disproportionate share of those reductions in employment,' the report adds. A spokesperson for McCarthy did not respond to questions. Deborah Kilroe, a spokesperson for the CBO, said McCarthy likely got his figure from a July 2019 CBO report that also examined raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. That older analysis predicted the 'median estimate' for job losses would be 1.3 million. Meanwhile, it said 'there is a two thirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a decrease of 3.7 million workers.' That last figure lines up with McCarthy's statement of 'nearly 4 million workers,' but it comes from the high-end of an old report and ignores what the CBO published this week. Last month, FactCheck.org found Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul also distorted the facts on this topic. The senator told Fox News that 'the government estimates are close to 4 million people will lose their jobs,' if the minimum wage hike goes through. FactCheck.org examined the July 2019 CBO report [the current report had yet to be published] and found Paul cherry-picked the high-end of that report. Our Ruling Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour 'would destroy up to 3.7 million jobs.' McCarthy appears to be citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis from 2019 that said, at the high-end, 3.7 million jobs could be lost from the wage hike. But in his statement, he linked to the CBO's new analysis published this week which found an average estimate of 1.4 million jobs would be lost, a figure he omitted. The new CBO report added there's a 'one-third chance' the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthy's claim. In the end, we found McCarthy cherry-picked a figure from an old report while ignoring current data on the topic that tells a different story. We rated his claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate.
|
Our Ruling Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour 'would destroy up to 3.7 million jobs.' McCarthy appears to be citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis from 2019 that said, at the high-end, 3.7 million jobs could be lost from the wage hike. But in his statement, he linked to the CBO's new analysis published this week which found an average estimate of 1.4 million jobs would be lost, a figure he omitted. The new CBO report added there's a 'one-third chance' the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthy's claim. In the end, we found McCarthy cherry-picked a figure from an old report while ignoring current data on the topic that tells a different story. We rated his claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate.
|
[
"106056-proof-33-2721c3fa9107e0fdac822e56ba97fe20.jpg",
"106056-proof-37-ktID8X25NzbkGAw8dOlPLoy5U4DgYO3_5p1oqewdpQd-eISkqv32SoD_rA8idgISvN6FwmUnRHjOjXn9.jpg"
] |
Raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour 'would destroy up to 3.7 million jobs.
|
Contradiction
|
Would raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour 'destroy up to 3.7 million jobs' in the United States? That's what GOP House Minority Leader and California Rep. Kevin McCarthy claimed in the headline of a press release on Tuesday as Democrats in Congress began debating the move. On Twitter the same day, McCarthy wrote the wage hike 'could put nearly 4 million Americans out of work.' This is a screen shot of the headline from McCarthy's press release. The Biden Administration last month proposed raising the federal minimum hourly pay from $7.25 to $15, with increases of about $1.50 every year for five years. To make that happen, Congressional Democrats introduced the Raise the Wage Act of 2021 last month and began considering the legislation in the House Committee on Education and Labor this week. Here's what McCarthy said in the body of the press release: 'At this critical point, the Democrats' big, creative response is to raise the federal national wage to $15 an hour - a move the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office previously found could cost nearly 4 million workers their jobs.' President Joe Biden initially included the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour in his $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill. But he predicted last week it would be left out due to opposition from Republicans and centrist Democrats. Given the debate over raising the wage and its impact on jobs, we decided to take a closer look at McCarthy's claim in this fact check. Our Research In his press release and tweet, McCarthy linked to an analysis of the wage proposal by the Congressional Budget Office published on Monday. The CBO, a nonpartisan research service, predicted the wage hike would eliminate jobs, but would also raise wages for an estimated 17 million people and lift 900,000 people out of poverty. It doesn't say anything about destroying an estimated '3.7 million' positions as McCarthy claimed. Instead, the CBO said 'the average estimate is that employment would be reduced by 1.4 million workers.' The report goes on to say there's a 'one-third chance' the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthy's number. 'Young, less educated people would account for a disproportionate share of those reductions in employment,' the report adds. A spokesperson for McCarthy did not respond to questions. Deborah Kilroe, a spokesperson for the CBO, said McCarthy likely got his figure from a July 2019 CBO report that also examined raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. That older analysis predicted the 'median estimate' for job losses would be 1.3 million. Meanwhile, it said 'there is a two thirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a decrease of 3.7 million workers.' That last figure lines up with McCarthy's statement of 'nearly 4 million workers,' but it comes from the high-end of an old report and ignores what the CBO published this week. Last month, FactCheck.org found Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul also distorted the facts on this topic. The senator told Fox News that 'the government estimates are close to 4 million people will lose their jobs,' if the minimum wage hike goes through. FactCheck.org examined the July 2019 CBO report [the current report had yet to be published] and found Paul cherry-picked the high-end of that report. Our Ruling Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour 'would destroy up to 3.7 million jobs.' McCarthy appears to be citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis from 2019 that said, at the high-end, 3.7 million jobs could be lost from the wage hike. But in his statement, he linked to the CBO's new analysis published this week which found an average estimate of 1.4 million jobs would be lost, a figure he omitted. The new CBO report added there's a 'one-third chance' the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthy's claim. In the end, we found McCarthy cherry-picked a figure from an old report while ignoring current data on the topic that tells a different story. We rated his claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate.
|
Our Ruling Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour 'would destroy up to 3.7 million jobs.' McCarthy appears to be citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis from 2019 that said, at the high-end, 3.7 million jobs could be lost from the wage hike. But in his statement, he linked to the CBO's new analysis published this week which found an average estimate of 1.4 million jobs would be lost, a figure he omitted. The new CBO report added there's a 'one-third chance' the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthy's claim. In the end, we found McCarthy cherry-picked a figure from an old report while ignoring current data on the topic that tells a different story. We rated his claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate.
|
[
"106056-proof-33-2721c3fa9107e0fdac822e56ba97fe20.jpg",
"106056-proof-37-ktID8X25NzbkGAw8dOlPLoy5U4DgYO3_5p1oqewdpQd-eISkqv32SoD_rA8idgISvN6FwmUnRHjOjXn9.jpg"
] |
'The number of ICU beds is larger in Boone County by a factor of three' compared to Orange County for the University of North Carolina.
|
Contradiction
|
At the end of the first week of classes, the University of Missouri chancellor said it wasn't shutting down campus and used available hospital bed capacity as one of the reasons. Mizzou Chancellor Mun Choi compared available ICU beds between his county and the county that's home to the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. UNC sent its students home after a week of classes. A week after its start date, UNC had at least 177 positive cases of COVID-19. MU, on the other hand, had 415 students identified after its first week. (Note: The schools opened a week apart.) 'We are prepared,' Choi said at the Aug. 28 press conference. 'We have more hospital beds that are staffed and the number of ICU beds is larger in Boone County by a factor of three.' UNC-Chapel Hill is located in Orange County, in what is commonly referred to as the Research Triangle. Its campus is about 12 miles from Duke University Hospital, so it surprised us that Missouri would compare so favorably. As it turns out, our suspicions were affirmed. Tracking the numbers Christian Basi, director of the MU News Bureau, cited data from Johns Hopkins University that listed Boone County as having 150 ICU beds and Orange County as having 47 ICU beds. Or, in other words, just about three times as many at Mizzou. Johns Hopkins defines ICU beds as an 'adult bed, pediatric bed, birthing room, or newborn ICU bed' in addition to psychiatric ICU beds and detox ICU beds. Another database, from The Leapfrog Group, a non-profit organization that advocates transparency in healthcare, lists UNC Medical Center as having 82 ICU beds, many more than the Johns Hopkins data. MU hospitals were not reported to this database. So we looked for other, more direct sources: Boone County: 144 adult ICU beds Orange County: 136 adult ICU beds UNC Medical Center in Chapel Hill has 138 ICU beds and UNC Hospitals Hillsborough Campus has 18 ICU beds, according to Phil Bridges, executive director of integrated communications for UNC Health. But 20 of the beds are pediatric ICU, making the total 136 for adults. In other words, there is only an eight-bed difference between counties. Lots of choices beyond Orange County MU lies pretty much in the center of Boone County. While UNC is in Orange County, the town of Chapel Hill actually dips into three counties, including Durham and Chatham. So what does the picture look like when you go by proximity? In MU's 30-mile radius, Jefferson City's Capital Region Medical Center and SSM St. Mary's Hospital offer 24 ICU beds total, which brings the mid-Missouri total to 168. In the Chapel Hill area, there are 209 ICU beds available. These hospitals are Duke University Medical Center, Duke Regional Center, Duke Raleigh Center, UNC Rex Hospital and Wake Med Cary. When you expand the lens, it's apparent that there are regionally more beds in the Orange County area than in Boone County, although the Research Triangle population is also about eight times larger.
|
Our ruling At a press conference, Choi said, 'the number of ICU beds is larger in Boone County by a factor of three.' His math matches data from Johns Hopkins University. But a closer look shows the number of adult ICU beds to be close to the same in Boone and Orange counties. With all things considered, we give this claim a rating of False.
|
[] |
'The number of ICU beds is larger in Boone County by a factor of three' compared to Orange County for the University of North Carolina.
|
Contradiction
|
At the end of the first week of classes, the University of Missouri chancellor said it wasn't shutting down campus and used available hospital bed capacity as one of the reasons. Mizzou Chancellor Mun Choi compared available ICU beds between his county and the county that's home to the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. UNC sent its students home after a week of classes. A week after its start date, UNC had at least 177 positive cases of COVID-19. MU, on the other hand, had 415 students identified after its first week. (Note: The schools opened a week apart.) 'We are prepared,' Choi said at the Aug. 28 press conference. 'We have more hospital beds that are staffed and the number of ICU beds is larger in Boone County by a factor of three.' UNC-Chapel Hill is located in Orange County, in what is commonly referred to as the Research Triangle. Its campus is about 12 miles from Duke University Hospital, so it surprised us that Missouri would compare so favorably. As it turns out, our suspicions were affirmed. Tracking the numbers Christian Basi, director of the MU News Bureau, cited data from Johns Hopkins University that listed Boone County as having 150 ICU beds and Orange County as having 47 ICU beds. Or, in other words, just about three times as many at Mizzou. Johns Hopkins defines ICU beds as an 'adult bed, pediatric bed, birthing room, or newborn ICU bed' in addition to psychiatric ICU beds and detox ICU beds. Another database, from The Leapfrog Group, a non-profit organization that advocates transparency in healthcare, lists UNC Medical Center as having 82 ICU beds, many more than the Johns Hopkins data. MU hospitals were not reported to this database. So we looked for other, more direct sources: Boone County: 144 adult ICU beds Orange County: 136 adult ICU beds UNC Medical Center in Chapel Hill has 138 ICU beds and UNC Hospitals Hillsborough Campus has 18 ICU beds, according to Phil Bridges, executive director of integrated communications for UNC Health. But 20 of the beds are pediatric ICU, making the total 136 for adults. In other words, there is only an eight-bed difference between counties. Lots of choices beyond Orange County MU lies pretty much in the center of Boone County. While UNC is in Orange County, the town of Chapel Hill actually dips into three counties, including Durham and Chatham. So what does the picture look like when you go by proximity? In MU's 30-mile radius, Jefferson City's Capital Region Medical Center and SSM St. Mary's Hospital offer 24 ICU beds total, which brings the mid-Missouri total to 168. In the Chapel Hill area, there are 209 ICU beds available. These hospitals are Duke University Medical Center, Duke Regional Center, Duke Raleigh Center, UNC Rex Hospital and Wake Med Cary. When you expand the lens, it's apparent that there are regionally more beds in the Orange County area than in Boone County, although the Research Triangle population is also about eight times larger.
|
Our ruling At a press conference, Choi said, 'the number of ICU beds is larger in Boone County by a factor of three.' His math matches data from Johns Hopkins University. But a closer look shows the number of adult ICU beds to be close to the same in Boone and Orange counties. With all things considered, we give this claim a rating of False.
|
[] |
'The number of ICU beds is larger in Boone County by a factor of three' compared to Orange County for the University of North Carolina.
|
Contradiction
|
At the end of the first week of classes, the University of Missouri chancellor said it wasn't shutting down campus and used available hospital bed capacity as one of the reasons. Mizzou Chancellor Mun Choi compared available ICU beds between his county and the county that's home to the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. UNC sent its students home after a week of classes. A week after its start date, UNC had at least 177 positive cases of COVID-19. MU, on the other hand, had 415 students identified after its first week. (Note: The schools opened a week apart.) 'We are prepared,' Choi said at the Aug. 28 press conference. 'We have more hospital beds that are staffed and the number of ICU beds is larger in Boone County by a factor of three.' UNC-Chapel Hill is located in Orange County, in what is commonly referred to as the Research Triangle. Its campus is about 12 miles from Duke University Hospital, so it surprised us that Missouri would compare so favorably. As it turns out, our suspicions were affirmed. Tracking the numbers Christian Basi, director of the MU News Bureau, cited data from Johns Hopkins University that listed Boone County as having 150 ICU beds and Orange County as having 47 ICU beds. Or, in other words, just about three times as many at Mizzou. Johns Hopkins defines ICU beds as an 'adult bed, pediatric bed, birthing room, or newborn ICU bed' in addition to psychiatric ICU beds and detox ICU beds. Another database, from The Leapfrog Group, a non-profit organization that advocates transparency in healthcare, lists UNC Medical Center as having 82 ICU beds, many more than the Johns Hopkins data. MU hospitals were not reported to this database. So we looked for other, more direct sources: Boone County: 144 adult ICU beds Orange County: 136 adult ICU beds UNC Medical Center in Chapel Hill has 138 ICU beds and UNC Hospitals Hillsborough Campus has 18 ICU beds, according to Phil Bridges, executive director of integrated communications for UNC Health. But 20 of the beds are pediatric ICU, making the total 136 for adults. In other words, there is only an eight-bed difference between counties. Lots of choices beyond Orange County MU lies pretty much in the center of Boone County. While UNC is in Orange County, the town of Chapel Hill actually dips into three counties, including Durham and Chatham. So what does the picture look like when you go by proximity? In MU's 30-mile radius, Jefferson City's Capital Region Medical Center and SSM St. Mary's Hospital offer 24 ICU beds total, which brings the mid-Missouri total to 168. In the Chapel Hill area, there are 209 ICU beds available. These hospitals are Duke University Medical Center, Duke Regional Center, Duke Raleigh Center, UNC Rex Hospital and Wake Med Cary. When you expand the lens, it's apparent that there are regionally more beds in the Orange County area than in Boone County, although the Research Triangle population is also about eight times larger.
|
Our ruling At a press conference, Choi said, 'the number of ICU beds is larger in Boone County by a factor of three.' His math matches data from Johns Hopkins University. But a closer look shows the number of adult ICU beds to be close to the same in Boone and Orange counties. With all things considered, we give this claim a rating of False.
|
[] |
'The Biden administration has decided to cancel $0 in student debt.
|
Contradiction
|
New college graduates had just moved their tassels from one side to the other when they were hit with a cold reality check about student loans. It came in this attack from the left on President Joe Biden: 'Biden just dropped student debt cancellation down to zero. That's right, the Biden administration has decided to cancel $0 in student debt.' The claim was made May 24 in a tweet that was widely shared on Instagram, including in a post that was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Biden did not include student debt forgiveness, one of his campaign promises, in his 2022 federal budget proposal. But he is still pursuing forgiveness options, including determining whether it would be legal to do so through an executive order and calling on Congress to act. The White House has asked Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to review the president's legal authority to cancel up to $50,000 in student debt per borrower. Biden promised to forgive student debt The critical tweet came from the Gravel Institute, whose 'mission is to build the institutions the left needs to win.' It is named for Democrat Mike Gravel, the former Alaska senator and presidential candidate. The tweet was followed by another stating that Biden took student loan cancellation out of his budget because Congress won't pass it - an apparent reference to the difficulty of getting Republican support for such legislation in the Senate. Hopes for relief are high because of the rise in student debt and Biden's pledge to tackle it. Student loan debt exceeded $1.73 trillion in the first quarter of 2021, nearly double what it was 10 years earlier, according to the latest data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. The median amount of education debt in 2020 among those with any outstanding debt for their own education was between $20,000 and $24,999, according to a Federal Reserve Board survey. During the 2020 presidential campaign, Biden promised 'for debt-holders earning up to $125,000' to 'forgive all undergraduate tuition-related federal student debt' from two- and four-year public colleges and universities; and from private historically Black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions. He also pledged to take other steps to help student borrowers. No move yet to erase student debt Less than a month after Biden took office, a widely shared Facebook post claimed that Biden 'really did wipe away' student loan debt. We rated it False. He extended a pause on federal student loan payments, but did not cancel debt. Three days before the Gravel Institute's tweet, the Washington Post reported that student loan debt forgiveness was expected to be left out of Biden's 2022 federal budget proposal, according to four people who spoke on condition of anonymity. Biden's budget was released May 28 and contained no mention of student loans. But for student debt forgiveness, Biden is also pursuing a possible executive order and has expressed desire for Congress to take action. He has also drawn limits. New York Times columnist David Brooks recently interviewed Biden and described him as suspicious of generous college debt forgiveness plans suggested by the left. 'The idea that you go to Penn and you're paying a total of 70,000 bucks a year and the public should pay for that? I don't agree,' Biden said, referring to the University of Pennsylvania, a private Ivy League school. Bankrate said the news of Biden's budget plan led 'experts to believe that cancellation may not happen anytime soon.' White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in April: 'The President continues to call on Congress to cancel $10,000 in debt for student loan borrowers. That's something Congress could take an action on and he'd be happy to sign. We're still taking a closer look at our options on student loans.'
|
Our ruling A widely shared social media post claimed: 'The Biden administration has decided to cancel $0 in student debt.' Biden's 2022 federal budget proposal does not include a provision for student debt forgiveness. But Biden is still considering options, including an executive order, for student debt forgiveness. For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False.
|
[] |
'The Biden administration has decided to cancel $0 in student debt.
|
Contradiction
|
New college graduates had just moved their tassels from one side to the other when they were hit with a cold reality check about student loans. It came in this attack from the left on President Joe Biden: 'Biden just dropped student debt cancellation down to zero. That's right, the Biden administration has decided to cancel $0 in student debt.' The claim was made May 24 in a tweet that was widely shared on Instagram, including in a post that was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Biden did not include student debt forgiveness, one of his campaign promises, in his 2022 federal budget proposal. But he is still pursuing forgiveness options, including determining whether it would be legal to do so through an executive order and calling on Congress to act. The White House has asked Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to review the president's legal authority to cancel up to $50,000 in student debt per borrower. Biden promised to forgive student debt The critical tweet came from the Gravel Institute, whose 'mission is to build the institutions the left needs to win.' It is named for Democrat Mike Gravel, the former Alaska senator and presidential candidate. The tweet was followed by another stating that Biden took student loan cancellation out of his budget because Congress won't pass it - an apparent reference to the difficulty of getting Republican support for such legislation in the Senate. Hopes for relief are high because of the rise in student debt and Biden's pledge to tackle it. Student loan debt exceeded $1.73 trillion in the first quarter of 2021, nearly double what it was 10 years earlier, according to the latest data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. The median amount of education debt in 2020 among those with any outstanding debt for their own education was between $20,000 and $24,999, according to a Federal Reserve Board survey. During the 2020 presidential campaign, Biden promised 'for debt-holders earning up to $125,000' to 'forgive all undergraduate tuition-related federal student debt' from two- and four-year public colleges and universities; and from private historically Black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions. He also pledged to take other steps to help student borrowers. No move yet to erase student debt Less than a month after Biden took office, a widely shared Facebook post claimed that Biden 'really did wipe away' student loan debt. We rated it False. He extended a pause on federal student loan payments, but did not cancel debt. Three days before the Gravel Institute's tweet, the Washington Post reported that student loan debt forgiveness was expected to be left out of Biden's 2022 federal budget proposal, according to four people who spoke on condition of anonymity. Biden's budget was released May 28 and contained no mention of student loans. But for student debt forgiveness, Biden is also pursuing a possible executive order and has expressed desire for Congress to take action. He has also drawn limits. New York Times columnist David Brooks recently interviewed Biden and described him as suspicious of generous college debt forgiveness plans suggested by the left. 'The idea that you go to Penn and you're paying a total of 70,000 bucks a year and the public should pay for that? I don't agree,' Biden said, referring to the University of Pennsylvania, a private Ivy League school. Bankrate said the news of Biden's budget plan led 'experts to believe that cancellation may not happen anytime soon.' White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in April: 'The President continues to call on Congress to cancel $10,000 in debt for student loan borrowers. That's something Congress could take an action on and he'd be happy to sign. We're still taking a closer look at our options on student loans.'
|
Our ruling A widely shared social media post claimed: 'The Biden administration has decided to cancel $0 in student debt.' Biden's 2022 federal budget proposal does not include a provision for student debt forgiveness. But Biden is still considering options, including an executive order, for student debt forgiveness. For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False.
|
[] |
Greta Thunberg 'going on hunger strike until Trump is removed.
|
Contradiction
|
The headline of a story on a web page titled 'Washington News Press' claims that Greta Thunberg, the 17-year-old climate activist from Sweden, has decided to go on a hunger strike until President Donald Trump is removed from office. If the premise of that story doesn't seem suspect, perhaps this quote, attributed to Thunberg, will help you reconsider: 'This is what Ghandi (sic) did. I saw the movie. The balance of a human life will outweigh the ignorance and douchebaggery of Trump. I will subsist for as long as I need on the elements of the air and the nutrients of the spirits that flow from mother nature through the wind. My will to heal this world is strong.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because the supposed news story originated on bustatroll.org, a self-described satirical website. It was published on Dec. 19, 2019, with the labels 'impeachment satire' and 'warm fuzzy fan fiction.' The poached story that appears on 'Washington News Press' has no such caveats, and as it gets shared widely on Facebook, users are missing that context. Thunberg has not announced a hunger strike in protest of Trump. We rate this post False.
|
We rate this post False.
|
[] |
'In certain swing states, there were more votes than people who voted, and in big numbers.
|
Contradiction
|
In a late-night tweet, President Donald Trump highlighted an election statistic that he thought ought to raise eyebrows. 'In certain swing states, there were more votes than people who voted, and in big numbers,' Trump tweeted at 11:37 p.m. ET Nov. 22. 'Does that not really matter?' In certain swing states, there were more votes than people who voted, and in big numbers. Does that not really matter? Stopping Poll Watchers, voting for unsuspecting people, fake ballots and so much more. Such egregious conduct. We will win!- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 23, 2020 There is no reading of this claim that makes it accurate. Trump might be recycling the inaccurate claim that in pivotal states, there were more votes than registered voters. Charges of that sort circulated quickly right after Election Day, and they were simply wrong. Trump didn't specify which states he had in mind - and our request for details from the White House and the Trump campaign went unanswered. So we focused on the states where Trump's lawyers have most aggressively challenged results: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In each of those, there are far more registered voters than votes cast. In Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the difference is more than 2 million people in each state. At 387,612, Wisconsin has the narrowest gap, but that doesn't include same-day registrations, so the exact number will change. In any event, the number of registered voters greatly exceeds the number of votes counted. Trump's tweet could also be interpreted as him saying large numbers of people voted twice - once by mail, and once in person. But there is no evidence of that happening 'in big numbers' either. The National Association of Secretaries of State tracks each state's approach to ensuring one voter cannot cast two ballots. Basically, it all comes down to software that links votes to voters, no matter how a ballot comes in. 'States have databases that record the receipt of a ballot from a voter and mark that voter as having voted,' said Philip Stark, University of California-Berkeley election security researcher. 'If you vote by mail and your ballot was received, you would not be permitted to cast a vote in person at the polls; you would be marked as having voted already.' There have been instances when voters show up to vote in person before their mailed ballot arrives. The same voter database process works that direction, too. The voter's appearance at the polling station is recorded and if a mailed ballot appears, it is saved, but not counted.
|
Our ruling Trump said that in key swing states, there were more votes than people voting, 'in big numbers.' There is zero proof. If he meant there were more votes cast than registered voters, election data show the opposite. In the six key states we examined, there were between several hundred thousand and 2 million more registered voters than votes cast. If he meant that there was a lot of double voting, his lawyers have provided no evidence to back that up. States use careful systems to prevent that from taking place. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
|
[
"106080-proof-00-5f7342371441ec870d852b0eddaba38b.jpg"
] |
'In certain swing states, there were more votes than people who voted, and in big numbers.
|
Contradiction
|
In a late-night tweet, President Donald Trump highlighted an election statistic that he thought ought to raise eyebrows. 'In certain swing states, there were more votes than people who voted, and in big numbers,' Trump tweeted at 11:37 p.m. ET Nov. 22. 'Does that not really matter?' In certain swing states, there were more votes than people who voted, and in big numbers. Does that not really matter? Stopping Poll Watchers, voting for unsuspecting people, fake ballots and so much more. Such egregious conduct. We will win!- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 23, 2020 There is no reading of this claim that makes it accurate. Trump might be recycling the inaccurate claim that in pivotal states, there were more votes than registered voters. Charges of that sort circulated quickly right after Election Day, and they were simply wrong. Trump didn't specify which states he had in mind - and our request for details from the White House and the Trump campaign went unanswered. So we focused on the states where Trump's lawyers have most aggressively challenged results: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In each of those, there are far more registered voters than votes cast. In Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the difference is more than 2 million people in each state. At 387,612, Wisconsin has the narrowest gap, but that doesn't include same-day registrations, so the exact number will change. In any event, the number of registered voters greatly exceeds the number of votes counted. Trump's tweet could also be interpreted as him saying large numbers of people voted twice - once by mail, and once in person. But there is no evidence of that happening 'in big numbers' either. The National Association of Secretaries of State tracks each state's approach to ensuring one voter cannot cast two ballots. Basically, it all comes down to software that links votes to voters, no matter how a ballot comes in. 'States have databases that record the receipt of a ballot from a voter and mark that voter as having voted,' said Philip Stark, University of California-Berkeley election security researcher. 'If you vote by mail and your ballot was received, you would not be permitted to cast a vote in person at the polls; you would be marked as having voted already.' There have been instances when voters show up to vote in person before their mailed ballot arrives. The same voter database process works that direction, too. The voter's appearance at the polling station is recorded and if a mailed ballot appears, it is saved, but not counted.
|
Our ruling Trump said that in key swing states, there were more votes than people voting, 'in big numbers.' There is zero proof. If he meant there were more votes cast than registered voters, election data show the opposite. In the six key states we examined, there were between several hundred thousand and 2 million more registered voters than votes cast. If he meant that there was a lot of double voting, his lawyers have provided no evidence to back that up. States use careful systems to prevent that from taking place. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
|
[
"106080-proof-00-5f7342371441ec870d852b0eddaba38b.jpg"
] |
'In certain swing states, there were more votes than people who voted, and in big numbers.
|
Contradiction
|
In a late-night tweet, President Donald Trump highlighted an election statistic that he thought ought to raise eyebrows. 'In certain swing states, there were more votes than people who voted, and in big numbers,' Trump tweeted at 11:37 p.m. ET Nov. 22. 'Does that not really matter?' In certain swing states, there were more votes than people who voted, and in big numbers. Does that not really matter? Stopping Poll Watchers, voting for unsuspecting people, fake ballots and so much more. Such egregious conduct. We will win!- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 23, 2020 There is no reading of this claim that makes it accurate. Trump might be recycling the inaccurate claim that in pivotal states, there were more votes than registered voters. Charges of that sort circulated quickly right after Election Day, and they were simply wrong. Trump didn't specify which states he had in mind - and our request for details from the White House and the Trump campaign went unanswered. So we focused on the states where Trump's lawyers have most aggressively challenged results: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In each of those, there are far more registered voters than votes cast. In Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the difference is more than 2 million people in each state. At 387,612, Wisconsin has the narrowest gap, but that doesn't include same-day registrations, so the exact number will change. In any event, the number of registered voters greatly exceeds the number of votes counted. Trump's tweet could also be interpreted as him saying large numbers of people voted twice - once by mail, and once in person. But there is no evidence of that happening 'in big numbers' either. The National Association of Secretaries of State tracks each state's approach to ensuring one voter cannot cast two ballots. Basically, it all comes down to software that links votes to voters, no matter how a ballot comes in. 'States have databases that record the receipt of a ballot from a voter and mark that voter as having voted,' said Philip Stark, University of California-Berkeley election security researcher. 'If you vote by mail and your ballot was received, you would not be permitted to cast a vote in person at the polls; you would be marked as having voted already.' There have been instances when voters show up to vote in person before their mailed ballot arrives. The same voter database process works that direction, too. The voter's appearance at the polling station is recorded and if a mailed ballot appears, it is saved, but not counted.
|
Our ruling Trump said that in key swing states, there were more votes than people voting, 'in big numbers.' There is zero proof. If he meant there were more votes cast than registered voters, election data show the opposite. In the six key states we examined, there were between several hundred thousand and 2 million more registered voters than votes cast. If he meant that there was a lot of double voting, his lawyers have provided no evidence to back that up. States use careful systems to prevent that from taking place. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
|
[
"106080-proof-00-5f7342371441ec870d852b0eddaba38b.jpg"
] |
A banner with a swastika, 'Trump' and 'Pence' is from a Michigan coronavirus protest.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post shows a photo to suggest that Nazi sympathizers are also Donald Trump fans and protesting stay-at-home orders in Michigan. The image is titled, 'And there it is - flag flown during Michigan protest in Lansing yesterday.' A man holds a banner with the Nazi swastika in the middle. 'Trump' is handwritten above the swastika and 'Pence' is handwritten below it. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The photo shared in the post is not from the Lansing rally, which was held April 15. The photo dates back to at least March 2, when a Twitter user included it in a tweet. The user wrote that the photo showed counterprotesters at a rally for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders that she attended at Ann Morrison Park in Boise, Idaho. It's not clear from the photo whether the banner was in support of President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, or whether it was meant to smear them. Video that the fact-checking organization Snopes linked to appears to show the same man holding the banner at the Boise event. Boise news media reported that hundreds of people on Feb. 29 had marched from the capitol to the park, where an event was held in support of Sanders, who ended his campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination on April 8.
|
Our ruling A post containing a photo of a man carrying a banner that bears a swastika and the last names of the president and the vice president is not from a demonstration in Lansing, Mich., that protested stay-at-home coronavirus orders. We rate the post False.
|
[
"106086-proof-15-3c6522cb548f73e66f4a3a60f10913ee.jpg"
] |
A banner with a swastika, 'Trump' and 'Pence' is from a Michigan coronavirus protest.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post shows a photo to suggest that Nazi sympathizers are also Donald Trump fans and protesting stay-at-home orders in Michigan. The image is titled, 'And there it is - flag flown during Michigan protest in Lansing yesterday.' A man holds a banner with the Nazi swastika in the middle. 'Trump' is handwritten above the swastika and 'Pence' is handwritten below it. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The photo shared in the post is not from the Lansing rally, which was held April 15. The photo dates back to at least March 2, when a Twitter user included it in a tweet. The user wrote that the photo showed counterprotesters at a rally for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders that she attended at Ann Morrison Park in Boise, Idaho. It's not clear from the photo whether the banner was in support of President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, or whether it was meant to smear them. Video that the fact-checking organization Snopes linked to appears to show the same man holding the banner at the Boise event. Boise news media reported that hundreds of people on Feb. 29 had marched from the capitol to the park, where an event was held in support of Sanders, who ended his campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination on April 8.
|
Our ruling A post containing a photo of a man carrying a banner that bears a swastika and the last names of the president and the vice president is not from a demonstration in Lansing, Mich., that protested stay-at-home coronavirus orders. We rate the post False.
|
[
"106086-proof-15-3c6522cb548f73e66f4a3a60f10913ee.jpg"
] |
'It's actually the safest time to fly.
|
Contradiction
|
Since the outbreak of COVID-19, airline stocks have plummeted. Companies like Delta, American and United have cut or reduced flights. Photos show empty airport terminals around the world. On March 13, Fox & Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt took those signs to mean that now is a great time to take a trip. 'It's actually the safest time to fly,' she said during the Fox News morning show. 'Everyone I know that's flying right now, terminals are pretty much dead - ghost towns.' As of March 12, more than 125,000 people have been infected with COVID-19 in 117 countries, with 4,613 deaths. In the United States, there have been 1,629 confirmed cases in 46 states, with 41 deaths. In a March 11 address, President Donald Trump announced a sweeping ban on travel from 26 European countries. While the White House maintains the move will slow the spread of the coronavirus, some experts doubt the restrictions will have much of an effect. PolitiFact wanted to know whether Earhardt was correct to say that now is the safest time to fly. We reached out to Earhardt for evidence, but we haven't heard back. Official guidance on COVID-19 contradicts what she said on Fox News. Officials warn at-risk groups against traveling Officials are advising older Americans and those with chronic health conditions to reconsider their domestic and international travel plans to avoid COVID-19. On its website, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there are 'several things you should consider when deciding whether it is safe for you to travel' in the U.S., including: Is COVID-19 spreading where you're going? Will you or someone you're traveling with be in close contact with others during your trip? Are you or someone you're traveling with at risk of severe illness if you get COVID-19? Do you live with someone who is older or has a severe chronic health condition? Is COVID-19 spreading where you live? If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then you may want to reconsider your travel plans to avoid potentially spreading or contracting the virus. 'CDC's recommendations differ depending on the location,' said agency spokeswoman Leslie Dorigo in an email. 'CDC recommends that older adults and people of any age with serious chronic medical conditions should consider postponing nonessential travel because they are at increased risk for severe disease.' That's because older and immunocompromised people, as well as those with chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension, are more at risk of suffering complications from COVID-19. Younger people, even though they may not be as susceptible to the coronavirus, can still serve as carriers for the virus, potentially infecting new communities through travel. RELATED: Fact-checking Donald Trump's mistakes about European travel due to coronavirus The World Health Organization has similar guidance for international travelers, although it advises against travel bans like the one implemented by the Trump administration. 'It is prudent for travellers who are sick to delay or avoid travel to affected areas, in particular for elderly travellers and people with chronic diseases or underlying health conditions,' read its recommendations. 'General recommendations for personal hygiene, cough etiquette and keeping a distance of at least one metre from persons showing symptoms remain particularly important for all travellers.' US and other countries issue travel warnings The U.S. State Department is advising all citizens to reconsider travel abroad due to the spread of COVID-19. Other countries have issued similar travel warnings. Since January, the State Department has issued several travel advisories related to the COVID-19 outbreak. As of March 13, China and Iran had 'Level 4: Do Not Travel' advisories - the highest issued by the State Department - while countries like Azerbaijan, Italy and South Korea were labeled as 'Level 3: Reconsider Travel.' On March 11, the State Department also issued a global health advisory asking Americans to reconsider traveling abroad. Source: WHO 'Many areas throughout the world are now experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks and taking action that may limit traveler mobility, including quarantines and border restrictions,' reads the Level 3 advisory. 'Even countries, jurisdictions, or areas where cases have not been reported may restrict travel without notice.' Other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, have issued similar travel advisories. 'It may not be safe to fly, especially if you're going to one of the COVID-19 hotspots,' said Richard Watanabe, professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California, in an email. 'Generally speaking, it is just unwise to be traveling in any form right now.' How safe are airplanes? If you do have to travel via airplane, you're unlikely to get sick while on board, officials say - as long as you practice good hygiene. The WHO says there is little risk of disease transmission during a flight, mostly due to the way cabin air is filtered. During the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), another human coronavirus, in 2003, the risk of disease transmission on airplanes was found to be very low. Plus, airlines are taking extra steps to clean airplanes and slow the spread of COVID-19. 'Airlines are being more cautious about passengers, they're doing extra cleaning and disinfecting and they are restricting flights,' Watanabe said. 'So one might consider flying to be safer than ever.' Still, it is possible to catch something from an infected person seated in the same area as you. RELATED: Stop sharing myths about preventing the coronavirus. Here are 4 real ways to protect yourself According to the CDC, COVID-19 spreads in two primary ways: close person-to-person contact (within about six feet) and respiratory droplets in coughs and sneezes. If someone with the virus sneezes, those germs could land on surfaces around them, such as airplane seats and armrests. Then, an uninfected person who touches that same surface and then touches their nose, eyes or mouth could contract the virus. If you do need to travel by plane, public health officials advise practicing good personal hygiene. The ways to prevent the spread of the coronavirus include washing your hands with soap and water, covering coughs and sneezes, disinfecting frequently touched surfaces, and avoiding people who are sick. 'We are trying to understand the 'rules' that govern transmission of COVID-19 and relative risk from people at different stages of disease, and/or contaminated surfaces and more,' said Dr. Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina, in an email. 'It seems unwise for commentators to offer travel advice until we who are more expert know far more.'
|
Our ruling Earhardt said that 'it's actually the safest time to fly.' Officials from the CDC and WHO are advising older people and those with chronic health conditions to reconsider travel in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The State Department has issued travel advisories for several individual countries, as well as a global health advisory, related to the disease outbreak. Other countries have taken similar steps. While the disease transmission on airplanes is thought to be a low risk, it is still possible to contract the coronavirus through close personal contact and respiratory droplets. Earhardt's statement is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"106119-proof-29-e11b802993ed0ed9695492e5716a39dc.jpg"
] |
'It's actually the safest time to fly.
|
Contradiction
|
Since the outbreak of COVID-19, airline stocks have plummeted. Companies like Delta, American and United have cut or reduced flights. Photos show empty airport terminals around the world. On March 13, Fox & Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt took those signs to mean that now is a great time to take a trip. 'It's actually the safest time to fly,' she said during the Fox News morning show. 'Everyone I know that's flying right now, terminals are pretty much dead - ghost towns.' As of March 12, more than 125,000 people have been infected with COVID-19 in 117 countries, with 4,613 deaths. In the United States, there have been 1,629 confirmed cases in 46 states, with 41 deaths. In a March 11 address, President Donald Trump announced a sweeping ban on travel from 26 European countries. While the White House maintains the move will slow the spread of the coronavirus, some experts doubt the restrictions will have much of an effect. PolitiFact wanted to know whether Earhardt was correct to say that now is the safest time to fly. We reached out to Earhardt for evidence, but we haven't heard back. Official guidance on COVID-19 contradicts what she said on Fox News. Officials warn at-risk groups against traveling Officials are advising older Americans and those with chronic health conditions to reconsider their domestic and international travel plans to avoid COVID-19. On its website, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there are 'several things you should consider when deciding whether it is safe for you to travel' in the U.S., including: Is COVID-19 spreading where you're going? Will you or someone you're traveling with be in close contact with others during your trip? Are you or someone you're traveling with at risk of severe illness if you get COVID-19? Do you live with someone who is older or has a severe chronic health condition? Is COVID-19 spreading where you live? If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then you may want to reconsider your travel plans to avoid potentially spreading or contracting the virus. 'CDC's recommendations differ depending on the location,' said agency spokeswoman Leslie Dorigo in an email. 'CDC recommends that older adults and people of any age with serious chronic medical conditions should consider postponing nonessential travel because they are at increased risk for severe disease.' That's because older and immunocompromised people, as well as those with chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension, are more at risk of suffering complications from COVID-19. Younger people, even though they may not be as susceptible to the coronavirus, can still serve as carriers for the virus, potentially infecting new communities through travel. RELATED: Fact-checking Donald Trump's mistakes about European travel due to coronavirus The World Health Organization has similar guidance for international travelers, although it advises against travel bans like the one implemented by the Trump administration. 'It is prudent for travellers who are sick to delay or avoid travel to affected areas, in particular for elderly travellers and people with chronic diseases or underlying health conditions,' read its recommendations. 'General recommendations for personal hygiene, cough etiquette and keeping a distance of at least one metre from persons showing symptoms remain particularly important for all travellers.' US and other countries issue travel warnings The U.S. State Department is advising all citizens to reconsider travel abroad due to the spread of COVID-19. Other countries have issued similar travel warnings. Since January, the State Department has issued several travel advisories related to the COVID-19 outbreak. As of March 13, China and Iran had 'Level 4: Do Not Travel' advisories - the highest issued by the State Department - while countries like Azerbaijan, Italy and South Korea were labeled as 'Level 3: Reconsider Travel.' On March 11, the State Department also issued a global health advisory asking Americans to reconsider traveling abroad. Source: WHO 'Many areas throughout the world are now experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks and taking action that may limit traveler mobility, including quarantines and border restrictions,' reads the Level 3 advisory. 'Even countries, jurisdictions, or areas where cases have not been reported may restrict travel without notice.' Other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, have issued similar travel advisories. 'It may not be safe to fly, especially if you're going to one of the COVID-19 hotspots,' said Richard Watanabe, professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California, in an email. 'Generally speaking, it is just unwise to be traveling in any form right now.' How safe are airplanes? If you do have to travel via airplane, you're unlikely to get sick while on board, officials say - as long as you practice good hygiene. The WHO says there is little risk of disease transmission during a flight, mostly due to the way cabin air is filtered. During the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), another human coronavirus, in 2003, the risk of disease transmission on airplanes was found to be very low. Plus, airlines are taking extra steps to clean airplanes and slow the spread of COVID-19. 'Airlines are being more cautious about passengers, they're doing extra cleaning and disinfecting and they are restricting flights,' Watanabe said. 'So one might consider flying to be safer than ever.' Still, it is possible to catch something from an infected person seated in the same area as you. RELATED: Stop sharing myths about preventing the coronavirus. Here are 4 real ways to protect yourself According to the CDC, COVID-19 spreads in two primary ways: close person-to-person contact (within about six feet) and respiratory droplets in coughs and sneezes. If someone with the virus sneezes, those germs could land on surfaces around them, such as airplane seats and armrests. Then, an uninfected person who touches that same surface and then touches their nose, eyes or mouth could contract the virus. If you do need to travel by plane, public health officials advise practicing good personal hygiene. The ways to prevent the spread of the coronavirus include washing your hands with soap and water, covering coughs and sneezes, disinfecting frequently touched surfaces, and avoiding people who are sick. 'We are trying to understand the 'rules' that govern transmission of COVID-19 and relative risk from people at different stages of disease, and/or contaminated surfaces and more,' said Dr. Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina, in an email. 'It seems unwise for commentators to offer travel advice until we who are more expert know far more.'
|
Our ruling Earhardt said that 'it's actually the safest time to fly.' Officials from the CDC and WHO are advising older people and those with chronic health conditions to reconsider travel in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The State Department has issued travel advisories for several individual countries, as well as a global health advisory, related to the disease outbreak. Other countries have taken similar steps. While the disease transmission on airplanes is thought to be a low risk, it is still possible to contract the coronavirus through close personal contact and respiratory droplets. Earhardt's statement is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"106119-proof-29-e11b802993ed0ed9695492e5716a39dc.jpg"
] |
'It's actually the safest time to fly.
|
Contradiction
|
Since the outbreak of COVID-19, airline stocks have plummeted. Companies like Delta, American and United have cut or reduced flights. Photos show empty airport terminals around the world. On March 13, Fox & Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt took those signs to mean that now is a great time to take a trip. 'It's actually the safest time to fly,' she said during the Fox News morning show. 'Everyone I know that's flying right now, terminals are pretty much dead - ghost towns.' As of March 12, more than 125,000 people have been infected with COVID-19 in 117 countries, with 4,613 deaths. In the United States, there have been 1,629 confirmed cases in 46 states, with 41 deaths. In a March 11 address, President Donald Trump announced a sweeping ban on travel from 26 European countries. While the White House maintains the move will slow the spread of the coronavirus, some experts doubt the restrictions will have much of an effect. PolitiFact wanted to know whether Earhardt was correct to say that now is the safest time to fly. We reached out to Earhardt for evidence, but we haven't heard back. Official guidance on COVID-19 contradicts what she said on Fox News. Officials warn at-risk groups against traveling Officials are advising older Americans and those with chronic health conditions to reconsider their domestic and international travel plans to avoid COVID-19. On its website, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there are 'several things you should consider when deciding whether it is safe for you to travel' in the U.S., including: Is COVID-19 spreading where you're going? Will you or someone you're traveling with be in close contact with others during your trip? Are you or someone you're traveling with at risk of severe illness if you get COVID-19? Do you live with someone who is older or has a severe chronic health condition? Is COVID-19 spreading where you live? If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then you may want to reconsider your travel plans to avoid potentially spreading or contracting the virus. 'CDC's recommendations differ depending on the location,' said agency spokeswoman Leslie Dorigo in an email. 'CDC recommends that older adults and people of any age with serious chronic medical conditions should consider postponing nonessential travel because they are at increased risk for severe disease.' That's because older and immunocompromised people, as well as those with chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension, are more at risk of suffering complications from COVID-19. Younger people, even though they may not be as susceptible to the coronavirus, can still serve as carriers for the virus, potentially infecting new communities through travel. RELATED: Fact-checking Donald Trump's mistakes about European travel due to coronavirus The World Health Organization has similar guidance for international travelers, although it advises against travel bans like the one implemented by the Trump administration. 'It is prudent for travellers who are sick to delay or avoid travel to affected areas, in particular for elderly travellers and people with chronic diseases or underlying health conditions,' read its recommendations. 'General recommendations for personal hygiene, cough etiquette and keeping a distance of at least one metre from persons showing symptoms remain particularly important for all travellers.' US and other countries issue travel warnings The U.S. State Department is advising all citizens to reconsider travel abroad due to the spread of COVID-19. Other countries have issued similar travel warnings. Since January, the State Department has issued several travel advisories related to the COVID-19 outbreak. As of March 13, China and Iran had 'Level 4: Do Not Travel' advisories - the highest issued by the State Department - while countries like Azerbaijan, Italy and South Korea were labeled as 'Level 3: Reconsider Travel.' On March 11, the State Department also issued a global health advisory asking Americans to reconsider traveling abroad. Source: WHO 'Many areas throughout the world are now experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks and taking action that may limit traveler mobility, including quarantines and border restrictions,' reads the Level 3 advisory. 'Even countries, jurisdictions, or areas where cases have not been reported may restrict travel without notice.' Other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, have issued similar travel advisories. 'It may not be safe to fly, especially if you're going to one of the COVID-19 hotspots,' said Richard Watanabe, professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California, in an email. 'Generally speaking, it is just unwise to be traveling in any form right now.' How safe are airplanes? If you do have to travel via airplane, you're unlikely to get sick while on board, officials say - as long as you practice good hygiene. The WHO says there is little risk of disease transmission during a flight, mostly due to the way cabin air is filtered. During the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), another human coronavirus, in 2003, the risk of disease transmission on airplanes was found to be very low. Plus, airlines are taking extra steps to clean airplanes and slow the spread of COVID-19. 'Airlines are being more cautious about passengers, they're doing extra cleaning and disinfecting and they are restricting flights,' Watanabe said. 'So one might consider flying to be safer than ever.' Still, it is possible to catch something from an infected person seated in the same area as you. RELATED: Stop sharing myths about preventing the coronavirus. Here are 4 real ways to protect yourself According to the CDC, COVID-19 spreads in two primary ways: close person-to-person contact (within about six feet) and respiratory droplets in coughs and sneezes. If someone with the virus sneezes, those germs could land on surfaces around them, such as airplane seats and armrests. Then, an uninfected person who touches that same surface and then touches their nose, eyes or mouth could contract the virus. If you do need to travel by plane, public health officials advise practicing good personal hygiene. The ways to prevent the spread of the coronavirus include washing your hands with soap and water, covering coughs and sneezes, disinfecting frequently touched surfaces, and avoiding people who are sick. 'We are trying to understand the 'rules' that govern transmission of COVID-19 and relative risk from people at different stages of disease, and/or contaminated surfaces and more,' said Dr. Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina, in an email. 'It seems unwise for commentators to offer travel advice until we who are more expert know far more.'
|
Our ruling Earhardt said that 'it's actually the safest time to fly.' Officials from the CDC and WHO are advising older people and those with chronic health conditions to reconsider travel in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The State Department has issued travel advisories for several individual countries, as well as a global health advisory, related to the disease outbreak. Other countries have taken similar steps. While the disease transmission on airplanes is thought to be a low risk, it is still possible to contract the coronavirus through close personal contact and respiratory droplets. Earhardt's statement is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"106119-proof-29-e11b802993ed0ed9695492e5716a39dc.jpg"
] |
Sen. Kamala Harris 'may have broken laws' when she visited a voting site in Ohio
|
Contradiction
|
Social media posts falsely suggest that Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, broke Ohio election laws when she addressed voters outside of an early voting site in Cleveland. 'Three strikes for Kamala's campaign events Sunday, yells at people in line to vote in Ohio, may have broken laws,' stated a headline on DJHJ Media, a conservative opinion website. A link to the article was posted on Facebook Oct. 26. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The DJHJ story included a tweet by conservative actor James Woods that showed a video clip of Harris speaking Oct. 24 outside the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections building. Woods wrote 'you can literally be arrested for campaigning at a polling station.' Neither the tweet nor the DJHJ article provided proof that Harris violated state laws restricting campaigning near a polling place. County election officials told PolitiFact that Harris followed the law. Ohio law sets boundaries to prevent campaigning too close to voters States often have laws prohibiting electioneering at polling sites in an effort to protect voters from feeling intimidated. These laws usually set boundaries explaining how far people campaigning must stand from voters or an election site. Ohio laws state that near polling sites: No person can engage in any kind of election campaigning within 10 feet of any voter waiting in line. U.S. flags shall be placed 100 feet from a polling place to mark the zone where people can't campaign. No person can 'solicit or in any manner attempt to influence any elector in casting the elector's vote.' Harris spoke to a long line of voters on the first day of early in-person voting in Cuyahoga County, according to the press pool report by Buzzfeed reporter Henry Gomez. There was a 'massively long line of early voters snaked around the building on Euclid Avenue, down East 30th Street and around the block,' he wrote. Harris spoke to the crowd using a cordless microphone before walking up and down the stretch of East 30th between Euclid and Chester and waving at voters. In a 39-second video by Seth Richardson, a Cleveland.com politics reporter, Harris didn't mention any candidates on the ballot but gave a pep talk about the importance of voting. 'Thank you for voting and voting early. Your vote is your voice, your voice is your vote, There is so much at stake - don't let anyone ever take your power. .... You are going to make the difference,' she said. Harris posted an 18-second video of the event on Twitter. After her brief comments, she danced to some music being played across the street by a DJ who called out 'Senator! Senator! Senator!' according to the press pool report. As for the 10 foot rule, eyeballing the video, Harris appears to be more than 10 feet from the voters lined up on the sidewalk. She's separated from the line by two traffic lanes, which are typically about 10 feet wide in urban areas. We couldn't see the flags in the Twitter videos of Harris marking the 100 foot barrier. But Harris was speaking to voters in a line that extended beyond the election office. WKSU, public radio in Ohio, wrote that Harris 'made a brief stop across the street from the line - and outside the 100 foot neutral zone - to thank people for voting.' Tony Kaloger, Cuyahoga's election and compliance administrator, sent us a statement about the unannounced visit by Harris to the earling voting site. Several local elections employees including the director 'were outside during the majority of her stop and witnessed no violations of Ohio's electioneering laws,' the statement said. Harris did not come onto the property of the elections center. She was surrounded by Secret Service agents, and no voter or bystander was permitted to approach her. 'There are several officers on-site at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections Early Vote Center tasked mainly with managing traffic and voter flow,' the statement said. 'They will step in to assist our staff with the enforcement of the neutral zone (100 feet from the entrance or 10 feet from the voters in line when the line extends further than 100 feet) as necessary. No assistance was required during the Senator's visit.' The county pointed to a two-page excerpt from a 2019 directive from Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, that explains where people are allowed to campaign. Part of that directive says: 'Nothing in Ohio's election laws prohibit a person or entity from campaigning, displaying campaign material, or distributing food outside of the neutral zone of a polling location (i.e., outside of the flags marking the 100 foot barrier or beyond 10 feet from any elector waiting in line to vote, if the line to vote extends beyond the flags).' Sabrina Singh, a spokesperson for Harris, said Harris 'stood behind the 100 foot boundary line beyond the neutral zone.'
|
Our ruling A headline in a story posted on Facebook stated that Harris 'may have broken laws' when she campaigned outside a voting site in Ohio. A county election official said that Harris did not violate laws against electioneering near a polling site. Police officers were on site during the visit by Harris and are allowed to help election officials enforce the neutral zone, but the county said that wasn't required. We rate this statement False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"106147-proof-35-254310a2f48f4d44a2e5f0e77a0b7f16.jpg"
] |
Sen. Kamala Harris 'may have broken laws' when she visited a voting site in Ohio
|
Contradiction
|
Social media posts falsely suggest that Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, broke Ohio election laws when she addressed voters outside of an early voting site in Cleveland. 'Three strikes for Kamala's campaign events Sunday, yells at people in line to vote in Ohio, may have broken laws,' stated a headline on DJHJ Media, a conservative opinion website. A link to the article was posted on Facebook Oct. 26. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The DJHJ story included a tweet by conservative actor James Woods that showed a video clip of Harris speaking Oct. 24 outside the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections building. Woods wrote 'you can literally be arrested for campaigning at a polling station.' Neither the tweet nor the DJHJ article provided proof that Harris violated state laws restricting campaigning near a polling place. County election officials told PolitiFact that Harris followed the law. Ohio law sets boundaries to prevent campaigning too close to voters States often have laws prohibiting electioneering at polling sites in an effort to protect voters from feeling intimidated. These laws usually set boundaries explaining how far people campaigning must stand from voters or an election site. Ohio laws state that near polling sites: No person can engage in any kind of election campaigning within 10 feet of any voter waiting in line. U.S. flags shall be placed 100 feet from a polling place to mark the zone where people can't campaign. No person can 'solicit or in any manner attempt to influence any elector in casting the elector's vote.' Harris spoke to a long line of voters on the first day of early in-person voting in Cuyahoga County, according to the press pool report by Buzzfeed reporter Henry Gomez. There was a 'massively long line of early voters snaked around the building on Euclid Avenue, down East 30th Street and around the block,' he wrote. Harris spoke to the crowd using a cordless microphone before walking up and down the stretch of East 30th between Euclid and Chester and waving at voters. In a 39-second video by Seth Richardson, a Cleveland.com politics reporter, Harris didn't mention any candidates on the ballot but gave a pep talk about the importance of voting. 'Thank you for voting and voting early. Your vote is your voice, your voice is your vote, There is so much at stake - don't let anyone ever take your power. .... You are going to make the difference,' she said. Harris posted an 18-second video of the event on Twitter. After her brief comments, she danced to some music being played across the street by a DJ who called out 'Senator! Senator! Senator!' according to the press pool report. As for the 10 foot rule, eyeballing the video, Harris appears to be more than 10 feet from the voters lined up on the sidewalk. She's separated from the line by two traffic lanes, which are typically about 10 feet wide in urban areas. We couldn't see the flags in the Twitter videos of Harris marking the 100 foot barrier. But Harris was speaking to voters in a line that extended beyond the election office. WKSU, public radio in Ohio, wrote that Harris 'made a brief stop across the street from the line - and outside the 100 foot neutral zone - to thank people for voting.' Tony Kaloger, Cuyahoga's election and compliance administrator, sent us a statement about the unannounced visit by Harris to the earling voting site. Several local elections employees including the director 'were outside during the majority of her stop and witnessed no violations of Ohio's electioneering laws,' the statement said. Harris did not come onto the property of the elections center. She was surrounded by Secret Service agents, and no voter or bystander was permitted to approach her. 'There are several officers on-site at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections Early Vote Center tasked mainly with managing traffic and voter flow,' the statement said. 'They will step in to assist our staff with the enforcement of the neutral zone (100 feet from the entrance or 10 feet from the voters in line when the line extends further than 100 feet) as necessary. No assistance was required during the Senator's visit.' The county pointed to a two-page excerpt from a 2019 directive from Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, that explains where people are allowed to campaign. Part of that directive says: 'Nothing in Ohio's election laws prohibit a person or entity from campaigning, displaying campaign material, or distributing food outside of the neutral zone of a polling location (i.e., outside of the flags marking the 100 foot barrier or beyond 10 feet from any elector waiting in line to vote, if the line to vote extends beyond the flags).' Sabrina Singh, a spokesperson for Harris, said Harris 'stood behind the 100 foot boundary line beyond the neutral zone.'
|
Our ruling A headline in a story posted on Facebook stated that Harris 'may have broken laws' when she campaigned outside a voting site in Ohio. A county election official said that Harris did not violate laws against electioneering near a polling site. Police officers were on site during the visit by Harris and are allowed to help election officials enforce the neutral zone, but the county said that wasn't required. We rate this statement False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"106147-proof-35-254310a2f48f4d44a2e5f0e77a0b7f16.jpg"
] |
Sen. Kamala Harris 'may have broken laws' when she visited a voting site in Ohio
|
Contradiction
|
Social media posts falsely suggest that Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, broke Ohio election laws when she addressed voters outside of an early voting site in Cleveland. 'Three strikes for Kamala's campaign events Sunday, yells at people in line to vote in Ohio, may have broken laws,' stated a headline on DJHJ Media, a conservative opinion website. A link to the article was posted on Facebook Oct. 26. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The DJHJ story included a tweet by conservative actor James Woods that showed a video clip of Harris speaking Oct. 24 outside the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections building. Woods wrote 'you can literally be arrested for campaigning at a polling station.' Neither the tweet nor the DJHJ article provided proof that Harris violated state laws restricting campaigning near a polling place. County election officials told PolitiFact that Harris followed the law. Ohio law sets boundaries to prevent campaigning too close to voters States often have laws prohibiting electioneering at polling sites in an effort to protect voters from feeling intimidated. These laws usually set boundaries explaining how far people campaigning must stand from voters or an election site. Ohio laws state that near polling sites: No person can engage in any kind of election campaigning within 10 feet of any voter waiting in line. U.S. flags shall be placed 100 feet from a polling place to mark the zone where people can't campaign. No person can 'solicit or in any manner attempt to influence any elector in casting the elector's vote.' Harris spoke to a long line of voters on the first day of early in-person voting in Cuyahoga County, according to the press pool report by Buzzfeed reporter Henry Gomez. There was a 'massively long line of early voters snaked around the building on Euclid Avenue, down East 30th Street and around the block,' he wrote. Harris spoke to the crowd using a cordless microphone before walking up and down the stretch of East 30th between Euclid and Chester and waving at voters. In a 39-second video by Seth Richardson, a Cleveland.com politics reporter, Harris didn't mention any candidates on the ballot but gave a pep talk about the importance of voting. 'Thank you for voting and voting early. Your vote is your voice, your voice is your vote, There is so much at stake - don't let anyone ever take your power. .... You are going to make the difference,' she said. Harris posted an 18-second video of the event on Twitter. After her brief comments, she danced to some music being played across the street by a DJ who called out 'Senator! Senator! Senator!' according to the press pool report. As for the 10 foot rule, eyeballing the video, Harris appears to be more than 10 feet from the voters lined up on the sidewalk. She's separated from the line by two traffic lanes, which are typically about 10 feet wide in urban areas. We couldn't see the flags in the Twitter videos of Harris marking the 100 foot barrier. But Harris was speaking to voters in a line that extended beyond the election office. WKSU, public radio in Ohio, wrote that Harris 'made a brief stop across the street from the line - and outside the 100 foot neutral zone - to thank people for voting.' Tony Kaloger, Cuyahoga's election and compliance administrator, sent us a statement about the unannounced visit by Harris to the earling voting site. Several local elections employees including the director 'were outside during the majority of her stop and witnessed no violations of Ohio's electioneering laws,' the statement said. Harris did not come onto the property of the elections center. She was surrounded by Secret Service agents, and no voter or bystander was permitted to approach her. 'There are several officers on-site at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections Early Vote Center tasked mainly with managing traffic and voter flow,' the statement said. 'They will step in to assist our staff with the enforcement of the neutral zone (100 feet from the entrance or 10 feet from the voters in line when the line extends further than 100 feet) as necessary. No assistance was required during the Senator's visit.' The county pointed to a two-page excerpt from a 2019 directive from Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, that explains where people are allowed to campaign. Part of that directive says: 'Nothing in Ohio's election laws prohibit a person or entity from campaigning, displaying campaign material, or distributing food outside of the neutral zone of a polling location (i.e., outside of the flags marking the 100 foot barrier or beyond 10 feet from any elector waiting in line to vote, if the line to vote extends beyond the flags).' Sabrina Singh, a spokesperson for Harris, said Harris 'stood behind the 100 foot boundary line beyond the neutral zone.'
|
Our ruling A headline in a story posted on Facebook stated that Harris 'may have broken laws' when she campaigned outside a voting site in Ohio. A county election official said that Harris did not violate laws against electioneering near a polling site. Police officers were on site during the visit by Harris and are allowed to help election officials enforce the neutral zone, but the county said that wasn't required. We rate this statement False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"106147-proof-35-254310a2f48f4d44a2e5f0e77a0b7f16.jpg"
] |
'Satan flashed in the halftime Super Bowl satanic ritual.
|
Contradiction
|
In a solo performance that began in the stands and ended on the field inside Raymond James Stadium, The Weeknd ran through his biggest hits for Super Bowl LV's halftime show. Over 14 minutes, the R&B star performed a medley of his top songs before a live audience of 24,700 in Tampa, Fla. and millions of viewers at home. The event inspired a lot of memes and, as we found, fueled misinformation online, with some social media users falsely claiming The Weeknd used the NFL's platform for a tribute to Satan. 'Satan flashed in the halftime Super Bowl satanic ritual,' said the text in several viral Facebook posts, which shared screenshots of a tweet that has since been deleted. (A similar tweet from the same account remains up; it says, 'Satan flashed in the ritual.') The Facebook posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The posts rely on a photo that shows the word 'Satan' flashed in red lights behind The Weeknd as he performed on stage. The photo is real, but it wasn't captured during Super Bowl LV. In reality, the 'Satan' incident took place during a 2017 concert The Weeknd gave in Copenhagen, Denmark, as other fact-checkers also reported. Several minutes into his performance of the song 'Reminder,' the word flashed briefly on a screen behind him, videos posted to YouTube show. A 2017 YouTube video highlighting what happened in 2017 also circulated widely on Facebook in the wake of The Weeknd's Super Bowl performance on Feb. 7. We can't say why the word 'Satan' was used at the 2017 concert, despite searching for a credible explanation online. But we can say the word did not appear during his Super Bowl halftime show. False claims about Satan often align with the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory, which holds among other beliefs that the world is run by powerful people who belong to a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles. We rate these Facebook posts False.
|
We rate these Facebook posts False.
|
[
"106159-proof-03-5ea7f20c219f22743fd173ae558d43d3.jpg"
] |
'Satan flashed in the halftime Super Bowl satanic ritual.
|
Contradiction
|
In a solo performance that began in the stands and ended on the field inside Raymond James Stadium, The Weeknd ran through his biggest hits for Super Bowl LV's halftime show. Over 14 minutes, the R&B star performed a medley of his top songs before a live audience of 24,700 in Tampa, Fla. and millions of viewers at home. The event inspired a lot of memes and, as we found, fueled misinformation online, with some social media users falsely claiming The Weeknd used the NFL's platform for a tribute to Satan. 'Satan flashed in the halftime Super Bowl satanic ritual,' said the text in several viral Facebook posts, which shared screenshots of a tweet that has since been deleted. (A similar tweet from the same account remains up; it says, 'Satan flashed in the ritual.') The Facebook posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The posts rely on a photo that shows the word 'Satan' flashed in red lights behind The Weeknd as he performed on stage. The photo is real, but it wasn't captured during Super Bowl LV. In reality, the 'Satan' incident took place during a 2017 concert The Weeknd gave in Copenhagen, Denmark, as other fact-checkers also reported. Several minutes into his performance of the song 'Reminder,' the word flashed briefly on a screen behind him, videos posted to YouTube show. A 2017 YouTube video highlighting what happened in 2017 also circulated widely on Facebook in the wake of The Weeknd's Super Bowl performance on Feb. 7. We can't say why the word 'Satan' was used at the 2017 concert, despite searching for a credible explanation online. But we can say the word did not appear during his Super Bowl halftime show. False claims about Satan often align with the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory, which holds among other beliefs that the world is run by powerful people who belong to a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles. We rate these Facebook posts False.
|
We rate these Facebook posts False.
|
[
"106159-proof-03-5ea7f20c219f22743fd173ae558d43d3.jpg"
] |
Photos show gas costs nearly $10 in the Carolinas.
|
Contradiction
|
Images of gas station signs with prices for regular unleaded gasoline listed at $9.89 and $9.99 per gallon are spreading on social media. Posts have variously described the pictures as being taken in Spartanburg, S.C., and the North Carolina towns of Cornelius, Johnsonville, and Jacksonville. They were all flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We don't have any reason to believe the photos aren't authentic, but there's some context people who see them should know. It appears that those stations aren't actually selling gas for nearly $10. One of the photos shows a Circle K sign that a post says was taken in Jacksonville. We called all the Circle Ks in the city where we could find contact information. Several station employees answered the phone by saying they were out of gas. One told us that stations with signs listing gas prices at nearly $10 were out of gas - and not selling it for that much. An employee at another station, which did have gas, was selling it for $2.74 per gallon. According to GasBuddy, regular unleaded gas prices in Jacksonville, N.C., were all under $3 on May 13. That was generally true elsewhere in North Carolina, too. WFMY, a CBS News affiliate in Greensboro, N.C., reported on May 12 that the photo of the gas station in Cornelius was not selling gas for $9.99 but signaling to drivers that it had no gas. 'That kind of sign pricing is an industry-standard,' reporter Tanya Rivera wrote in her report. 'The thinking is, no one would believe gas is really $9.99 and customers would know something is wrong and gas can't be pumped.' This kind of confusion has happened before. In 2017, a Louisiana radio station reported that the '999' people were seeing on gas station signs meant the stations were 'out of fuel, or unable to sell fuel.' That year, a gas pipeline was damaged in Alabama, causing shortages along the east coast, the station said. And in 2016, an ABC News affiliate in Durham, N.C., reported that photos then circulating of gas stations advertising $9.99 unleaded also showed stations indicating they had run out of fuel. Tiffany Wright, a spokesperson for AAA in North Carolina, told us that she suspected any such signs surfacing today signal the same: 'We are in a state of emergency and price gouging isn't tolerated.' We rate claims that gas prices have spiked to $10 in North Carolina and elsewhere False.
|
We rate claims that gas prices have spiked to $10 in North Carolina and elsewhere False.
|
[] |
Election officials are 'sending 80 million ballots all over the country. Eighty million ballots, non-requested. I call them 'unsolicited ballots.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump, the nation's most prominent critic of voting by mail, has repeatedly said that 80 million ballots will be mailed to voters who didn't request them this fall. 'And the dirtiest fight of all is the issuance of 80 million ballots, unrequested,' Trump said during his Labor Day remarks. 'They're not requested; they're just sending 80 million ballots all over the country. Eighty million ballots, non-requested. I call them 'unsolicited ballots.' That's going to be the dirtiest fight of all. People are going to get ballots; they're going to say, 'What am I doing?' And then they're going to harvest. They're going to do all the things.' Trump made similar remarks about mail in ballots during his Aug. 24 speech at the Republican National Convention and the next day on Twitter, where he described the mailing out of these 'unsolicited' ballots as 'fraudulent' or a 'scam.' It's not yet clear precisely how many voters will receive ballots without requesting them by mail, because voter registration is not yet closed for the Nov. 3 election. But based on our research, we found that Trump has exaggerated the number. He also omitted the fact that millions of voters have automatically received ballots in some states for many years without it leading to widespread fraud. Some states are sending ballots to all voters Millions more voters are expected to cast ballots by mail this year than in previous presidential elections. Five states - Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington - have operated virtually all mail-in elections prior to 2020, some of them for many years. Voters are routinely mailed ballots in these states as part of the regular process. The pandemic this year has raised concerns about large groups of voters gathering indoors, so some additional states - California, Nevada, New Jersey, Vermont plus Washington, D.C. - have decided to send ballots to all active voters. In other states, voters have to take action to request a mail ballot, though some of them took that step already if they live in a state that allows a permanent absentee voting list that may be offered to all voters, or only to certain voters based on specific criteria such as age or disability. We asked the Trump campaign to show how it arrived at 80 million unsolicited ballots, and whether that included a handful of states that have generally held all vote-by-mail elections for years. We did not receive a response. It's possible that Trump or an aide saw a prediction in an August New York Times article that '80 million mail ballots will flood election offices this fall.' However, that figure isn't limited to voters who will be sent 'unsolicited' ballots. It includes voters who will have to request a mail ballot. The New York Times found that ballots will be mailed directly to about 44 million voters in nine states and D.C. So that's a little more than half of the figure Trump cited. University of Florida political scientist Michael McDonald found a similar total number of ballots - 44.4 million - that will be sent in states conducting all-mail elections. He also counted Montana, where Gov. Steve Bullock used his emergency powers to allow counties to opt in to holding an all-mail election. As of late August, most Montana counties opted for all mail. Paul Gronke, an expert on voting by mail at Reed College, predicted somewhere north of 80 million ballots will be cast by mail, double 2016's total. In D.C. and the states that decided to send ballots to all voters this year due to the pandemic, many of those voters would have likely requested a ballot anyway or were on permanent absentee-ballot lists. For example, in California in 2016, there were 13 million ballots cast, including 7 million absentee. Gronke added up how many ballots were cast by absentee during the 2016 elections in California, Nevada, New Jersey and Vermont and concluded at most, 7.5 million or so ballots will be sent in those states to voters who have not requested them. In the state that is holding the largest all-mail election - California - about two-thirds of the voters had registered to vote absentee even before the move to mail every voter a ballot, said Nate Persily, a Stanford law professor. Trump's use of the term 'unsolicited' While Trump uses the terms 'unsolicited' or 'unrequested' ballots, states generally use other terms such as 'voting by mail.' Some experts were critical of Trump's terms, noting that if residents don't want to receive a ballot, they don't have to register in the states that automatically send them. 'In an all-mail ballot state, voter registration is a mail-ballot request,' McDonald said. MIT professor Charles Stewart said he personally wouldn't use the word 'unsolicited' but thinks it's fair game in political discourse. 'As to 'unsolicited,' I think that's a fair, if loaded, term,' he said. 'You don't have to ask for a ballot, and there are voters in those states who would prefer not to be mailed one.' Trump's misleading comments about ballot harvesting Trump criticized the effort to send ballots unrequested, and said that voters who receive them are 'going to harvest.' Ballot harvesting generally refers to someone collecting absentee ballots on behalf of others and then submitting them. Some voting rights experts see the unofficial term 'ballot harvesting' as pejorative and prefer the term 'ballot collection.' Many states allow at least certain individuals to collect some ballots on behalf of others, which can be helpful for voters with disabilities or those without cars. There have been isolated cases of fraud associated with ballot harvesting, including in a North Carolina congressional race in 2018. But Trump is wrong to suggest that such fraud is rampant. Trump has repeatedly suggested that the increase in voting by mail will lead to fraud. But fraud is statistically rare, including in states that have relied on voting by mail for years. A Washington Post analysis of three mail-in states found that 'officials identified just 372 possible cases of double voting or voting on behalf of deceased people out of about 14.6 million votes cast by mail in the 2016 and 2018 general elections, or 0.0025 percent.' We looked at the conservative Heritage Foundation's voter fraud database, which has recorded 1,296 proven instances of voter fraud. The database includes cases that stretch back decades, covering hundreds of millions of votes cast. RELATED: Donald Trump's dubious claim that 'thousands' are conspiring on mail-ballot fraud
|
Our ruling Trump said election officials are 'sending 80 million ballots all over the country. Eighty million ballots, non-requested. I call them 'unsolicited ballots.'' The Trump campaign didn't respond to our request to explain how he arrived at the 80 million figure. A New York Times analysis in August found that about 44 million voters will receive ballots in states that are automatically sending them to all voters. Our own research and interviews with other election experts and state officials back up the Times' number. But even that number of 44 million includes voters who would have requested an absentee ballot anyway. We won't yet know a more precise figure of how many voters are getting ballots automatically until voter registration is closed in the states. But as of now, the data suggests that Trump exaggerated. We rate his claim Mostly False.
|
[
"106165-proof-05-1d524168f0032c467dffd7f71d75e79b.jpg"
] |
Election officials are 'sending 80 million ballots all over the country. Eighty million ballots, non-requested. I call them 'unsolicited ballots.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump, the nation's most prominent critic of voting by mail, has repeatedly said that 80 million ballots will be mailed to voters who didn't request them this fall. 'And the dirtiest fight of all is the issuance of 80 million ballots, unrequested,' Trump said during his Labor Day remarks. 'They're not requested; they're just sending 80 million ballots all over the country. Eighty million ballots, non-requested. I call them 'unsolicited ballots.' That's going to be the dirtiest fight of all. People are going to get ballots; they're going to say, 'What am I doing?' And then they're going to harvest. They're going to do all the things.' Trump made similar remarks about mail in ballots during his Aug. 24 speech at the Republican National Convention and the next day on Twitter, where he described the mailing out of these 'unsolicited' ballots as 'fraudulent' or a 'scam.' It's not yet clear precisely how many voters will receive ballots without requesting them by mail, because voter registration is not yet closed for the Nov. 3 election. But based on our research, we found that Trump has exaggerated the number. He also omitted the fact that millions of voters have automatically received ballots in some states for many years without it leading to widespread fraud. Some states are sending ballots to all voters Millions more voters are expected to cast ballots by mail this year than in previous presidential elections. Five states - Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington - have operated virtually all mail-in elections prior to 2020, some of them for many years. Voters are routinely mailed ballots in these states as part of the regular process. The pandemic this year has raised concerns about large groups of voters gathering indoors, so some additional states - California, Nevada, New Jersey, Vermont plus Washington, D.C. - have decided to send ballots to all active voters. In other states, voters have to take action to request a mail ballot, though some of them took that step already if they live in a state that allows a permanent absentee voting list that may be offered to all voters, or only to certain voters based on specific criteria such as age or disability. We asked the Trump campaign to show how it arrived at 80 million unsolicited ballots, and whether that included a handful of states that have generally held all vote-by-mail elections for years. We did not receive a response. It's possible that Trump or an aide saw a prediction in an August New York Times article that '80 million mail ballots will flood election offices this fall.' However, that figure isn't limited to voters who will be sent 'unsolicited' ballots. It includes voters who will have to request a mail ballot. The New York Times found that ballots will be mailed directly to about 44 million voters in nine states and D.C. So that's a little more than half of the figure Trump cited. University of Florida political scientist Michael McDonald found a similar total number of ballots - 44.4 million - that will be sent in states conducting all-mail elections. He also counted Montana, where Gov. Steve Bullock used his emergency powers to allow counties to opt in to holding an all-mail election. As of late August, most Montana counties opted for all mail. Paul Gronke, an expert on voting by mail at Reed College, predicted somewhere north of 80 million ballots will be cast by mail, double 2016's total. In D.C. and the states that decided to send ballots to all voters this year due to the pandemic, many of those voters would have likely requested a ballot anyway or were on permanent absentee-ballot lists. For example, in California in 2016, there were 13 million ballots cast, including 7 million absentee. Gronke added up how many ballots were cast by absentee during the 2016 elections in California, Nevada, New Jersey and Vermont and concluded at most, 7.5 million or so ballots will be sent in those states to voters who have not requested them. In the state that is holding the largest all-mail election - California - about two-thirds of the voters had registered to vote absentee even before the move to mail every voter a ballot, said Nate Persily, a Stanford law professor. Trump's use of the term 'unsolicited' While Trump uses the terms 'unsolicited' or 'unrequested' ballots, states generally use other terms such as 'voting by mail.' Some experts were critical of Trump's terms, noting that if residents don't want to receive a ballot, they don't have to register in the states that automatically send them. 'In an all-mail ballot state, voter registration is a mail-ballot request,' McDonald said. MIT professor Charles Stewart said he personally wouldn't use the word 'unsolicited' but thinks it's fair game in political discourse. 'As to 'unsolicited,' I think that's a fair, if loaded, term,' he said. 'You don't have to ask for a ballot, and there are voters in those states who would prefer not to be mailed one.' Trump's misleading comments about ballot harvesting Trump criticized the effort to send ballots unrequested, and said that voters who receive them are 'going to harvest.' Ballot harvesting generally refers to someone collecting absentee ballots on behalf of others and then submitting them. Some voting rights experts see the unofficial term 'ballot harvesting' as pejorative and prefer the term 'ballot collection.' Many states allow at least certain individuals to collect some ballots on behalf of others, which can be helpful for voters with disabilities or those without cars. There have been isolated cases of fraud associated with ballot harvesting, including in a North Carolina congressional race in 2018. But Trump is wrong to suggest that such fraud is rampant. Trump has repeatedly suggested that the increase in voting by mail will lead to fraud. But fraud is statistically rare, including in states that have relied on voting by mail for years. A Washington Post analysis of three mail-in states found that 'officials identified just 372 possible cases of double voting or voting on behalf of deceased people out of about 14.6 million votes cast by mail in the 2016 and 2018 general elections, or 0.0025 percent.' We looked at the conservative Heritage Foundation's voter fraud database, which has recorded 1,296 proven instances of voter fraud. The database includes cases that stretch back decades, covering hundreds of millions of votes cast. RELATED: Donald Trump's dubious claim that 'thousands' are conspiring on mail-ballot fraud
|
Our ruling Trump said election officials are 'sending 80 million ballots all over the country. Eighty million ballots, non-requested. I call them 'unsolicited ballots.'' The Trump campaign didn't respond to our request to explain how he arrived at the 80 million figure. A New York Times analysis in August found that about 44 million voters will receive ballots in states that are automatically sending them to all voters. Our own research and interviews with other election experts and state officials back up the Times' number. But even that number of 44 million includes voters who would have requested an absentee ballot anyway. We won't yet know a more precise figure of how many voters are getting ballots automatically until voter registration is closed in the states. But as of now, the data suggests that Trump exaggerated. We rate his claim Mostly False.
|
[
"106165-proof-05-1d524168f0032c467dffd7f71d75e79b.jpg"
] |
Election officials are 'sending 80 million ballots all over the country. Eighty million ballots, non-requested. I call them 'unsolicited ballots.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump, the nation's most prominent critic of voting by mail, has repeatedly said that 80 million ballots will be mailed to voters who didn't request them this fall. 'And the dirtiest fight of all is the issuance of 80 million ballots, unrequested,' Trump said during his Labor Day remarks. 'They're not requested; they're just sending 80 million ballots all over the country. Eighty million ballots, non-requested. I call them 'unsolicited ballots.' That's going to be the dirtiest fight of all. People are going to get ballots; they're going to say, 'What am I doing?' And then they're going to harvest. They're going to do all the things.' Trump made similar remarks about mail in ballots during his Aug. 24 speech at the Republican National Convention and the next day on Twitter, where he described the mailing out of these 'unsolicited' ballots as 'fraudulent' or a 'scam.' It's not yet clear precisely how many voters will receive ballots without requesting them by mail, because voter registration is not yet closed for the Nov. 3 election. But based on our research, we found that Trump has exaggerated the number. He also omitted the fact that millions of voters have automatically received ballots in some states for many years without it leading to widespread fraud. Some states are sending ballots to all voters Millions more voters are expected to cast ballots by mail this year than in previous presidential elections. Five states - Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington - have operated virtually all mail-in elections prior to 2020, some of them for many years. Voters are routinely mailed ballots in these states as part of the regular process. The pandemic this year has raised concerns about large groups of voters gathering indoors, so some additional states - California, Nevada, New Jersey, Vermont plus Washington, D.C. - have decided to send ballots to all active voters. In other states, voters have to take action to request a mail ballot, though some of them took that step already if they live in a state that allows a permanent absentee voting list that may be offered to all voters, or only to certain voters based on specific criteria such as age or disability. We asked the Trump campaign to show how it arrived at 80 million unsolicited ballots, and whether that included a handful of states that have generally held all vote-by-mail elections for years. We did not receive a response. It's possible that Trump or an aide saw a prediction in an August New York Times article that '80 million mail ballots will flood election offices this fall.' However, that figure isn't limited to voters who will be sent 'unsolicited' ballots. It includes voters who will have to request a mail ballot. The New York Times found that ballots will be mailed directly to about 44 million voters in nine states and D.C. So that's a little more than half of the figure Trump cited. University of Florida political scientist Michael McDonald found a similar total number of ballots - 44.4 million - that will be sent in states conducting all-mail elections. He also counted Montana, where Gov. Steve Bullock used his emergency powers to allow counties to opt in to holding an all-mail election. As of late August, most Montana counties opted for all mail. Paul Gronke, an expert on voting by mail at Reed College, predicted somewhere north of 80 million ballots will be cast by mail, double 2016's total. In D.C. and the states that decided to send ballots to all voters this year due to the pandemic, many of those voters would have likely requested a ballot anyway or were on permanent absentee-ballot lists. For example, in California in 2016, there were 13 million ballots cast, including 7 million absentee. Gronke added up how many ballots were cast by absentee during the 2016 elections in California, Nevada, New Jersey and Vermont and concluded at most, 7.5 million or so ballots will be sent in those states to voters who have not requested them. In the state that is holding the largest all-mail election - California - about two-thirds of the voters had registered to vote absentee even before the move to mail every voter a ballot, said Nate Persily, a Stanford law professor. Trump's use of the term 'unsolicited' While Trump uses the terms 'unsolicited' or 'unrequested' ballots, states generally use other terms such as 'voting by mail.' Some experts were critical of Trump's terms, noting that if residents don't want to receive a ballot, they don't have to register in the states that automatically send them. 'In an all-mail ballot state, voter registration is a mail-ballot request,' McDonald said. MIT professor Charles Stewart said he personally wouldn't use the word 'unsolicited' but thinks it's fair game in political discourse. 'As to 'unsolicited,' I think that's a fair, if loaded, term,' he said. 'You don't have to ask for a ballot, and there are voters in those states who would prefer not to be mailed one.' Trump's misleading comments about ballot harvesting Trump criticized the effort to send ballots unrequested, and said that voters who receive them are 'going to harvest.' Ballot harvesting generally refers to someone collecting absentee ballots on behalf of others and then submitting them. Some voting rights experts see the unofficial term 'ballot harvesting' as pejorative and prefer the term 'ballot collection.' Many states allow at least certain individuals to collect some ballots on behalf of others, which can be helpful for voters with disabilities or those without cars. There have been isolated cases of fraud associated with ballot harvesting, including in a North Carolina congressional race in 2018. But Trump is wrong to suggest that such fraud is rampant. Trump has repeatedly suggested that the increase in voting by mail will lead to fraud. But fraud is statistically rare, including in states that have relied on voting by mail for years. A Washington Post analysis of three mail-in states found that 'officials identified just 372 possible cases of double voting or voting on behalf of deceased people out of about 14.6 million votes cast by mail in the 2016 and 2018 general elections, or 0.0025 percent.' We looked at the conservative Heritage Foundation's voter fraud database, which has recorded 1,296 proven instances of voter fraud. The database includes cases that stretch back decades, covering hundreds of millions of votes cast. RELATED: Donald Trump's dubious claim that 'thousands' are conspiring on mail-ballot fraud
|
Our ruling Trump said election officials are 'sending 80 million ballots all over the country. Eighty million ballots, non-requested. I call them 'unsolicited ballots.'' The Trump campaign didn't respond to our request to explain how he arrived at the 80 million figure. A New York Times analysis in August found that about 44 million voters will receive ballots in states that are automatically sending them to all voters. Our own research and interviews with other election experts and state officials back up the Times' number. But even that number of 44 million includes voters who would have requested an absentee ballot anyway. We won't yet know a more precise figure of how many voters are getting ballots automatically until voter registration is closed in the states. But as of now, the data suggests that Trump exaggerated. We rate his claim Mostly False.
|
[
"106165-proof-05-1d524168f0032c467dffd7f71d75e79b.jpg"
] |
'It's been confirmed that the Pfizer' COVID-19 'vaccine isn't guaranteed after six months.
|
Contradiction
|
Wait - Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine came with a guarantee? No. And a claim made by conservative commentator Kimberly Klacik suggesting that the vaccine loses all its effectiveness over time is wrong. Klacik, a Republican who lost her 2020 campaign for a U.S. House seat from Baltimore, made the claim on Instagram, where she has 530,000 followers. She referred to New York City's requirement to show proof of vaccination to enter some venues, writing: 'So now that it's been confirmed that the Pfizer vaccine isn't guaranteed after 6 months, are the bulk of the vaccination cards NYC requires expired? Proving your #COVID vaccination status has become one of the dumbest ideas in US history.' Her post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) No guarantees Let's first dismiss the notion that advocates of vaccination say that COVID-19 vaccines come with any guarantee. 'COVID-19 vaccines are effective and are a critical tool to bring the pandemic under control; however, no vaccine is 100% effective at preventing illness,' the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. 'Some fully vaccinated people will get sick, and some will even be hospitalized or die from COVID-19.' Now let's get to how the Pfizer vaccine loses some, but not all, effectiveness over time. What's in the study When we asked Klacik to back up her statement, she said multiple reports, including a Reuters news story, stated that the vaccine 'loses its effectiveness after six months.' The Reuters story said the vaccine's effectiveness drops after six months. Let's get to what the study itself says. The study, funded by Pfizer and peer reviewed, was published Oct. 4 in The Lancet, a British medical journal. Researchers led by an epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care system studied the Pfizer vaccine's effectiveness. They analyzed the electronic health records of more than 3 million patients ages 12 and up in the system, from Dec. 14, 2020, to Aug. 8, 2021. The study was designed to assess the effectiveness of the vaccine against infection and hospitalizations for up to six months. Key findings: The vaccine is 90% effective against hospital admissions for up to six months, at least. Effectiveness against infection dropped from 88% to 47% after five months. Waning effectiveness was expected, the study said, based on other studies. Reduction in vaccine effectiveness against infections over time 'is probably primarily due to waning immunity with time, rather than the delta variant escaping vaccine protection.' This and other studies 'suggest that booster doses are likely to be needed to restore the initial high amounts of protection observed early in the vaccination program.' The study underscores 'the importance of continuing to prioritize improving COVID-19 vaccination rates, including in hard-to-reach communities.' RELATED VIDEO
|
Our ruling Klacik said 'it's been confirmed that the Pfizer' COVID-19 'vaccine isn't guaranteed after six months' and suggested it loses all effectiveness. The vaccine never came with any guarantee. Klacik's claim alludes to a study that found that the Pfizer vaccine's effectiveness in preventing infection dropped from 88% to 47% after five months. In preventing hospital admission, the vaccine remained 90% effective over six months, the study found. The claim contains only an element of truth. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"106176-proof-06-453f8b35b0cade85cdd07df85e46b892.jpg"
] |
'It's been confirmed that the Pfizer' COVID-19 'vaccine isn't guaranteed after six months.
|
Contradiction
|
Wait - Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine came with a guarantee? No. And a claim made by conservative commentator Kimberly Klacik suggesting that the vaccine loses all its effectiveness over time is wrong. Klacik, a Republican who lost her 2020 campaign for a U.S. House seat from Baltimore, made the claim on Instagram, where she has 530,000 followers. She referred to New York City's requirement to show proof of vaccination to enter some venues, writing: 'So now that it's been confirmed that the Pfizer vaccine isn't guaranteed after 6 months, are the bulk of the vaccination cards NYC requires expired? Proving your #COVID vaccination status has become one of the dumbest ideas in US history.' Her post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) No guarantees Let's first dismiss the notion that advocates of vaccination say that COVID-19 vaccines come with any guarantee. 'COVID-19 vaccines are effective and are a critical tool to bring the pandemic under control; however, no vaccine is 100% effective at preventing illness,' the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. 'Some fully vaccinated people will get sick, and some will even be hospitalized or die from COVID-19.' Now let's get to how the Pfizer vaccine loses some, but not all, effectiveness over time. What's in the study When we asked Klacik to back up her statement, she said multiple reports, including a Reuters news story, stated that the vaccine 'loses its effectiveness after six months.' The Reuters story said the vaccine's effectiveness drops after six months. Let's get to what the study itself says. The study, funded by Pfizer and peer reviewed, was published Oct. 4 in The Lancet, a British medical journal. Researchers led by an epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care system studied the Pfizer vaccine's effectiveness. They analyzed the electronic health records of more than 3 million patients ages 12 and up in the system, from Dec. 14, 2020, to Aug. 8, 2021. The study was designed to assess the effectiveness of the vaccine against infection and hospitalizations for up to six months. Key findings: The vaccine is 90% effective against hospital admissions for up to six months, at least. Effectiveness against infection dropped from 88% to 47% after five months. Waning effectiveness was expected, the study said, based on other studies. Reduction in vaccine effectiveness against infections over time 'is probably primarily due to waning immunity with time, rather than the delta variant escaping vaccine protection.' This and other studies 'suggest that booster doses are likely to be needed to restore the initial high amounts of protection observed early in the vaccination program.' The study underscores 'the importance of continuing to prioritize improving COVID-19 vaccination rates, including in hard-to-reach communities.' RELATED VIDEO
|
Our ruling Klacik said 'it's been confirmed that the Pfizer' COVID-19 'vaccine isn't guaranteed after six months' and suggested it loses all effectiveness. The vaccine never came with any guarantee. Klacik's claim alludes to a study that found that the Pfizer vaccine's effectiveness in preventing infection dropped from 88% to 47% after five months. In preventing hospital admission, the vaccine remained 90% effective over six months, the study found. The claim contains only an element of truth. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"106176-proof-06-453f8b35b0cade85cdd07df85e46b892.jpg"
] |
Says Rachel Levine was Time magazine's 'Woman of the Year.
|
Contradiction
|
Facebook users are sharing a fake Time magazine cover that purports to show the magazine honoring Dr. Rachel Levine as its 'Woman of the Year.' The cover showing the nation's newly confirmed assistant health secretary is not real. It originated on the United Spot, a page that says it creates parody and satire. A Time spokesperson said the post does not show an authentic cover. But the post is not clearly marked as parody or satire, and some Facebook users left comments indicating that they believed the post depicted a real Time magazine cover. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Levine, the first openly transgender federal official to be confirmed by the Senate, became a frequent target of online misinformation after President Joe Biden nominated her for her post, including similarly false claims that said she was on the cover of Vanity Fair. But Levine was not Time magazine's 'Person of the Year' when that edition was published on Dec. 21, 2020. The honor went to Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. The distinction is released toward the end of the year. In March 2020, Time created 89 new magazine covers to recognize 89 women as part of a project honoring 100 influential women in history. Previously, 11 women had been selected as Time magazine's 'Person of the Year.' (Until 1999, the magazine named a 'Man of the Year.') Levine was not spotlighted on one of those Time covers, either. Fake Time magazine covers frequently crop up on Facebook and other social media platforms. They have targeted former Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama in the past. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[
"106177-proof-23-ba8d94c5d02cbfc37eedb0b7439d895b.jpg"
] |
Says Rachel Levine was Time magazine's 'Woman of the Year.
|
Contradiction
|
Facebook users are sharing a fake Time magazine cover that purports to show the magazine honoring Dr. Rachel Levine as its 'Woman of the Year.' The cover showing the nation's newly confirmed assistant health secretary is not real. It originated on the United Spot, a page that says it creates parody and satire. A Time spokesperson said the post does not show an authentic cover. But the post is not clearly marked as parody or satire, and some Facebook users left comments indicating that they believed the post depicted a real Time magazine cover. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Levine, the first openly transgender federal official to be confirmed by the Senate, became a frequent target of online misinformation after President Joe Biden nominated her for her post, including similarly false claims that said she was on the cover of Vanity Fair. But Levine was not Time magazine's 'Person of the Year' when that edition was published on Dec. 21, 2020. The honor went to Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. The distinction is released toward the end of the year. In March 2020, Time created 89 new magazine covers to recognize 89 women as part of a project honoring 100 influential women in history. Previously, 11 women had been selected as Time magazine's 'Person of the Year.' (Until 1999, the magazine named a 'Man of the Year.') Levine was not spotlighted on one of those Time covers, either. Fake Time magazine covers frequently crop up on Facebook and other social media platforms. They have targeted former Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama in the past. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[
"106177-proof-23-ba8d94c5d02cbfc37eedb0b7439d895b.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Biden has driven the current coronavirus surge because he 'imported more virus from around the world by having a wide open southern border.
|
Contradiction
|
As coronavirus cases spike nationally, and especially in Florida, a blame game has erupted between President Joe Biden and Florida's Republican governor, Ron DeSantis. Florida has the second-highest per-capita coronavirus case load of any state as of Aug. 6, exceeding its level at any point during the pandemic. Florida also has the highest coronavirus hospitalization rate of any state, at more than three times the national average. Biden pointed this out in remarks on Aug. 3. 'Make no mistake,' he said. 'The escalation of cases is particularly concentrated in states with low vaccination rates. Just two states, Florida and Texas, account for one-third of all new COVID-19 cases in the entire country. ... Look, we need leadership from everyone. And if some governors aren't willing to do the right thing to beat this pandemic, then they should allow businesses and universities who want to do the right thing to be able to do it.' DeSantis unloaded on Biden during an Aug. 4 news conference in Panama City, Fla. 'He's imported more virus from around the world by having a wide open southern border. You have hundreds of thousands of people pouring across every month,' DeSantis said. 'You have over 100 different countries where people are pouring through. Not only are they letting them through - they're then farming them out all across our communities across this country. Putting them on planes, putting them on buses.' DeSantis doubled down in a fundraising letter later that day: 'Joe Biden has the nerve to tell me to get out of the way on COVID while he lets COVID-infected migrants pour over our southern border by the hundreds of thousands. No elected official is doing more to enable the transmission of COVID in America than Joe Biden with his open borders policies.' Public health experts said it's reasonable to be concerned about coronavirus spreading among migrants, especially if they're living in close quarters. 'It would be fair to say that detention centers, like prisons, are likely to be 'hotspots' for transmission,' said Babak Javid, a professor of medicine at the University of California-San Francisco. 'We saw a lot of this last year,' earlier in the pandemic. But they said there is no evidence it's happening on the scale that DeSantis described. It may well be that immigrants coming illegally into the country are contributing to COVID-19 caseloads, 'but given the extensive transmission already in the U.S., the immigration contribution is akin to pouring a bucket of water into a swimming pool,' said William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University. 'It's hard to measure and pretty trivial.' U.S.-Mexico border not 'wide open' In a statement, DeSantis press secretary Christina Pushaw focused on the migrants who make it across the border without detection. She acknowledged that migration is not the only factor in COVID-19 spread. 'We know tens of thousands of migrants cross the border illegally every month,' she said. 'Officials don't have a precise number, because the border is porous, and it stands to reason that many people enter undetected. ... Some of those countries where a significant portion of the migrants hail from, such as Haiti, have extremely low rates of COVID vaccination.' Still, it is wrong to say, as DeSantis did, that the southern border is 'wide open' for everyone to just come into the country. Most people who are encountered are turned away under a public health law invoked by Trump's administration and continued by Biden. Border officials - at and between ports of entries - recorded more than 822,000 encounters with migrants from February to June, and most of those people were expelled under the public health law. These individuals don't get to stay in the country to request asylum or other immigration protection. Nicole Hallett, a professor and director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School, told PolitiFact that the apprehension numbers reflect that people trying and failing to cross multiple times. 'Apprehensions have increased because of the strict COVID restrictions, not because restrictions have eased,' Hallett said. The Biden administration has allowed certain groups of migrants to file for immigration protection, such as children arriving alone at the southern border and some families with young children. The Department of Homeland Security, however, said it had recently resumed expedited removal flights for certain families who recently arrived at the southern border. Officials in February began to let in asylum seekers who were waiting for a resolution of their U.S. immigration cases in Mexico under the Trump-era Remain in Mexico program. (Biden ended that program in June.) The United States is also temporarily limiting inbound land border crossings from Mexico; non-essential travel is not allowed. Customs and Border Protection told PolitiFact in April that personnel do initial inspections for symptoms or risk factors associated with COVID-19 and consult with onsite medical personnel, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or local health systems as appropriate. DHS also said in April that it works with state and local authorities and non-governmental organizations to make sure that all migrants are tested for COVID-19 'at some point during their immigration journey.' This doesn't mean that the chance of coronavirus spread on the border is zero. For instance, McAllen, Texas, along the border with Mexico, has seen an increasing number of migrants arriving in recent weeks. According to the city, more than 7,000 migrants have tested positive for the coronavirus, out of 87,000 migrants who had passed through the city. But drawing a clear line between migrants and the spread of the coronavirus throughout the U.S., as DeSantis did, requires a sense of how many migrants are evading detection and how many of them are infected. 'Otherwise, it is a statement without any facts to substantiate it,' said Nicole Gatto, an associate professor in Claremont Graduate University's school of community and global health. The current surge is driven by community spread The data for coronavirus cases provides poor support for the notion that the virus is being spread by illegal immigration. Significant outbreaks are happening well inland from the border, in states like Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky and Missouri. Public health experts express skepticism that illegal border crossings are to blame for these outbreaks. (This map, by the Washington Post, shows the seven-day average of reported cases for each U.S. county, per 100,000 residents. Reprinted with permission; updated versions available here.) If DeSantis were correct, the land border between the U.S. and Mexico would be among the hardest-hit parts of the country, since even if migrants eventually disperse to other locations, they would have an impact on coronavirus rates locally first. However, the entire land border between San Diego and the southern tip of Texas shows relatively low case rates compared with the entire southeastern quadrant of the U.S. Given this data, 'it doesn't seem right that illegal immigration is driving the current surge,' said Javid, the University of California-San Francisco professor. There's also a more plausible explanation for the coronavirus surge's current pattern: Case rates are higher in places with lower rates of vaccination. An analysis by the New York Times found that at the end of July, counties with vaccination rates below 30% had coronavirus case rates well over double the case rates in counties with at least 60% vaccination. And five of the six least-vaccinated states - Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi - are all squarely within the geographical quadrant of the country that has the highest case rates. Some of the hardest-hit places, such as southwestern Missouri, are far from the border, while others, such as southern Louisiana, are on the water. 'The pattern of distribution of coronavirus cases does not correspond in any way to immigrant movement,' said Arthur Caplan, director of the division of medical ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. 'And the paths to 'bringing' COVID here are many, including tourists, diplomats, boat workers, student exchange, and cruises.' Caplan said he views DeSantis' statements as the latest in a long history of efforts to offload blame for infectious diseases on immigrants. 'The notion of immigrants bringing disease has been alleged about Gypsies, Jews, Italians, Irish, and Blacks,' he said. 'As we know from Ebola, SARS, and influenza, infections get here all the time. The issue is what we do to stop their spread.'
|
Our ruling DeSantis said Biden has driven the current coronavirus surge because he 'imported more virus from around the world by having a wide open southern border.' The available evidence shows that coronavirus hot spots tend to be clustered either far from the border or on the water, whereas the entire land border with Mexico has fairly low rates. The hotspot locations tend to correlate with low rates of vaccination among the public. In addition, the U.S. does not have a 'wide open' border. Most people who are encountered are turned away under a Trump-era policy that Biden continued. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"106179-proof-28-fx9SpBBEWFAG-z-WRqXfznbdpwukrdH12kmVnCXU1ck8cyYeHf2-zUbPiJpCIuqkrL6XHuYxGCMa9V_v.jpg",
"106179-proof-33-9969beeca6ff0ef9a439246c21437b34.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Biden has driven the current coronavirus surge because he 'imported more virus from around the world by having a wide open southern border.
|
Contradiction
|
As coronavirus cases spike nationally, and especially in Florida, a blame game has erupted between President Joe Biden and Florida's Republican governor, Ron DeSantis. Florida has the second-highest per-capita coronavirus case load of any state as of Aug. 6, exceeding its level at any point during the pandemic. Florida also has the highest coronavirus hospitalization rate of any state, at more than three times the national average. Biden pointed this out in remarks on Aug. 3. 'Make no mistake,' he said. 'The escalation of cases is particularly concentrated in states with low vaccination rates. Just two states, Florida and Texas, account for one-third of all new COVID-19 cases in the entire country. ... Look, we need leadership from everyone. And if some governors aren't willing to do the right thing to beat this pandemic, then they should allow businesses and universities who want to do the right thing to be able to do it.' DeSantis unloaded on Biden during an Aug. 4 news conference in Panama City, Fla. 'He's imported more virus from around the world by having a wide open southern border. You have hundreds of thousands of people pouring across every month,' DeSantis said. 'You have over 100 different countries where people are pouring through. Not only are they letting them through - they're then farming them out all across our communities across this country. Putting them on planes, putting them on buses.' DeSantis doubled down in a fundraising letter later that day: 'Joe Biden has the nerve to tell me to get out of the way on COVID while he lets COVID-infected migrants pour over our southern border by the hundreds of thousands. No elected official is doing more to enable the transmission of COVID in America than Joe Biden with his open borders policies.' Public health experts said it's reasonable to be concerned about coronavirus spreading among migrants, especially if they're living in close quarters. 'It would be fair to say that detention centers, like prisons, are likely to be 'hotspots' for transmission,' said Babak Javid, a professor of medicine at the University of California-San Francisco. 'We saw a lot of this last year,' earlier in the pandemic. But they said there is no evidence it's happening on the scale that DeSantis described. It may well be that immigrants coming illegally into the country are contributing to COVID-19 caseloads, 'but given the extensive transmission already in the U.S., the immigration contribution is akin to pouring a bucket of water into a swimming pool,' said William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University. 'It's hard to measure and pretty trivial.' U.S.-Mexico border not 'wide open' In a statement, DeSantis press secretary Christina Pushaw focused on the migrants who make it across the border without detection. She acknowledged that migration is not the only factor in COVID-19 spread. 'We know tens of thousands of migrants cross the border illegally every month,' she said. 'Officials don't have a precise number, because the border is porous, and it stands to reason that many people enter undetected. ... Some of those countries where a significant portion of the migrants hail from, such as Haiti, have extremely low rates of COVID vaccination.' Still, it is wrong to say, as DeSantis did, that the southern border is 'wide open' for everyone to just come into the country. Most people who are encountered are turned away under a public health law invoked by Trump's administration and continued by Biden. Border officials - at and between ports of entries - recorded more than 822,000 encounters with migrants from February to June, and most of those people were expelled under the public health law. These individuals don't get to stay in the country to request asylum or other immigration protection. Nicole Hallett, a professor and director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School, told PolitiFact that the apprehension numbers reflect that people trying and failing to cross multiple times. 'Apprehensions have increased because of the strict COVID restrictions, not because restrictions have eased,' Hallett said. The Biden administration has allowed certain groups of migrants to file for immigration protection, such as children arriving alone at the southern border and some families with young children. The Department of Homeland Security, however, said it had recently resumed expedited removal flights for certain families who recently arrived at the southern border. Officials in February began to let in asylum seekers who were waiting for a resolution of their U.S. immigration cases in Mexico under the Trump-era Remain in Mexico program. (Biden ended that program in June.) The United States is also temporarily limiting inbound land border crossings from Mexico; non-essential travel is not allowed. Customs and Border Protection told PolitiFact in April that personnel do initial inspections for symptoms or risk factors associated with COVID-19 and consult with onsite medical personnel, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or local health systems as appropriate. DHS also said in April that it works with state and local authorities and non-governmental organizations to make sure that all migrants are tested for COVID-19 'at some point during their immigration journey.' This doesn't mean that the chance of coronavirus spread on the border is zero. For instance, McAllen, Texas, along the border with Mexico, has seen an increasing number of migrants arriving in recent weeks. According to the city, more than 7,000 migrants have tested positive for the coronavirus, out of 87,000 migrants who had passed through the city. But drawing a clear line between migrants and the spread of the coronavirus throughout the U.S., as DeSantis did, requires a sense of how many migrants are evading detection and how many of them are infected. 'Otherwise, it is a statement without any facts to substantiate it,' said Nicole Gatto, an associate professor in Claremont Graduate University's school of community and global health. The current surge is driven by community spread The data for coronavirus cases provides poor support for the notion that the virus is being spread by illegal immigration. Significant outbreaks are happening well inland from the border, in states like Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky and Missouri. Public health experts express skepticism that illegal border crossings are to blame for these outbreaks. (This map, by the Washington Post, shows the seven-day average of reported cases for each U.S. county, per 100,000 residents. Reprinted with permission; updated versions available here.) If DeSantis were correct, the land border between the U.S. and Mexico would be among the hardest-hit parts of the country, since even if migrants eventually disperse to other locations, they would have an impact on coronavirus rates locally first. However, the entire land border between San Diego and the southern tip of Texas shows relatively low case rates compared with the entire southeastern quadrant of the U.S. Given this data, 'it doesn't seem right that illegal immigration is driving the current surge,' said Javid, the University of California-San Francisco professor. There's also a more plausible explanation for the coronavirus surge's current pattern: Case rates are higher in places with lower rates of vaccination. An analysis by the New York Times found that at the end of July, counties with vaccination rates below 30% had coronavirus case rates well over double the case rates in counties with at least 60% vaccination. And five of the six least-vaccinated states - Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi - are all squarely within the geographical quadrant of the country that has the highest case rates. Some of the hardest-hit places, such as southwestern Missouri, are far from the border, while others, such as southern Louisiana, are on the water. 'The pattern of distribution of coronavirus cases does not correspond in any way to immigrant movement,' said Arthur Caplan, director of the division of medical ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. 'And the paths to 'bringing' COVID here are many, including tourists, diplomats, boat workers, student exchange, and cruises.' Caplan said he views DeSantis' statements as the latest in a long history of efforts to offload blame for infectious diseases on immigrants. 'The notion of immigrants bringing disease has been alleged about Gypsies, Jews, Italians, Irish, and Blacks,' he said. 'As we know from Ebola, SARS, and influenza, infections get here all the time. The issue is what we do to stop their spread.'
|
Our ruling DeSantis said Biden has driven the current coronavirus surge because he 'imported more virus from around the world by having a wide open southern border.' The available evidence shows that coronavirus hot spots tend to be clustered either far from the border or on the water, whereas the entire land border with Mexico has fairly low rates. The hotspot locations tend to correlate with low rates of vaccination among the public. In addition, the U.S. does not have a 'wide open' border. Most people who are encountered are turned away under a Trump-era policy that Biden continued. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"106179-proof-28-fx9SpBBEWFAG-z-WRqXfznbdpwukrdH12kmVnCXU1ck8cyYeHf2-zUbPiJpCIuqkrL6XHuYxGCMa9V_v.jpg",
"106179-proof-33-9969beeca6ff0ef9a439246c21437b34.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Biden has driven the current coronavirus surge because he 'imported more virus from around the world by having a wide open southern border.
|
Contradiction
|
As coronavirus cases spike nationally, and especially in Florida, a blame game has erupted between President Joe Biden and Florida's Republican governor, Ron DeSantis. Florida has the second-highest per-capita coronavirus case load of any state as of Aug. 6, exceeding its level at any point during the pandemic. Florida also has the highest coronavirus hospitalization rate of any state, at more than three times the national average. Biden pointed this out in remarks on Aug. 3. 'Make no mistake,' he said. 'The escalation of cases is particularly concentrated in states with low vaccination rates. Just two states, Florida and Texas, account for one-third of all new COVID-19 cases in the entire country. ... Look, we need leadership from everyone. And if some governors aren't willing to do the right thing to beat this pandemic, then they should allow businesses and universities who want to do the right thing to be able to do it.' DeSantis unloaded on Biden during an Aug. 4 news conference in Panama City, Fla. 'He's imported more virus from around the world by having a wide open southern border. You have hundreds of thousands of people pouring across every month,' DeSantis said. 'You have over 100 different countries where people are pouring through. Not only are they letting them through - they're then farming them out all across our communities across this country. Putting them on planes, putting them on buses.' DeSantis doubled down in a fundraising letter later that day: 'Joe Biden has the nerve to tell me to get out of the way on COVID while he lets COVID-infected migrants pour over our southern border by the hundreds of thousands. No elected official is doing more to enable the transmission of COVID in America than Joe Biden with his open borders policies.' Public health experts said it's reasonable to be concerned about coronavirus spreading among migrants, especially if they're living in close quarters. 'It would be fair to say that detention centers, like prisons, are likely to be 'hotspots' for transmission,' said Babak Javid, a professor of medicine at the University of California-San Francisco. 'We saw a lot of this last year,' earlier in the pandemic. But they said there is no evidence it's happening on the scale that DeSantis described. It may well be that immigrants coming illegally into the country are contributing to COVID-19 caseloads, 'but given the extensive transmission already in the U.S., the immigration contribution is akin to pouring a bucket of water into a swimming pool,' said William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University. 'It's hard to measure and pretty trivial.' U.S.-Mexico border not 'wide open' In a statement, DeSantis press secretary Christina Pushaw focused on the migrants who make it across the border without detection. She acknowledged that migration is not the only factor in COVID-19 spread. 'We know tens of thousands of migrants cross the border illegally every month,' she said. 'Officials don't have a precise number, because the border is porous, and it stands to reason that many people enter undetected. ... Some of those countries where a significant portion of the migrants hail from, such as Haiti, have extremely low rates of COVID vaccination.' Still, it is wrong to say, as DeSantis did, that the southern border is 'wide open' for everyone to just come into the country. Most people who are encountered are turned away under a public health law invoked by Trump's administration and continued by Biden. Border officials - at and between ports of entries - recorded more than 822,000 encounters with migrants from February to June, and most of those people were expelled under the public health law. These individuals don't get to stay in the country to request asylum or other immigration protection. Nicole Hallett, a professor and director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School, told PolitiFact that the apprehension numbers reflect that people trying and failing to cross multiple times. 'Apprehensions have increased because of the strict COVID restrictions, not because restrictions have eased,' Hallett said. The Biden administration has allowed certain groups of migrants to file for immigration protection, such as children arriving alone at the southern border and some families with young children. The Department of Homeland Security, however, said it had recently resumed expedited removal flights for certain families who recently arrived at the southern border. Officials in February began to let in asylum seekers who were waiting for a resolution of their U.S. immigration cases in Mexico under the Trump-era Remain in Mexico program. (Biden ended that program in June.) The United States is also temporarily limiting inbound land border crossings from Mexico; non-essential travel is not allowed. Customs and Border Protection told PolitiFact in April that personnel do initial inspections for symptoms or risk factors associated with COVID-19 and consult with onsite medical personnel, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or local health systems as appropriate. DHS also said in April that it works with state and local authorities and non-governmental organizations to make sure that all migrants are tested for COVID-19 'at some point during their immigration journey.' This doesn't mean that the chance of coronavirus spread on the border is zero. For instance, McAllen, Texas, along the border with Mexico, has seen an increasing number of migrants arriving in recent weeks. According to the city, more than 7,000 migrants have tested positive for the coronavirus, out of 87,000 migrants who had passed through the city. But drawing a clear line between migrants and the spread of the coronavirus throughout the U.S., as DeSantis did, requires a sense of how many migrants are evading detection and how many of them are infected. 'Otherwise, it is a statement without any facts to substantiate it,' said Nicole Gatto, an associate professor in Claremont Graduate University's school of community and global health. The current surge is driven by community spread The data for coronavirus cases provides poor support for the notion that the virus is being spread by illegal immigration. Significant outbreaks are happening well inland from the border, in states like Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky and Missouri. Public health experts express skepticism that illegal border crossings are to blame for these outbreaks. (This map, by the Washington Post, shows the seven-day average of reported cases for each U.S. county, per 100,000 residents. Reprinted with permission; updated versions available here.) If DeSantis were correct, the land border between the U.S. and Mexico would be among the hardest-hit parts of the country, since even if migrants eventually disperse to other locations, they would have an impact on coronavirus rates locally first. However, the entire land border between San Diego and the southern tip of Texas shows relatively low case rates compared with the entire southeastern quadrant of the U.S. Given this data, 'it doesn't seem right that illegal immigration is driving the current surge,' said Javid, the University of California-San Francisco professor. There's also a more plausible explanation for the coronavirus surge's current pattern: Case rates are higher in places with lower rates of vaccination. An analysis by the New York Times found that at the end of July, counties with vaccination rates below 30% had coronavirus case rates well over double the case rates in counties with at least 60% vaccination. And five of the six least-vaccinated states - Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi - are all squarely within the geographical quadrant of the country that has the highest case rates. Some of the hardest-hit places, such as southwestern Missouri, are far from the border, while others, such as southern Louisiana, are on the water. 'The pattern of distribution of coronavirus cases does not correspond in any way to immigrant movement,' said Arthur Caplan, director of the division of medical ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. 'And the paths to 'bringing' COVID here are many, including tourists, diplomats, boat workers, student exchange, and cruises.' Caplan said he views DeSantis' statements as the latest in a long history of efforts to offload blame for infectious diseases on immigrants. 'The notion of immigrants bringing disease has been alleged about Gypsies, Jews, Italians, Irish, and Blacks,' he said. 'As we know from Ebola, SARS, and influenza, infections get here all the time. The issue is what we do to stop their spread.'
|
Our ruling DeSantis said Biden has driven the current coronavirus surge because he 'imported more virus from around the world by having a wide open southern border.' The available evidence shows that coronavirus hot spots tend to be clustered either far from the border or on the water, whereas the entire land border with Mexico has fairly low rates. The hotspot locations tend to correlate with low rates of vaccination among the public. In addition, the U.S. does not have a 'wide open' border. Most people who are encountered are turned away under a Trump-era policy that Biden continued. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"106179-proof-28-fx9SpBBEWFAG-z-WRqXfznbdpwukrdH12kmVnCXU1ck8cyYeHf2-zUbPiJpCIuqkrL6XHuYxGCMa9V_v.jpg",
"106179-proof-33-9969beeca6ff0ef9a439246c21437b34.jpg"
] |
A post comparing two construction workers - 'Joe legal' and 'Jose illegal' - says 'Jose' pays no taxes yet gets free medical care, food stamps, welfare, and 'head of the class' priority for his children in applying for college.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post critical of illegal immigration - comparing two construction workers, 'Joe legal' and 'Jose illegal' - has been shared more than 222,000 times since it was created in July 2018, and it's still circulating. But the post is rife with inaccuracies. You can read the full text of the 553-word post here. But here's a sampling: 'Joe legal works in construction, has a Social Security number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted. 'Jose illegal also works in construction has no Social Security number and makes $15.00 per hour cash, under the table. ... 'Joe legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe legal now has $24,031.00. 'Jose illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the State and local clinics and emergency hospitals at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose illegal still has $31,200.00. 'Joe legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe legal spends $500.00 per month for food or $6,000.00 per year. Joe legal now has $18,031.00. 'Jose illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps, WIC and welfare. Jose illegal still has $31,200.00. ... 'Now, when they reach college age... 'Joe legal's kids may not get into a State school and may not qualify for scholarships, grants or other tuition help, even though Joe has been paying for State schools through his taxes, while... 'Jose illegal's kids go to the, 'head of the class' because they are a minority. ... 'Its way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Much of the post is wrong. Here's an analysis of the major points. Claim: Undocumented immigrants do not pay taxes Actually, many undocumented immigrants do pay taxes. This has been especially true in recent years, as most key immigration bills included provisions that would require paying taxes as a prerequisite for securing legal status. The most common mechanism may involve the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or ITIN. Since 1996, people in the United States who do not have a Social Security number, and who therefore aren't eligible to be employed, have been able to get an ITIN. Many, though not all, ITIN filers are undocumented immigrants, experts say. In 2013, 4.3 million people filed tax returns using ITINs. ITIN filers paid $9 billion in payroll taxes in 2014. A 2013 report by the conservative Heritage Foundation found that the average undocumented immigrant household paid $10,334 in taxes, or $17.6 billion paid overall. Experts estimate that half of all undocumented workers pay federal income taxes, Kim Rueben, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told PolitiFact in 2016. That's not much below the rate of Americans as a whole, since many Americans earn too little to owe federal income taxes. Then there are payroll taxes. The Social Security Administration estimated that in 2009, 3.1 million unauthorized workers paid into Social Security via payroll tax, even though most will not be able to collect those benefits. Beyond that are state and local taxes. A 2016 study by the liberal Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy estimated that in 2013, undocumented immigrants paid $11.64 billion in state and local taxes, such as sales and excise taxes, property taxes, and income taxes. Claim: Undocumented immigrants get free medical care This is largely wrong, though there are a few exceptions. In July 2019, California approved state-funded Medicaid coverage for low-income, undocumented adults age 25 and younger. A half-dozen states and the District of Columbia use state funds to provide Medicaid to children regardless of immigration status. Elsewhere, and for other age groups, undocumented immigrants only have access to emergency care. In 1986, Congress responded to concerns that emergency rooms were refusing to treat indigent and uninsured people - a practice known as patient dumping - by approving the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The act, signed by President Ronald Reagan, requires hospitals with emergency rooms that participate in the Medicare program to medically screen, treat and stabilize any patient (including illegal immigrants) who shows up with an emergency medical condition. The law doesn't require that hospitals offer preventive or follow-up care. (Joe legal can get emergency care this way, too, should he need it.) Undocumented immigrants are unable to obtain federal premium subsidies on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. So in most states, short of an emergency situation, they're going to have to pay in full for private medical insurance if they want to get routine or preventive care, just like Joe legal would. Claim: Undocumented immigrants can get food stamps and welfare payments Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most federal benefits. There are a few exceptions - including the emergency disaster assistance and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC. They are barred from programs such as Supplemental Security Income or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Not even individuals protected with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status - that is, those who came to the United States without authorization as children and who remain undocumented - qualify for these benefits. There are two asterisks to note. FIrst, an undocumented immigrant may have a spouse or relatives who are citizens and who are eligible for such programs. But any benefit to the undocumented immigrant would be indirect, and it is legal for a citizen to receive those benefits. Second, it's possible that an undocumented immigrant could fraudulently apply for such benefits. Ruth Wasem, a professor at the University of Texas' Lyndon B. Johnson school of public policy, said there are no good estimates of the rates of fraud in these programs by undocumented immigrants. However, she's skeptical that they are especially high. 'Do people commit fraud? Of course,' she said. 'But why is someone who is trying to keep a low profile to avoid deportation going to risk that kind of behavior? And to the extent that there is fraud and identity theft in these programs, it's nothing that U.S. citizens aren't doing in abundance.' Claim: Undocumented immigrants go to the head of the line for college admissions and financial aid Experts could not think of any way in which an undocumented immigrant would get a leg up in college admissions or financial aid. The only possible exception would be generalized affirmative action preferences - but even this is not as simple as the Facebook post puts it. Specifically, under affirmative action, 'Jose illegal' would be on the same footing for attending and paying for college as legal immigrants of color and U.S. citizens of color. Indeed, 'Joe legal' could be a person of color, putting him on the same affirmative action footing as 'Joe illegal.'
|
Our ruling The Facebook post compared two construction workers - 'Joe legal' and 'Jose illegal' - and said 'Jose' pays no taxes yet gets free medical care, food stamps, welfare, and 'head of the class' priority for his children in applying for college. The post ignores that many undocumented immigrants do, in fact, pay income taxes, payroll taxes, and state and local taxes. It also ignores that most undocumented immigrants cannot legally claim federal benefits, such as food stamps and welfare. Finally, experts said there's no way an undocumented immigrant would get placed at the head of the line for college admissions or financial aid compared with U.S. citizens and even legal immigrants. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"106225-proof-24-2ceccdfe89299cf8d0d942a80f1106ea.jpg"
] |
A post comparing two construction workers - 'Joe legal' and 'Jose illegal' - says 'Jose' pays no taxes yet gets free medical care, food stamps, welfare, and 'head of the class' priority for his children in applying for college.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post critical of illegal immigration - comparing two construction workers, 'Joe legal' and 'Jose illegal' - has been shared more than 222,000 times since it was created in July 2018, and it's still circulating. But the post is rife with inaccuracies. You can read the full text of the 553-word post here. But here's a sampling: 'Joe legal works in construction, has a Social Security number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted. 'Jose illegal also works in construction has no Social Security number and makes $15.00 per hour cash, under the table. ... 'Joe legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe legal now has $24,031.00. 'Jose illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the State and local clinics and emergency hospitals at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose illegal still has $31,200.00. 'Joe legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe legal spends $500.00 per month for food or $6,000.00 per year. Joe legal now has $18,031.00. 'Jose illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps, WIC and welfare. Jose illegal still has $31,200.00. ... 'Now, when they reach college age... 'Joe legal's kids may not get into a State school and may not qualify for scholarships, grants or other tuition help, even though Joe has been paying for State schools through his taxes, while... 'Jose illegal's kids go to the, 'head of the class' because they are a minority. ... 'Its way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Much of the post is wrong. Here's an analysis of the major points. Claim: Undocumented immigrants do not pay taxes Actually, many undocumented immigrants do pay taxes. This has been especially true in recent years, as most key immigration bills included provisions that would require paying taxes as a prerequisite for securing legal status. The most common mechanism may involve the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or ITIN. Since 1996, people in the United States who do not have a Social Security number, and who therefore aren't eligible to be employed, have been able to get an ITIN. Many, though not all, ITIN filers are undocumented immigrants, experts say. In 2013, 4.3 million people filed tax returns using ITINs. ITIN filers paid $9 billion in payroll taxes in 2014. A 2013 report by the conservative Heritage Foundation found that the average undocumented immigrant household paid $10,334 in taxes, or $17.6 billion paid overall. Experts estimate that half of all undocumented workers pay federal income taxes, Kim Rueben, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told PolitiFact in 2016. That's not much below the rate of Americans as a whole, since many Americans earn too little to owe federal income taxes. Then there are payroll taxes. The Social Security Administration estimated that in 2009, 3.1 million unauthorized workers paid into Social Security via payroll tax, even though most will not be able to collect those benefits. Beyond that are state and local taxes. A 2016 study by the liberal Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy estimated that in 2013, undocumented immigrants paid $11.64 billion in state and local taxes, such as sales and excise taxes, property taxes, and income taxes. Claim: Undocumented immigrants get free medical care This is largely wrong, though there are a few exceptions. In July 2019, California approved state-funded Medicaid coverage for low-income, undocumented adults age 25 and younger. A half-dozen states and the District of Columbia use state funds to provide Medicaid to children regardless of immigration status. Elsewhere, and for other age groups, undocumented immigrants only have access to emergency care. In 1986, Congress responded to concerns that emergency rooms were refusing to treat indigent and uninsured people - a practice known as patient dumping - by approving the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The act, signed by President Ronald Reagan, requires hospitals with emergency rooms that participate in the Medicare program to medically screen, treat and stabilize any patient (including illegal immigrants) who shows up with an emergency medical condition. The law doesn't require that hospitals offer preventive or follow-up care. (Joe legal can get emergency care this way, too, should he need it.) Undocumented immigrants are unable to obtain federal premium subsidies on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. So in most states, short of an emergency situation, they're going to have to pay in full for private medical insurance if they want to get routine or preventive care, just like Joe legal would. Claim: Undocumented immigrants can get food stamps and welfare payments Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most federal benefits. There are a few exceptions - including the emergency disaster assistance and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC. They are barred from programs such as Supplemental Security Income or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Not even individuals protected with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status - that is, those who came to the United States without authorization as children and who remain undocumented - qualify for these benefits. There are two asterisks to note. FIrst, an undocumented immigrant may have a spouse or relatives who are citizens and who are eligible for such programs. But any benefit to the undocumented immigrant would be indirect, and it is legal for a citizen to receive those benefits. Second, it's possible that an undocumented immigrant could fraudulently apply for such benefits. Ruth Wasem, a professor at the University of Texas' Lyndon B. Johnson school of public policy, said there are no good estimates of the rates of fraud in these programs by undocumented immigrants. However, she's skeptical that they are especially high. 'Do people commit fraud? Of course,' she said. 'But why is someone who is trying to keep a low profile to avoid deportation going to risk that kind of behavior? And to the extent that there is fraud and identity theft in these programs, it's nothing that U.S. citizens aren't doing in abundance.' Claim: Undocumented immigrants go to the head of the line for college admissions and financial aid Experts could not think of any way in which an undocumented immigrant would get a leg up in college admissions or financial aid. The only possible exception would be generalized affirmative action preferences - but even this is not as simple as the Facebook post puts it. Specifically, under affirmative action, 'Jose illegal' would be on the same footing for attending and paying for college as legal immigrants of color and U.S. citizens of color. Indeed, 'Joe legal' could be a person of color, putting him on the same affirmative action footing as 'Joe illegal.'
|
Our ruling The Facebook post compared two construction workers - 'Joe legal' and 'Jose illegal' - and said 'Jose' pays no taxes yet gets free medical care, food stamps, welfare, and 'head of the class' priority for his children in applying for college. The post ignores that many undocumented immigrants do, in fact, pay income taxes, payroll taxes, and state and local taxes. It also ignores that most undocumented immigrants cannot legally claim federal benefits, such as food stamps and welfare. Finally, experts said there's no way an undocumented immigrant would get placed at the head of the line for college admissions or financial aid compared with U.S. citizens and even legal immigrants. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"106225-proof-24-2ceccdfe89299cf8d0d942a80f1106ea.jpg"
] |
A post comparing two construction workers - 'Joe legal' and 'Jose illegal' - says 'Jose' pays no taxes yet gets free medical care, food stamps, welfare, and 'head of the class' priority for his children in applying for college.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post critical of illegal immigration - comparing two construction workers, 'Joe legal' and 'Jose illegal' - has been shared more than 222,000 times since it was created in July 2018, and it's still circulating. But the post is rife with inaccuracies. You can read the full text of the 553-word post here. But here's a sampling: 'Joe legal works in construction, has a Social Security number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted. 'Jose illegal also works in construction has no Social Security number and makes $15.00 per hour cash, under the table. ... 'Joe legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe legal now has $24,031.00. 'Jose illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the State and local clinics and emergency hospitals at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose illegal still has $31,200.00. 'Joe legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe legal spends $500.00 per month for food or $6,000.00 per year. Joe legal now has $18,031.00. 'Jose illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps, WIC and welfare. Jose illegal still has $31,200.00. ... 'Now, when they reach college age... 'Joe legal's kids may not get into a State school and may not qualify for scholarships, grants or other tuition help, even though Joe has been paying for State schools through his taxes, while... 'Jose illegal's kids go to the, 'head of the class' because they are a minority. ... 'Its way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Much of the post is wrong. Here's an analysis of the major points. Claim: Undocumented immigrants do not pay taxes Actually, many undocumented immigrants do pay taxes. This has been especially true in recent years, as most key immigration bills included provisions that would require paying taxes as a prerequisite for securing legal status. The most common mechanism may involve the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or ITIN. Since 1996, people in the United States who do not have a Social Security number, and who therefore aren't eligible to be employed, have been able to get an ITIN. Many, though not all, ITIN filers are undocumented immigrants, experts say. In 2013, 4.3 million people filed tax returns using ITINs. ITIN filers paid $9 billion in payroll taxes in 2014. A 2013 report by the conservative Heritage Foundation found that the average undocumented immigrant household paid $10,334 in taxes, or $17.6 billion paid overall. Experts estimate that half of all undocumented workers pay federal income taxes, Kim Rueben, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told PolitiFact in 2016. That's not much below the rate of Americans as a whole, since many Americans earn too little to owe federal income taxes. Then there are payroll taxes. The Social Security Administration estimated that in 2009, 3.1 million unauthorized workers paid into Social Security via payroll tax, even though most will not be able to collect those benefits. Beyond that are state and local taxes. A 2016 study by the liberal Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy estimated that in 2013, undocumented immigrants paid $11.64 billion in state and local taxes, such as sales and excise taxes, property taxes, and income taxes. Claim: Undocumented immigrants get free medical care This is largely wrong, though there are a few exceptions. In July 2019, California approved state-funded Medicaid coverage for low-income, undocumented adults age 25 and younger. A half-dozen states and the District of Columbia use state funds to provide Medicaid to children regardless of immigration status. Elsewhere, and for other age groups, undocumented immigrants only have access to emergency care. In 1986, Congress responded to concerns that emergency rooms were refusing to treat indigent and uninsured people - a practice known as patient dumping - by approving the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The act, signed by President Ronald Reagan, requires hospitals with emergency rooms that participate in the Medicare program to medically screen, treat and stabilize any patient (including illegal immigrants) who shows up with an emergency medical condition. The law doesn't require that hospitals offer preventive or follow-up care. (Joe legal can get emergency care this way, too, should he need it.) Undocumented immigrants are unable to obtain federal premium subsidies on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. So in most states, short of an emergency situation, they're going to have to pay in full for private medical insurance if they want to get routine or preventive care, just like Joe legal would. Claim: Undocumented immigrants can get food stamps and welfare payments Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most federal benefits. There are a few exceptions - including the emergency disaster assistance and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC. They are barred from programs such as Supplemental Security Income or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Not even individuals protected with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status - that is, those who came to the United States without authorization as children and who remain undocumented - qualify for these benefits. There are two asterisks to note. FIrst, an undocumented immigrant may have a spouse or relatives who are citizens and who are eligible for such programs. But any benefit to the undocumented immigrant would be indirect, and it is legal for a citizen to receive those benefits. Second, it's possible that an undocumented immigrant could fraudulently apply for such benefits. Ruth Wasem, a professor at the University of Texas' Lyndon B. Johnson school of public policy, said there are no good estimates of the rates of fraud in these programs by undocumented immigrants. However, she's skeptical that they are especially high. 'Do people commit fraud? Of course,' she said. 'But why is someone who is trying to keep a low profile to avoid deportation going to risk that kind of behavior? And to the extent that there is fraud and identity theft in these programs, it's nothing that U.S. citizens aren't doing in abundance.' Claim: Undocumented immigrants go to the head of the line for college admissions and financial aid Experts could not think of any way in which an undocumented immigrant would get a leg up in college admissions or financial aid. The only possible exception would be generalized affirmative action preferences - but even this is not as simple as the Facebook post puts it. Specifically, under affirmative action, 'Jose illegal' would be on the same footing for attending and paying for college as legal immigrants of color and U.S. citizens of color. Indeed, 'Joe legal' could be a person of color, putting him on the same affirmative action footing as 'Joe illegal.'
|
Our ruling The Facebook post compared two construction workers - 'Joe legal' and 'Jose illegal' - and said 'Jose' pays no taxes yet gets free medical care, food stamps, welfare, and 'head of the class' priority for his children in applying for college. The post ignores that many undocumented immigrants do, in fact, pay income taxes, payroll taxes, and state and local taxes. It also ignores that most undocumented immigrants cannot legally claim federal benefits, such as food stamps and welfare. Finally, experts said there's no way an undocumented immigrant would get placed at the head of the line for college admissions or financial aid compared with U.S. citizens and even legal immigrants. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"106225-proof-24-2ceccdfe89299cf8d0d942a80f1106ea.jpg"
] |
Says Kamala Harris said, 'If elected & you don't surrender your guns, I will sign an executive order & the police will show up at your door.
|
Contradiction
|
Sen. Kamala Harris has taken a strong stance on gun control, but has she actually threatened to send police to your house to take your guns? The short answer is no. But that hasn't stopped social media users from spreading a fabricated quote attributed to her that suggests otherwise. 'If elected & you don't surrender your guns, I will sign an executive order & the police will show up at your door,' reads a post attributed to Harris, the newly selected running mate for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. Harris didn't say this. And there is no evidence Harris plans to force people to surrender their guns. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claim appears to be a mischaracterization of a pledge Harris made during a CNN Presidential Town Hall in April 2019. 'Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws, and if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action,' Harris said during the town hall. Harris continued, clarifying what her executive action would encompass. 'And specifically what I will do is put in place a requirement that for anyone who sells more than five guns a year, they are required to do background checks when they sell those guns,' Harris said. 'I will require that for any gun dealer that breaks the law, the ATF take their license.' During the town hall, Harris did not discuss confiscating guns using law enforcement officers. What's more, a commitment to use 'executive action' can refer to more than just executive orders, as the Washington Post reported. At another campaign event in August 2019 in Las Vegas, Harris reiterated her pledge to take action on guns within 100 days of taking office. At that event, she said she would also use executive action to implement 'a ban on the importation of assault rifles into our country.' In a follow-up question, Harris was asked what enforcement of an assault rifles ban might look like. A reporter is heard off-camera asking, 'Does it involve law enforcement essentially going to people's houses looking for specific banned guns? Does it involve perhaps creating a database of people who are legal gun owners? What kind of process are we talking about here?' Harris answered by referencing her experience as attorney general in California, when she said law enforcement was permitted to confiscate guns by going to the doors of people who were both 'found by a court to be a danger to themselves and others' and were also 'on a list where they were precluded and prohibited from owning a gun because of a conviction.' 'I have to stress, lawful gun ownership, that is one thing. We're talking about something else and we have to stop conflating and blending all these issues,' Harris said. Harris did not say she planned to send law enforcement officers to the homes of all gun owners, as the post suggests. Any other evidence? No. When we first spotted the false quote being shared Aug. 11 on a Facebook page called YET-iheart-NRA, PolitiFact reached out to the page administrator to ask what evidence they had to support the claim. Someone with the Facebook page responded, pointing us to an article from the blog Law Enforcement Today. That article referenced an exchange between Biden and Harris in the September 2019 Democratic presidential primary debate, found here. In it, debate moderator David Muir of ABC's World News Tonight pointed out that Harris said she planned to use executive action to ban imports of AR-15 assault weapons if Congress did not act quickly enough. Muir explained that Biden had expressed doubts about the future president's 'constitutional authority' to ban assault weapons via executive order, which Harris had not committed to doing. When asked if Biden's stated concern had a point, Harris jokingly replied, 'I mean I would just say, 'Hey Joe, instead of saying no we can't, let's say yes we can.'' Here again, there is no evidence she made the statement that is being attributed to her. (The post made by YET-iheart-NRA appears to have been removed since we inquired about it.) Other fact-checking organizations debunked similar claims that circulated online in 2019, but Harris' new role as vice presidential candidate caused the claim to reemerge. Fact-checking organizations have continued debunking the claim after it reappeared.
|
Our ruling A post claims that vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris said, 'If elected & you don't surrender your guns, I will sign an executive order & the police will show up at your door.' This quote is fabricated. When she was running for president, Harris pledged to take executive action on gun control within the first 100 days of her administration. She did not say she would require people to surrender their guns or say she would order law enforcement to collect guns. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"106239-proof-19-11762aafa17954ca2ad9736b8d13b8e9.jpg"
] |
Says Kamala Harris said, 'If elected & you don't surrender your guns, I will sign an executive order & the police will show up at your door.
|
Contradiction
|
Sen. Kamala Harris has taken a strong stance on gun control, but has she actually threatened to send police to your house to take your guns? The short answer is no. But that hasn't stopped social media users from spreading a fabricated quote attributed to her that suggests otherwise. 'If elected & you don't surrender your guns, I will sign an executive order & the police will show up at your door,' reads a post attributed to Harris, the newly selected running mate for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. Harris didn't say this. And there is no evidence Harris plans to force people to surrender their guns. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claim appears to be a mischaracterization of a pledge Harris made during a CNN Presidential Town Hall in April 2019. 'Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws, and if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action,' Harris said during the town hall. Harris continued, clarifying what her executive action would encompass. 'And specifically what I will do is put in place a requirement that for anyone who sells more than five guns a year, they are required to do background checks when they sell those guns,' Harris said. 'I will require that for any gun dealer that breaks the law, the ATF take their license.' During the town hall, Harris did not discuss confiscating guns using law enforcement officers. What's more, a commitment to use 'executive action' can refer to more than just executive orders, as the Washington Post reported. At another campaign event in August 2019 in Las Vegas, Harris reiterated her pledge to take action on guns within 100 days of taking office. At that event, she said she would also use executive action to implement 'a ban on the importation of assault rifles into our country.' In a follow-up question, Harris was asked what enforcement of an assault rifles ban might look like. A reporter is heard off-camera asking, 'Does it involve law enforcement essentially going to people's houses looking for specific banned guns? Does it involve perhaps creating a database of people who are legal gun owners? What kind of process are we talking about here?' Harris answered by referencing her experience as attorney general in California, when she said law enforcement was permitted to confiscate guns by going to the doors of people who were both 'found by a court to be a danger to themselves and others' and were also 'on a list where they were precluded and prohibited from owning a gun because of a conviction.' 'I have to stress, lawful gun ownership, that is one thing. We're talking about something else and we have to stop conflating and blending all these issues,' Harris said. Harris did not say she planned to send law enforcement officers to the homes of all gun owners, as the post suggests. Any other evidence? No. When we first spotted the false quote being shared Aug. 11 on a Facebook page called YET-iheart-NRA, PolitiFact reached out to the page administrator to ask what evidence they had to support the claim. Someone with the Facebook page responded, pointing us to an article from the blog Law Enforcement Today. That article referenced an exchange between Biden and Harris in the September 2019 Democratic presidential primary debate, found here. In it, debate moderator David Muir of ABC's World News Tonight pointed out that Harris said she planned to use executive action to ban imports of AR-15 assault weapons if Congress did not act quickly enough. Muir explained that Biden had expressed doubts about the future president's 'constitutional authority' to ban assault weapons via executive order, which Harris had not committed to doing. When asked if Biden's stated concern had a point, Harris jokingly replied, 'I mean I would just say, 'Hey Joe, instead of saying no we can't, let's say yes we can.'' Here again, there is no evidence she made the statement that is being attributed to her. (The post made by YET-iheart-NRA appears to have been removed since we inquired about it.) Other fact-checking organizations debunked similar claims that circulated online in 2019, but Harris' new role as vice presidential candidate caused the claim to reemerge. Fact-checking organizations have continued debunking the claim after it reappeared.
|
Our ruling A post claims that vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris said, 'If elected & you don't surrender your guns, I will sign an executive order & the police will show up at your door.' This quote is fabricated. When she was running for president, Harris pledged to take executive action on gun control within the first 100 days of her administration. She did not say she would require people to surrender their guns or say she would order law enforcement to collect guns. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"106239-proof-19-11762aafa17954ca2ad9736b8d13b8e9.jpg"
] |
Says Kamala Harris said, 'If elected & you don't surrender your guns, I will sign an executive order & the police will show up at your door.
|
Contradiction
|
Sen. Kamala Harris has taken a strong stance on gun control, but has she actually threatened to send police to your house to take your guns? The short answer is no. But that hasn't stopped social media users from spreading a fabricated quote attributed to her that suggests otherwise. 'If elected & you don't surrender your guns, I will sign an executive order & the police will show up at your door,' reads a post attributed to Harris, the newly selected running mate for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. Harris didn't say this. And there is no evidence Harris plans to force people to surrender their guns. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claim appears to be a mischaracterization of a pledge Harris made during a CNN Presidential Town Hall in April 2019. 'Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws, and if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action,' Harris said during the town hall. Harris continued, clarifying what her executive action would encompass. 'And specifically what I will do is put in place a requirement that for anyone who sells more than five guns a year, they are required to do background checks when they sell those guns,' Harris said. 'I will require that for any gun dealer that breaks the law, the ATF take their license.' During the town hall, Harris did not discuss confiscating guns using law enforcement officers. What's more, a commitment to use 'executive action' can refer to more than just executive orders, as the Washington Post reported. At another campaign event in August 2019 in Las Vegas, Harris reiterated her pledge to take action on guns within 100 days of taking office. At that event, she said she would also use executive action to implement 'a ban on the importation of assault rifles into our country.' In a follow-up question, Harris was asked what enforcement of an assault rifles ban might look like. A reporter is heard off-camera asking, 'Does it involve law enforcement essentially going to people's houses looking for specific banned guns? Does it involve perhaps creating a database of people who are legal gun owners? What kind of process are we talking about here?' Harris answered by referencing her experience as attorney general in California, when she said law enforcement was permitted to confiscate guns by going to the doors of people who were both 'found by a court to be a danger to themselves and others' and were also 'on a list where they were precluded and prohibited from owning a gun because of a conviction.' 'I have to stress, lawful gun ownership, that is one thing. We're talking about something else and we have to stop conflating and blending all these issues,' Harris said. Harris did not say she planned to send law enforcement officers to the homes of all gun owners, as the post suggests. Any other evidence? No. When we first spotted the false quote being shared Aug. 11 on a Facebook page called YET-iheart-NRA, PolitiFact reached out to the page administrator to ask what evidence they had to support the claim. Someone with the Facebook page responded, pointing us to an article from the blog Law Enforcement Today. That article referenced an exchange between Biden and Harris in the September 2019 Democratic presidential primary debate, found here. In it, debate moderator David Muir of ABC's World News Tonight pointed out that Harris said she planned to use executive action to ban imports of AR-15 assault weapons if Congress did not act quickly enough. Muir explained that Biden had expressed doubts about the future president's 'constitutional authority' to ban assault weapons via executive order, which Harris had not committed to doing. When asked if Biden's stated concern had a point, Harris jokingly replied, 'I mean I would just say, 'Hey Joe, instead of saying no we can't, let's say yes we can.'' Here again, there is no evidence she made the statement that is being attributed to her. (The post made by YET-iheart-NRA appears to have been removed since we inquired about it.) Other fact-checking organizations debunked similar claims that circulated online in 2019, but Harris' new role as vice presidential candidate caused the claim to reemerge. Fact-checking organizations have continued debunking the claim after it reappeared.
|
Our ruling A post claims that vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris said, 'If elected & you don't surrender your guns, I will sign an executive order & the police will show up at your door.' This quote is fabricated. When she was running for president, Harris pledged to take executive action on gun control within the first 100 days of her administration. She did not say she would require people to surrender their guns or say she would order law enforcement to collect guns. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"106239-proof-19-11762aafa17954ca2ad9736b8d13b8e9.jpg"
] |
'Dems have removed any mention of 'God' from their Platform.
|
Contradiction
|
The Democratic Party made headlines in 2012 when it unveiled a platform that did not include any reference to God. Party leaders quickly amended it to restore language from 2008 about helping people 'make the most of their God-given potential.' The party's 2020 platform includes the same reference to 'God-given potential,' but critics continue to cite the 2012 omission. One Facebook post says, 'Dems have removed any mention of 'God' from their Platform. Why are they getting support from any Christian?' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) When the 2012 platform was unveiled and did not include the word God, Democrats, under pressure from President Barack Obama, quickly changed it. The Washington Post reported at the time that a press secretary for the Democratic National Committee called it a 'faux controversy,' referred to a section of the platform about faith and pointed out there were multiple uses of the words faith, religion, religious, church and clergy. The 2020 platform similarly includes references to faith and religion, including a section titled 'Supporting Faith and Service,' that reads, 'Religious freedom is a core American value and a core value of the Democratic Party. Democrats will protect the rights of each American for the free exercise of his or her own religion. It will be the policy of the Democratic Administration to advocate for religious freedom throughout the world.' It also says, 'Democrats remain committed to ending poverty and enabling all Americans to live up to their God-given potential.' We reached out to the Democratic National Committee for comment but did not receive a reply. Over time, the Democratic Party has reduced its use of the word God in its platform. In 2004, the platform included the phrase 'one nation under God,' and also referred to 'God's children,' 'eyes of God' and 'God's gifts.' In 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020, the only references to God in the platform were to 'God-given potential.' A search of the Republican Party platform turns up 16 mentions of the word 'God.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says that 'Dems have removed any mention of 'God' from their Platform.' That's not true, as the party's 2020 platform includes a reference to 'God-given potential.' It also makes numerous references to faith, including a section that outlines its intent to protect religious freedom and uphold 'separation of church and state enshrined in our Constitution.' The Democratic Party in 2012 introduced a platform that did not mention God, only to quickly re-insert the reference. The party's platforms in recent years have had fewer mentions of the word God than in the past. But the assertion that the Democratic Party platform doesn't include a reference to God is wrong. We rate it False.
|
[] |
'Dems have removed any mention of 'God' from their Platform.
|
Contradiction
|
The Democratic Party made headlines in 2012 when it unveiled a platform that did not include any reference to God. Party leaders quickly amended it to restore language from 2008 about helping people 'make the most of their God-given potential.' The party's 2020 platform includes the same reference to 'God-given potential,' but critics continue to cite the 2012 omission. One Facebook post says, 'Dems have removed any mention of 'God' from their Platform. Why are they getting support from any Christian?' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) When the 2012 platform was unveiled and did not include the word God, Democrats, under pressure from President Barack Obama, quickly changed it. The Washington Post reported at the time that a press secretary for the Democratic National Committee called it a 'faux controversy,' referred to a section of the platform about faith and pointed out there were multiple uses of the words faith, religion, religious, church and clergy. The 2020 platform similarly includes references to faith and religion, including a section titled 'Supporting Faith and Service,' that reads, 'Religious freedom is a core American value and a core value of the Democratic Party. Democrats will protect the rights of each American for the free exercise of his or her own religion. It will be the policy of the Democratic Administration to advocate for religious freedom throughout the world.' It also says, 'Democrats remain committed to ending poverty and enabling all Americans to live up to their God-given potential.' We reached out to the Democratic National Committee for comment but did not receive a reply. Over time, the Democratic Party has reduced its use of the word God in its platform. In 2004, the platform included the phrase 'one nation under God,' and also referred to 'God's children,' 'eyes of God' and 'God's gifts.' In 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020, the only references to God in the platform were to 'God-given potential.' A search of the Republican Party platform turns up 16 mentions of the word 'God.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says that 'Dems have removed any mention of 'God' from their Platform.' That's not true, as the party's 2020 platform includes a reference to 'God-given potential.' It also makes numerous references to faith, including a section that outlines its intent to protect religious freedom and uphold 'separation of church and state enshrined in our Constitution.' The Democratic Party in 2012 introduced a platform that did not mention God, only to quickly re-insert the reference. The party's platforms in recent years have had fewer mentions of the word God than in the past. But the assertion that the Democratic Party platform doesn't include a reference to God is wrong. We rate it False.
|
[] |
'Dems have removed any mention of 'God' from their Platform.
|
Contradiction
|
The Democratic Party made headlines in 2012 when it unveiled a platform that did not include any reference to God. Party leaders quickly amended it to restore language from 2008 about helping people 'make the most of their God-given potential.' The party's 2020 platform includes the same reference to 'God-given potential,' but critics continue to cite the 2012 omission. One Facebook post says, 'Dems have removed any mention of 'God' from their Platform. Why are they getting support from any Christian?' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) When the 2012 platform was unveiled and did not include the word God, Democrats, under pressure from President Barack Obama, quickly changed it. The Washington Post reported at the time that a press secretary for the Democratic National Committee called it a 'faux controversy,' referred to a section of the platform about faith and pointed out there were multiple uses of the words faith, religion, religious, church and clergy. The 2020 platform similarly includes references to faith and religion, including a section titled 'Supporting Faith and Service,' that reads, 'Religious freedom is a core American value and a core value of the Democratic Party. Democrats will protect the rights of each American for the free exercise of his or her own religion. It will be the policy of the Democratic Administration to advocate for religious freedom throughout the world.' It also says, 'Democrats remain committed to ending poverty and enabling all Americans to live up to their God-given potential.' We reached out to the Democratic National Committee for comment but did not receive a reply. Over time, the Democratic Party has reduced its use of the word God in its platform. In 2004, the platform included the phrase 'one nation under God,' and also referred to 'God's children,' 'eyes of God' and 'God's gifts.' In 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020, the only references to God in the platform were to 'God-given potential.' A search of the Republican Party platform turns up 16 mentions of the word 'God.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says that 'Dems have removed any mention of 'God' from their Platform.' That's not true, as the party's 2020 platform includes a reference to 'God-given potential.' It also makes numerous references to faith, including a section that outlines its intent to protect religious freedom and uphold 'separation of church and state enshrined in our Constitution.' The Democratic Party in 2012 introduced a platform that did not mention God, only to quickly re-insert the reference. The party's platforms in recent years have had fewer mentions of the word God than in the past. But the assertion that the Democratic Party platform doesn't include a reference to God is wrong. We rate it False.
|
[] |
Says before he planned a rally on June 19 'nobody had ever heard of' Juneteenth.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump took credit for boosting awareness of Juneteenth, a day that marks the end of slavery in America. 'I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous,' Mr. Trump said, in a Wall Street Journal interview. 'It's actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it.' Trump had originally planned his first political rally in more than three months in Tulsa, Okla., for June 19. He moved the rally to June 20 after, he said, African American leaders asked him to. It is fair to say that outrage over George Floyd's death while in police custody, combined with vocal demonstrations and the Black Lives Matter movement, have raised the profile of Juneteenth and its meaning to new heights. Trump's planned rally in Tulsa fueled that sentiment. But his suggestion that no one knew about it ignores history; the day has held significance for millions of Americans for decades. Juneteenth stems from June 19, 1865, when Union troops under Gen. Gordon Granger landed in Galveston, Texas. Granger's men marched through the city reading General Order No. 3 at municipal buildings and churches, declaring that all slaves were now free. African American leaders held the first celebration to mark the day on June 19, 1866. Trump's assertion that he made the day famous is a matter of opinion, but we can fact-check his claim that 'nobody had ever heard of it.' Millions of Americans had heard of Juneteenth before Trump's scheduling shift. 'Today, if Americans have any knowledge at all about commemorations of the end of U.S. slavery, their reference point is generally Juneteenth,' historian Mitch Kachun wrote in 2007. In 1980, Texas made June 19 a state holiday. Today, 47 states recognize the day. New York and Virginia just moved to make it a state holiday. In 2019, celebrations were held in cities nationwide, including New York City, Sacramento, Houston, New Orleans, Sioux Falls, S.D., Richmond, Va., Tulsa, Okla., Milwaukee, Kansas City, Mo., and the list goes on and on. From Texas in 1866, the Juneteenth tradition spread to surrounding states. It was popular in Oklahoma, where a young African American writer named Ralph Ellison grew up. Ellison wrote a short story entitled 'Juneteenth.' It became a key chapter in Ellison's posthumously published novel bearing the same title. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the social justice overtones of Juneteenth grew more prominent. In 1968, the Poor People's March on Washington firmly embedded Juneteenth in the Civil Rights movement. The march that traveled through the South had its final day of speeches and music at the Lincoln Memorial before an estimated crowd of 50,000 on June 19, 1968. Juneteenth.com, one of several efforts to promote recognition of the day, tracked large events in Milwaukee and Minneapolis back to the 1968 march. Starting in the 1990s, books aimed at younger readers popularized the tradition. The head of a group that promoted Juneteenth presented a copy of 'Juneteenth: A Celebration of Freedom' to then-governor of Alaska Sarah Palin at the Alaska Juneteenth Conference in Anchorage in 2009, where the governor spoke about the significance of Juneteenth in her state. Under Trump, the White House has issued statements every year to recognize Juneteenth.
|
Our ruling Trump said that nobody had heard of Juneteenth until this year. The history is clear. Long before Trump was elected president, millions of Americans knew about the day that marks the end of slavery in America. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"106248-proof-13-f5ca94758296a59c79ab2c7bccfa1f01.jpg"
] |
Says before he planned a rally on June 19 'nobody had ever heard of' Juneteenth.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump took credit for boosting awareness of Juneteenth, a day that marks the end of slavery in America. 'I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous,' Mr. Trump said, in a Wall Street Journal interview. 'It's actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it.' Trump had originally planned his first political rally in more than three months in Tulsa, Okla., for June 19. He moved the rally to June 20 after, he said, African American leaders asked him to. It is fair to say that outrage over George Floyd's death while in police custody, combined with vocal demonstrations and the Black Lives Matter movement, have raised the profile of Juneteenth and its meaning to new heights. Trump's planned rally in Tulsa fueled that sentiment. But his suggestion that no one knew about it ignores history; the day has held significance for millions of Americans for decades. Juneteenth stems from June 19, 1865, when Union troops under Gen. Gordon Granger landed in Galveston, Texas. Granger's men marched through the city reading General Order No. 3 at municipal buildings and churches, declaring that all slaves were now free. African American leaders held the first celebration to mark the day on June 19, 1866. Trump's assertion that he made the day famous is a matter of opinion, but we can fact-check his claim that 'nobody had ever heard of it.' Millions of Americans had heard of Juneteenth before Trump's scheduling shift. 'Today, if Americans have any knowledge at all about commemorations of the end of U.S. slavery, their reference point is generally Juneteenth,' historian Mitch Kachun wrote in 2007. In 1980, Texas made June 19 a state holiday. Today, 47 states recognize the day. New York and Virginia just moved to make it a state holiday. In 2019, celebrations were held in cities nationwide, including New York City, Sacramento, Houston, New Orleans, Sioux Falls, S.D., Richmond, Va., Tulsa, Okla., Milwaukee, Kansas City, Mo., and the list goes on and on. From Texas in 1866, the Juneteenth tradition spread to surrounding states. It was popular in Oklahoma, where a young African American writer named Ralph Ellison grew up. Ellison wrote a short story entitled 'Juneteenth.' It became a key chapter in Ellison's posthumously published novel bearing the same title. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the social justice overtones of Juneteenth grew more prominent. In 1968, the Poor People's March on Washington firmly embedded Juneteenth in the Civil Rights movement. The march that traveled through the South had its final day of speeches and music at the Lincoln Memorial before an estimated crowd of 50,000 on June 19, 1968. Juneteenth.com, one of several efforts to promote recognition of the day, tracked large events in Milwaukee and Minneapolis back to the 1968 march. Starting in the 1990s, books aimed at younger readers popularized the tradition. The head of a group that promoted Juneteenth presented a copy of 'Juneteenth: A Celebration of Freedom' to then-governor of Alaska Sarah Palin at the Alaska Juneteenth Conference in Anchorage in 2009, where the governor spoke about the significance of Juneteenth in her state. Under Trump, the White House has issued statements every year to recognize Juneteenth.
|
Our ruling Trump said that nobody had heard of Juneteenth until this year. The history is clear. Long before Trump was elected president, millions of Americans knew about the day that marks the end of slavery in America. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"106248-proof-13-f5ca94758296a59c79ab2c7bccfa1f01.jpg"
] |
Says before he planned a rally on June 19 'nobody had ever heard of' Juneteenth.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump took credit for boosting awareness of Juneteenth, a day that marks the end of slavery in America. 'I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous,' Mr. Trump said, in a Wall Street Journal interview. 'It's actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it.' Trump had originally planned his first political rally in more than three months in Tulsa, Okla., for June 19. He moved the rally to June 20 after, he said, African American leaders asked him to. It is fair to say that outrage over George Floyd's death while in police custody, combined with vocal demonstrations and the Black Lives Matter movement, have raised the profile of Juneteenth and its meaning to new heights. Trump's planned rally in Tulsa fueled that sentiment. But his suggestion that no one knew about it ignores history; the day has held significance for millions of Americans for decades. Juneteenth stems from June 19, 1865, when Union troops under Gen. Gordon Granger landed in Galveston, Texas. Granger's men marched through the city reading General Order No. 3 at municipal buildings and churches, declaring that all slaves were now free. African American leaders held the first celebration to mark the day on June 19, 1866. Trump's assertion that he made the day famous is a matter of opinion, but we can fact-check his claim that 'nobody had ever heard of it.' Millions of Americans had heard of Juneteenth before Trump's scheduling shift. 'Today, if Americans have any knowledge at all about commemorations of the end of U.S. slavery, their reference point is generally Juneteenth,' historian Mitch Kachun wrote in 2007. In 1980, Texas made June 19 a state holiday. Today, 47 states recognize the day. New York and Virginia just moved to make it a state holiday. In 2019, celebrations were held in cities nationwide, including New York City, Sacramento, Houston, New Orleans, Sioux Falls, S.D., Richmond, Va., Tulsa, Okla., Milwaukee, Kansas City, Mo., and the list goes on and on. From Texas in 1866, the Juneteenth tradition spread to surrounding states. It was popular in Oklahoma, where a young African American writer named Ralph Ellison grew up. Ellison wrote a short story entitled 'Juneteenth.' It became a key chapter in Ellison's posthumously published novel bearing the same title. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the social justice overtones of Juneteenth grew more prominent. In 1968, the Poor People's March on Washington firmly embedded Juneteenth in the Civil Rights movement. The march that traveled through the South had its final day of speeches and music at the Lincoln Memorial before an estimated crowd of 50,000 on June 19, 1968. Juneteenth.com, one of several efforts to promote recognition of the day, tracked large events in Milwaukee and Minneapolis back to the 1968 march. Starting in the 1990s, books aimed at younger readers popularized the tradition. The head of a group that promoted Juneteenth presented a copy of 'Juneteenth: A Celebration of Freedom' to then-governor of Alaska Sarah Palin at the Alaska Juneteenth Conference in Anchorage in 2009, where the governor spoke about the significance of Juneteenth in her state. Under Trump, the White House has issued statements every year to recognize Juneteenth.
|
Our ruling Trump said that nobody had heard of Juneteenth until this year. The history is clear. Long before Trump was elected president, millions of Americans knew about the day that marks the end of slavery in America. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"106248-proof-13-f5ca94758296a59c79ab2c7bccfa1f01.jpg"
] |
Says before he planned a rally on June 19 'nobody had ever heard of' Juneteenth.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump took credit for boosting awareness of Juneteenth, a day that marks the end of slavery in America. 'I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous,' Mr. Trump said, in a Wall Street Journal interview. 'It's actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it.' Trump had originally planned his first political rally in more than three months in Tulsa, Okla., for June 19. He moved the rally to June 20 after, he said, African American leaders asked him to. It is fair to say that outrage over George Floyd's death while in police custody, combined with vocal demonstrations and the Black Lives Matter movement, have raised the profile of Juneteenth and its meaning to new heights. Trump's planned rally in Tulsa fueled that sentiment. But his suggestion that no one knew about it ignores history; the day has held significance for millions of Americans for decades. Juneteenth stems from June 19, 1865, when Union troops under Gen. Gordon Granger landed in Galveston, Texas. Granger's men marched through the city reading General Order No. 3 at municipal buildings and churches, declaring that all slaves were now free. African American leaders held the first celebration to mark the day on June 19, 1866. Trump's assertion that he made the day famous is a matter of opinion, but we can fact-check his claim that 'nobody had ever heard of it.' Millions of Americans had heard of Juneteenth before Trump's scheduling shift. 'Today, if Americans have any knowledge at all about commemorations of the end of U.S. slavery, their reference point is generally Juneteenth,' historian Mitch Kachun wrote in 2007. In 1980, Texas made June 19 a state holiday. Today, 47 states recognize the day. New York and Virginia just moved to make it a state holiday. In 2019, celebrations were held in cities nationwide, including New York City, Sacramento, Houston, New Orleans, Sioux Falls, S.D., Richmond, Va., Tulsa, Okla., Milwaukee, Kansas City, Mo., and the list goes on and on. From Texas in 1866, the Juneteenth tradition spread to surrounding states. It was popular in Oklahoma, where a young African American writer named Ralph Ellison grew up. Ellison wrote a short story entitled 'Juneteenth.' It became a key chapter in Ellison's posthumously published novel bearing the same title. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the social justice overtones of Juneteenth grew more prominent. In 1968, the Poor People's March on Washington firmly embedded Juneteenth in the Civil Rights movement. The march that traveled through the South had its final day of speeches and music at the Lincoln Memorial before an estimated crowd of 50,000 on June 19, 1968. Juneteenth.com, one of several efforts to promote recognition of the day, tracked large events in Milwaukee and Minneapolis back to the 1968 march. Starting in the 1990s, books aimed at younger readers popularized the tradition. The head of a group that promoted Juneteenth presented a copy of 'Juneteenth: A Celebration of Freedom' to then-governor of Alaska Sarah Palin at the Alaska Juneteenth Conference in Anchorage in 2009, where the governor spoke about the significance of Juneteenth in her state. Under Trump, the White House has issued statements every year to recognize Juneteenth.
|
Our ruling Trump said that nobody had heard of Juneteenth until this year. The history is clear. Long before Trump was elected president, millions of Americans knew about the day that marks the end of slavery in America. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"106248-proof-13-f5ca94758296a59c79ab2c7bccfa1f01.jpg"
] |
'Pfizer vaccine now completely worthless in Israel as >80% of all COVID-19 patients were previously vaccinated.
|
Contradiction
|
Israel led the world with its early and speedy vaccination campaign, but with COVID-19 infection rates on the rise there, the country now finds itself in the crosshairs of vaccine skeptics. 'Pfizer vaccine now completely worthless in Israel as >80% of all COVID-19 patients were previously vaccinated,' read one viral Facebook post. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post misleads by saying the vaccine is 'completely worthless' in Israel, where cases are a fraction of the peak number in January and vaccines have been shown to protect against hospitalization and severe illness. And the claim that more than 80% of COVID-19 patients were previously vaccinated is not supported by published reports that include information from Israel's Ministry of Health. The post is an image of a tweet from a group called COVID-19 Evidence Based Clinical Response Panel, whose Twitter account has been suspended for violating Twitter's rules. Several news reports from U.S. and Isreali media indicate that beginning in late June and continuing until now, about 50% of new infections in Israel are in people who have been fully vaccinated. The 50% figure appears high, but it's not necessarily unexpected. Researchers typically expect that in places with high vaccination rates, vaccinated people will constitute a relatively high percentage of new cases. 'The more vaccinated a population, the more we'll hear of the vaccinated getting infected,' epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, wrote in June. For the percentage of COVID-19 cases in vaccinated people, the post cites a chart with data for June 27 to July 3 that it says comes from the Israel Ministry of Health Dashboard. The post's chart includes age groups, number of cases in the vaccinated, number of cases in the unvaccinated and percentage of cases in the vaccinated. We were unable to locate that chart or any single chart on the ministry's dashboard that contains similar categories of data. While COVID-19 infections have been on the rise in Israel, the average number of cases reported each day is currently at 38% of the peak on Jan. 16, when the highest daily average was reported, according to Reuters. Among Israelis who were fully vaccinated and experienced breakthrough infections, COVID-19 vaccines were 88% effective in preventing hospitalization and 91% effective against severe illness. Also, among the fully vaccinated, 8 in 10 of those who had breakthrough infections did not spread the virus to others in public places such as concerts, restaurants, gyms or event halls, Health Ministry data indicated. Misinformation about vaccine performance in Israel has been plentiful. PolitiFact recently debunked another claim that misleadingly compared COVID-19 reinfection rates among the unvaccinated and vaccinated to gauge protection against the virus.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed, 'Pfizer vaccine now completely worthless in Israel as >80% of all COVID-19 patients were previously vaccinated,' citing data it says comes from the Israel Ministry of Health Dashboard. Evidence does not support the claim that vaccines are now completely worthless in Israel, where cases are at a fraction of the peak in January and vaccines have been shown to protect against hospitalization and severe illness. We were unable to locate the data cited in the claim or any single chart on the ministry's dashboard that contained similar categories of data. But published reports indicate that half of new COVID-19 infections in Israel are in those who have been fully vaccinated. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'Pfizer vaccine now completely worthless in Israel as >80% of all COVID-19 patients were previously vaccinated.
|
Contradiction
|
Israel led the world with its early and speedy vaccination campaign, but with COVID-19 infection rates on the rise there, the country now finds itself in the crosshairs of vaccine skeptics. 'Pfizer vaccine now completely worthless in Israel as >80% of all COVID-19 patients were previously vaccinated,' read one viral Facebook post. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post misleads by saying the vaccine is 'completely worthless' in Israel, where cases are a fraction of the peak number in January and vaccines have been shown to protect against hospitalization and severe illness. And the claim that more than 80% of COVID-19 patients were previously vaccinated is not supported by published reports that include information from Israel's Ministry of Health. The post is an image of a tweet from a group called COVID-19 Evidence Based Clinical Response Panel, whose Twitter account has been suspended for violating Twitter's rules. Several news reports from U.S. and Isreali media indicate that beginning in late June and continuing until now, about 50% of new infections in Israel are in people who have been fully vaccinated. The 50% figure appears high, but it's not necessarily unexpected. Researchers typically expect that in places with high vaccination rates, vaccinated people will constitute a relatively high percentage of new cases. 'The more vaccinated a population, the more we'll hear of the vaccinated getting infected,' epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, wrote in June. For the percentage of COVID-19 cases in vaccinated people, the post cites a chart with data for June 27 to July 3 that it says comes from the Israel Ministry of Health Dashboard. The post's chart includes age groups, number of cases in the vaccinated, number of cases in the unvaccinated and percentage of cases in the vaccinated. We were unable to locate that chart or any single chart on the ministry's dashboard that contains similar categories of data. While COVID-19 infections have been on the rise in Israel, the average number of cases reported each day is currently at 38% of the peak on Jan. 16, when the highest daily average was reported, according to Reuters. Among Israelis who were fully vaccinated and experienced breakthrough infections, COVID-19 vaccines were 88% effective in preventing hospitalization and 91% effective against severe illness. Also, among the fully vaccinated, 8 in 10 of those who had breakthrough infections did not spread the virus to others in public places such as concerts, restaurants, gyms or event halls, Health Ministry data indicated. Misinformation about vaccine performance in Israel has been plentiful. PolitiFact recently debunked another claim that misleadingly compared COVID-19 reinfection rates among the unvaccinated and vaccinated to gauge protection against the virus.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed, 'Pfizer vaccine now completely worthless in Israel as >80% of all COVID-19 patients were previously vaccinated,' citing data it says comes from the Israel Ministry of Health Dashboard. Evidence does not support the claim that vaccines are now completely worthless in Israel, where cases are at a fraction of the peak in January and vaccines have been shown to protect against hospitalization and severe illness. We were unable to locate the data cited in the claim or any single chart on the ministry's dashboard that contained similar categories of data. But published reports indicate that half of new COVID-19 infections in Israel are in those who have been fully vaccinated. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
Says Jill Biden said, 'all Americans will be required to learn Spanish when we win'
|
Contradiction
|
Jill Biden is studying Spanish. But there's no reason to believe she would force everyone to do so if her husband is elected president, as a Facebook post claims. The Aug. 26 post said: 'Dr. Jill Biden: 'All Americans Will Be Required to Learn Spanish When We Win.' The post states that the information came from the New York Post, but included no link to another article. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook). A separate website intended to trick viewers into thinking it is the New York Post made a similar claim that Jill Biden, an English teacher, called for requiring people to learn Spanish. But we found no actual New York Post article that backs up the claim. Some posts show images of Biden giving her Aug. 18 speech at the Democratic National Convention or her June 30 interview with 'The View,' but in neither one did she suggest mandatory Spanish under a Joe Biden presidency. The Washington Post reported that Jill Biden is studying Spanish on Babbel, a mobile app for learning languages. The vast majority of people in the U.S. speak only English at home according to the census data, while about 21.5% speak another language, with Spanish being the most common. About 13% speak Spanish at home. We found no evidence that Jill Biden said that if her husband wins everyone will have to learn Spanish in the U.S. We find this claim falso y ridículo, so we rate it Pants on Fire! This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
We found no evidence that Jill Biden said that if her husband wins everyone will have to learn Spanish in the U.S. We find this claim falso y ridículo, so we rate it Pants on Fire! This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"106267-proof-14-e7c8b60b6210124aea76646516cc03b2.jpg"
] |
The migrant caravan from Tapachula, Mexico 'is the population of Minneapolis.
|
Contradiction
|
A Republican congresswoman from east central Illinois took aim at President Joe Biden's immigration policies by claiming hundreds of thousands of migrants are preparing to cross the nation's southern border. 'The Biden-Harris caravan is the population of Minneapolis and will enter our country with no vetting, no criminal background checks, no COVID testing, and no vaccine requirements,' freshman U.S. Rep. Mary Miller of downstate Oakland tweeted on Oct. 23 atop a video showing a large group of migrants marching from the southern Mexico city of Tapachula. The Biden-Harris caravan is the population of Minneapolis and will enter our country with no vetting, no criminal background checks, no COVID testing, and no vaccine requirements. https://t.co/63e5dOUfxI- Congresswoman Mary Miller (@RepMaryMiller) October 23, 2021 PolitiFact has debunked numerous claims from others that were part of Miller's statement, including that the Biden administration would allow anyone to cross the border or skip COVID testing and other public safety measures. So we decided to focus this fact-check on Miller's claim about the size of the recent Tapachula group. Minneapolis, Minn., is home to nearly 430,000 people, according to the U.S. Census, while the highest estimate we found for the group leaving Tapachula was less than 1% of that total. The congresswoman, who took office in January, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. 'No one caravan could be that size' The migrants featured in the video Miller shared set out on Oct. 23 from Tapachula, a city near the Mexico-Guatemala border where tens of thousands of Central Americans and Haitians have been waiting for Mexican authorities to process their asylum claims and permit them to move freely around the country. Reports from news outlets covering the trek have included estimates ranging from 2,000 to 4,000 migrants, including as many as 1,000 children. None of the experts we contacted had seen any estimates on par with Miller's comparison. 'This is an exaggeration designed to scare people into believing that we are experiencing an 'invasion' at the southern border in an attempt to advance anti-immigrant and anti-asylum policies,' said Nicole Hallett, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. Arrests of undocumented migrants along the Mexico border reached a record high of nearly 1.7 million from October 2020 through September 2021, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data first reported by The Washington Post. Neither Miller's tweet nor the video she shared make any reference to total border apprehensions, however. 'It would be fair to say that the number of people encountered at the border was equal to several times Minneapolis' population,' said Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for low immigration levels. 'But no one caravan could be that size.' As attempts by migrants to cross the border rise, Biden has faced increased criticism from Republicans for overturning some of former President Donald Trump's immigration policies, as well as from migrant advocates for his administration's continuation of an emergency health provision invoked under Trump to quickly expel migrants during the pandemic. Similar, though larger, caravans also marched through Mexico in 2018 and 2019, according to The Associated Press.
|
Our ruling Miller claimed the migrant caravan that set off from the southern Mexico city of Tapachula is 'the population of Minneapolis.' Minneapolis has nearly 430,000 residents, while the highest estimate we could find for the group leaving Tapachula was just under 1% of that total. We rate Miller's claim Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
|
[
"106276-proof-35-f801292bcac6e99c9381b4b9196e81e8.jpg"
] |
The migrant caravan from Tapachula, Mexico 'is the population of Minneapolis.
|
Contradiction
|
A Republican congresswoman from east central Illinois took aim at President Joe Biden's immigration policies by claiming hundreds of thousands of migrants are preparing to cross the nation's southern border. 'The Biden-Harris caravan is the population of Minneapolis and will enter our country with no vetting, no criminal background checks, no COVID testing, and no vaccine requirements,' freshman U.S. Rep. Mary Miller of downstate Oakland tweeted on Oct. 23 atop a video showing a large group of migrants marching from the southern Mexico city of Tapachula. The Biden-Harris caravan is the population of Minneapolis and will enter our country with no vetting, no criminal background checks, no COVID testing, and no vaccine requirements. https://t.co/63e5dOUfxI- Congresswoman Mary Miller (@RepMaryMiller) October 23, 2021 PolitiFact has debunked numerous claims from others that were part of Miller's statement, including that the Biden administration would allow anyone to cross the border or skip COVID testing and other public safety measures. So we decided to focus this fact-check on Miller's claim about the size of the recent Tapachula group. Minneapolis, Minn., is home to nearly 430,000 people, according to the U.S. Census, while the highest estimate we found for the group leaving Tapachula was less than 1% of that total. The congresswoman, who took office in January, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. 'No one caravan could be that size' The migrants featured in the video Miller shared set out on Oct. 23 from Tapachula, a city near the Mexico-Guatemala border where tens of thousands of Central Americans and Haitians have been waiting for Mexican authorities to process their asylum claims and permit them to move freely around the country. Reports from news outlets covering the trek have included estimates ranging from 2,000 to 4,000 migrants, including as many as 1,000 children. None of the experts we contacted had seen any estimates on par with Miller's comparison. 'This is an exaggeration designed to scare people into believing that we are experiencing an 'invasion' at the southern border in an attempt to advance anti-immigrant and anti-asylum policies,' said Nicole Hallett, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. Arrests of undocumented migrants along the Mexico border reached a record high of nearly 1.7 million from October 2020 through September 2021, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data first reported by The Washington Post. Neither Miller's tweet nor the video she shared make any reference to total border apprehensions, however. 'It would be fair to say that the number of people encountered at the border was equal to several times Minneapolis' population,' said Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for low immigration levels. 'But no one caravan could be that size.' As attempts by migrants to cross the border rise, Biden has faced increased criticism from Republicans for overturning some of former President Donald Trump's immigration policies, as well as from migrant advocates for his administration's continuation of an emergency health provision invoked under Trump to quickly expel migrants during the pandemic. Similar, though larger, caravans also marched through Mexico in 2018 and 2019, according to The Associated Press.
|
Our ruling Miller claimed the migrant caravan that set off from the southern Mexico city of Tapachula is 'the population of Minneapolis.' Minneapolis has nearly 430,000 residents, while the highest estimate we could find for the group leaving Tapachula was just under 1% of that total. We rate Miller's claim Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
|
[
"106276-proof-35-f801292bcac6e99c9381b4b9196e81e8.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Biden said voting by mail is a way to 'fundamentally change this country,' contradicting past statements by Barack Obama and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
|
Contradiction
|
A new video launched by the Republican National Committee suggests Democrats are pushing a 'radical plan to change our elections' through widespread mail-in voting. 'This is a radical change from their past,' the video says. As evidence, it flashes to clips of comments by President Barack Obama, U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., and former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that are divorced from any context. The one-minute video plays snippets of journalists bashing Iowa Democrats over their bungled caucus in February before ending with a warning: 'Democrats couldn't run the Iowa Caucus. Don't let them redesign our entire election.' The RNC launched its Protect the Vote website May 8, vowing to fight the 'Democrats' assault on the integrity of our elections.' But the clips of Democratic leaders are removed from the context of what they were talking about and ignore Obama's support for voting by mail in general at the time. The video also wrongly portrays the push for more mail-in voting as solely a Democratic effort. While Democratic leaders have pushed for more mail-in voting, they aren't alone. Republican officeholders in at least 16 states that do not have all-mail elections were encouraging voters to cast ballots via mail. The RNC's former chairman in March called for conservatives to embrace broader use of voting by mail. RELATED: Donald Trump's dubious claim that 'thousands' are conspiring on mail-ballot fraud Biden wasn't speaking about voting The ad starts with a clip of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden stating, 'We have an incredible opportunity to not just dig out of this crisis but to fundamentally change this country.' The text on the screen says, 'Democrats have a radical plan to change our elections.' But Biden's statement was about protecting essential workers, not voting by mail or in person. He used a May 4 campaign event to talk about providing a livable wage and paid sick leave to workers including meat packers and grocery store clerks. Biden's campaign has said he wants safer options for voting, including voting by mail and in-person voting. At a virtual fundraiser in April, Biden told donors that we have to make it easier for everyone to vote if we are still in lockdown, including providing mail-in ballots. At a virtual fundraiser May 8, Biden praised a move by California Gov. Gavin Newsom to send a mail-in ballot to every voter. Obama was talking about the 2008 Florida presidential primary The video shows MSNBC's Chris Matthews asking Obama a question related to mail-in voting. 'They are talking about people mailing in their ballots. Do you trust the security, the honesty of such an election process?' Matthews asked. Obama responded: 'Well, I'd think we would have to figure out whether this was fraud-proof.' The video doesn't clearly show the context of the interview; faint text on the screen says 'Decision 08.' It would be possible for viewers to assume Obama was criticizing voting by mail in general, but Obama was commenting about a specific set of circumstances related to the presidential primary in Florida. In 2007, the Florida Legislature moved up the date of the presidential primary to Jan. 29, earlier than either national party permitted. Hillary Clinton beat Obama, but the Democratic National Committee determined that the election violated party rules and stripped the state of its delegates. In March 2008, some Florida Democrats proposed a do-over election including a scenario of entirely voting by mail. Here was Matthews' full question on March 11, 2008, to then-Sen. Obama: 'There's word from Florida that they intend to put out a mailing sort of a campaign - I mean, an election process, whereby they make up for the primary they had before, which was ruled out of order by the Democratic National Committee and you did not campaign in. They're talking about mailing it - people mailing in their ballots. Do you trust the security, the honesty of such an election process? The RNC video only included the first sentence of Obama's cautious response. But Obama then made some positive statements about voting by mail: 'I mean, Oregon, for example, has a terrific mail-in system, but they've already scanned everybody's signatures who's registered to vote so that they can check to make sure that in fact the right people are voting. And that's something that I think you'd have to figure out.' During the 2020 pandemic, Obama has not expressly called for only voting by mail. He called for safe voting options while tweeting a New York Times story that debunked the claim that absentee voting favors Democrats and an NPR story about proposals to expand voting by mail and early voting. Wasserman Schultz also commented on the re-do election proposal The clip in the video of Wasserman Schultz does not clearly show the context. The text on the screen reads 'postal primary do-over' - but it's difficult to decipher. 'Debbie Wasserman Schultz argues a mail-in ballot has 'wrong' written all over it,' a journalist says. The video then shows a clip of Wasserman Schultz, a Broward Democrat, stating: 'It would be a risky experiment for us with an election that has stakes as high as a presidential election does.' The RNC video omits her next sentence: 'We've never done a mail-in ballot statewide.' She also said that 'there's a way to solve this without totally redoing this and causing more chaos.' Those clips are from a CNN report on March 10, 2008, about the idea for a mail-in primary do-over. Wasserman Schultz was talking about voting by mail in the narrow context of the proposed re-do election that spring. After months of wrangling that spring, the DNC agreed that Florida could send a full delegation to the convention, but each delegate would only get half a vote. Amid the pandemic, Wasserman Schultz said she supports expanding early voting and vote by mail options. The video also includes a quote by Eric Holder, a former Attorney General under Obama. 'No form of electoral fraud ever has been or will ever be tolerated by this administration,' Holder said. That stems from a speech he gave about voting rights in 2012; he wasn't specifically talking about absentee ballot fraud.
|
Our ruling An RNC video says Joe Biden said voting by mail is a way to 'fundamentally change this country,' contradicting past statements by Barack Obama and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The RNC video only includes snippets of statements by Obama and Wasserman Schultz to leave viewers with a misleading impression that they were bashing voting by mail in general, and that wasn't the case. Obama and Wasserman Schultz were talking about voting by mail in a narrow set of circumstances: a controversial proposal to redo the presidential preference primary in Florida in 2008. There is no evidence that overall either Democrat was broadly critical of voting by mail as an option in elections. The portion of the video about Biden also omits context. The video quotes him stating 'we have an incredible opportunity to not just dig out of this crisis but to fundamentally change this country,' before launching into the video's theme that Democrats want to use mail-in balloting to 'radically change' American elections. But Biden wasn't talking about elections, he was talking about protecting workers amid the pandemic. This video includes actual quotes by these three Democrats, but lacks context to explain their remarks. This video rates Mostly False. UPDATE, May 15, 2020: We received a statement from the RNC after publication. It does not affect the rating of the fact-check.
|
[
"106278-proof-31-88e3ddeabe941f9a41ceb7805cee14a2.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Biden said voting by mail is a way to 'fundamentally change this country,' contradicting past statements by Barack Obama and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
|
Contradiction
|
A new video launched by the Republican National Committee suggests Democrats are pushing a 'radical plan to change our elections' through widespread mail-in voting. 'This is a radical change from their past,' the video says. As evidence, it flashes to clips of comments by President Barack Obama, U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., and former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that are divorced from any context. The one-minute video plays snippets of journalists bashing Iowa Democrats over their bungled caucus in February before ending with a warning: 'Democrats couldn't run the Iowa Caucus. Don't let them redesign our entire election.' The RNC launched its Protect the Vote website May 8, vowing to fight the 'Democrats' assault on the integrity of our elections.' But the clips of Democratic leaders are removed from the context of what they were talking about and ignore Obama's support for voting by mail in general at the time. The video also wrongly portrays the push for more mail-in voting as solely a Democratic effort. While Democratic leaders have pushed for more mail-in voting, they aren't alone. Republican officeholders in at least 16 states that do not have all-mail elections were encouraging voters to cast ballots via mail. The RNC's former chairman in March called for conservatives to embrace broader use of voting by mail. RELATED: Donald Trump's dubious claim that 'thousands' are conspiring on mail-ballot fraud Biden wasn't speaking about voting The ad starts with a clip of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden stating, 'We have an incredible opportunity to not just dig out of this crisis but to fundamentally change this country.' The text on the screen says, 'Democrats have a radical plan to change our elections.' But Biden's statement was about protecting essential workers, not voting by mail or in person. He used a May 4 campaign event to talk about providing a livable wage and paid sick leave to workers including meat packers and grocery store clerks. Biden's campaign has said he wants safer options for voting, including voting by mail and in-person voting. At a virtual fundraiser in April, Biden told donors that we have to make it easier for everyone to vote if we are still in lockdown, including providing mail-in ballots. At a virtual fundraiser May 8, Biden praised a move by California Gov. Gavin Newsom to send a mail-in ballot to every voter. Obama was talking about the 2008 Florida presidential primary The video shows MSNBC's Chris Matthews asking Obama a question related to mail-in voting. 'They are talking about people mailing in their ballots. Do you trust the security, the honesty of such an election process?' Matthews asked. Obama responded: 'Well, I'd think we would have to figure out whether this was fraud-proof.' The video doesn't clearly show the context of the interview; faint text on the screen says 'Decision 08.' It would be possible for viewers to assume Obama was criticizing voting by mail in general, but Obama was commenting about a specific set of circumstances related to the presidential primary in Florida. In 2007, the Florida Legislature moved up the date of the presidential primary to Jan. 29, earlier than either national party permitted. Hillary Clinton beat Obama, but the Democratic National Committee determined that the election violated party rules and stripped the state of its delegates. In March 2008, some Florida Democrats proposed a do-over election including a scenario of entirely voting by mail. Here was Matthews' full question on March 11, 2008, to then-Sen. Obama: 'There's word from Florida that they intend to put out a mailing sort of a campaign - I mean, an election process, whereby they make up for the primary they had before, which was ruled out of order by the Democratic National Committee and you did not campaign in. They're talking about mailing it - people mailing in their ballots. Do you trust the security, the honesty of such an election process? The RNC video only included the first sentence of Obama's cautious response. But Obama then made some positive statements about voting by mail: 'I mean, Oregon, for example, has a terrific mail-in system, but they've already scanned everybody's signatures who's registered to vote so that they can check to make sure that in fact the right people are voting. And that's something that I think you'd have to figure out.' During the 2020 pandemic, Obama has not expressly called for only voting by mail. He called for safe voting options while tweeting a New York Times story that debunked the claim that absentee voting favors Democrats and an NPR story about proposals to expand voting by mail and early voting. Wasserman Schultz also commented on the re-do election proposal The clip in the video of Wasserman Schultz does not clearly show the context. The text on the screen reads 'postal primary do-over' - but it's difficult to decipher. 'Debbie Wasserman Schultz argues a mail-in ballot has 'wrong' written all over it,' a journalist says. The video then shows a clip of Wasserman Schultz, a Broward Democrat, stating: 'It would be a risky experiment for us with an election that has stakes as high as a presidential election does.' The RNC video omits her next sentence: 'We've never done a mail-in ballot statewide.' She also said that 'there's a way to solve this without totally redoing this and causing more chaos.' Those clips are from a CNN report on March 10, 2008, about the idea for a mail-in primary do-over. Wasserman Schultz was talking about voting by mail in the narrow context of the proposed re-do election that spring. After months of wrangling that spring, the DNC agreed that Florida could send a full delegation to the convention, but each delegate would only get half a vote. Amid the pandemic, Wasserman Schultz said she supports expanding early voting and vote by mail options. The video also includes a quote by Eric Holder, a former Attorney General under Obama. 'No form of electoral fraud ever has been or will ever be tolerated by this administration,' Holder said. That stems from a speech he gave about voting rights in 2012; he wasn't specifically talking about absentee ballot fraud.
|
Our ruling An RNC video says Joe Biden said voting by mail is a way to 'fundamentally change this country,' contradicting past statements by Barack Obama and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The RNC video only includes snippets of statements by Obama and Wasserman Schultz to leave viewers with a misleading impression that they were bashing voting by mail in general, and that wasn't the case. Obama and Wasserman Schultz were talking about voting by mail in a narrow set of circumstances: a controversial proposal to redo the presidential preference primary in Florida in 2008. There is no evidence that overall either Democrat was broadly critical of voting by mail as an option in elections. The portion of the video about Biden also omits context. The video quotes him stating 'we have an incredible opportunity to not just dig out of this crisis but to fundamentally change this country,' before launching into the video's theme that Democrats want to use mail-in balloting to 'radically change' American elections. But Biden wasn't talking about elections, he was talking about protecting workers amid the pandemic. This video includes actual quotes by these three Democrats, but lacks context to explain their remarks. This video rates Mostly False. UPDATE, May 15, 2020: We received a statement from the RNC after publication. It does not affect the rating of the fact-check.
|
[
"106278-proof-31-88e3ddeabe941f9a41ceb7805cee14a2.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Biden said voting by mail is a way to 'fundamentally change this country,' contradicting past statements by Barack Obama and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
|
Contradiction
|
A new video launched by the Republican National Committee suggests Democrats are pushing a 'radical plan to change our elections' through widespread mail-in voting. 'This is a radical change from their past,' the video says. As evidence, it flashes to clips of comments by President Barack Obama, U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., and former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that are divorced from any context. The one-minute video plays snippets of journalists bashing Iowa Democrats over their bungled caucus in February before ending with a warning: 'Democrats couldn't run the Iowa Caucus. Don't let them redesign our entire election.' The RNC launched its Protect the Vote website May 8, vowing to fight the 'Democrats' assault on the integrity of our elections.' But the clips of Democratic leaders are removed from the context of what they were talking about and ignore Obama's support for voting by mail in general at the time. The video also wrongly portrays the push for more mail-in voting as solely a Democratic effort. While Democratic leaders have pushed for more mail-in voting, they aren't alone. Republican officeholders in at least 16 states that do not have all-mail elections were encouraging voters to cast ballots via mail. The RNC's former chairman in March called for conservatives to embrace broader use of voting by mail. RELATED: Donald Trump's dubious claim that 'thousands' are conspiring on mail-ballot fraud Biden wasn't speaking about voting The ad starts with a clip of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden stating, 'We have an incredible opportunity to not just dig out of this crisis but to fundamentally change this country.' The text on the screen says, 'Democrats have a radical plan to change our elections.' But Biden's statement was about protecting essential workers, not voting by mail or in person. He used a May 4 campaign event to talk about providing a livable wage and paid sick leave to workers including meat packers and grocery store clerks. Biden's campaign has said he wants safer options for voting, including voting by mail and in-person voting. At a virtual fundraiser in April, Biden told donors that we have to make it easier for everyone to vote if we are still in lockdown, including providing mail-in ballots. At a virtual fundraiser May 8, Biden praised a move by California Gov. Gavin Newsom to send a mail-in ballot to every voter. Obama was talking about the 2008 Florida presidential primary The video shows MSNBC's Chris Matthews asking Obama a question related to mail-in voting. 'They are talking about people mailing in their ballots. Do you trust the security, the honesty of such an election process?' Matthews asked. Obama responded: 'Well, I'd think we would have to figure out whether this was fraud-proof.' The video doesn't clearly show the context of the interview; faint text on the screen says 'Decision 08.' It would be possible for viewers to assume Obama was criticizing voting by mail in general, but Obama was commenting about a specific set of circumstances related to the presidential primary in Florida. In 2007, the Florida Legislature moved up the date of the presidential primary to Jan. 29, earlier than either national party permitted. Hillary Clinton beat Obama, but the Democratic National Committee determined that the election violated party rules and stripped the state of its delegates. In March 2008, some Florida Democrats proposed a do-over election including a scenario of entirely voting by mail. Here was Matthews' full question on March 11, 2008, to then-Sen. Obama: 'There's word from Florida that they intend to put out a mailing sort of a campaign - I mean, an election process, whereby they make up for the primary they had before, which was ruled out of order by the Democratic National Committee and you did not campaign in. They're talking about mailing it - people mailing in their ballots. Do you trust the security, the honesty of such an election process? The RNC video only included the first sentence of Obama's cautious response. But Obama then made some positive statements about voting by mail: 'I mean, Oregon, for example, has a terrific mail-in system, but they've already scanned everybody's signatures who's registered to vote so that they can check to make sure that in fact the right people are voting. And that's something that I think you'd have to figure out.' During the 2020 pandemic, Obama has not expressly called for only voting by mail. He called for safe voting options while tweeting a New York Times story that debunked the claim that absentee voting favors Democrats and an NPR story about proposals to expand voting by mail and early voting. Wasserman Schultz also commented on the re-do election proposal The clip in the video of Wasserman Schultz does not clearly show the context. The text on the screen reads 'postal primary do-over' - but it's difficult to decipher. 'Debbie Wasserman Schultz argues a mail-in ballot has 'wrong' written all over it,' a journalist says. The video then shows a clip of Wasserman Schultz, a Broward Democrat, stating: 'It would be a risky experiment for us with an election that has stakes as high as a presidential election does.' The RNC video omits her next sentence: 'We've never done a mail-in ballot statewide.' She also said that 'there's a way to solve this without totally redoing this and causing more chaos.' Those clips are from a CNN report on March 10, 2008, about the idea for a mail-in primary do-over. Wasserman Schultz was talking about voting by mail in the narrow context of the proposed re-do election that spring. After months of wrangling that spring, the DNC agreed that Florida could send a full delegation to the convention, but each delegate would only get half a vote. Amid the pandemic, Wasserman Schultz said she supports expanding early voting and vote by mail options. The video also includes a quote by Eric Holder, a former Attorney General under Obama. 'No form of electoral fraud ever has been or will ever be tolerated by this administration,' Holder said. That stems from a speech he gave about voting rights in 2012; he wasn't specifically talking about absentee ballot fraud.
|
Our ruling An RNC video says Joe Biden said voting by mail is a way to 'fundamentally change this country,' contradicting past statements by Barack Obama and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The RNC video only includes snippets of statements by Obama and Wasserman Schultz to leave viewers with a misleading impression that they were bashing voting by mail in general, and that wasn't the case. Obama and Wasserman Schultz were talking about voting by mail in a narrow set of circumstances: a controversial proposal to redo the presidential preference primary in Florida in 2008. There is no evidence that overall either Democrat was broadly critical of voting by mail as an option in elections. The portion of the video about Biden also omits context. The video quotes him stating 'we have an incredible opportunity to not just dig out of this crisis but to fundamentally change this country,' before launching into the video's theme that Democrats want to use mail-in balloting to 'radically change' American elections. But Biden wasn't talking about elections, he was talking about protecting workers amid the pandemic. This video includes actual quotes by these three Democrats, but lacks context to explain their remarks. This video rates Mostly False. UPDATE, May 15, 2020: We received a statement from the RNC after publication. It does not affect the rating of the fact-check.
|
[
"106278-proof-31-88e3ddeabe941f9a41ceb7805cee14a2.jpg"
] |
Says 'The Simpsons' predicted the coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
'The Simpsons,' Fox's long-running, animated TV show, has famously predicted the future on several occasions. In season 11, for example, President Lisa Simpson has inherited a 'budget crunch from President Trump.' But what about the coronavirus? A Feb. 20 Facebook post appears to show stills from a 1993 episode of the show in which both Homer Simpson and Principal Skinner are sick; another image shows a broadcaster reading off a piece of paper while the words 'corona virus' and a cat appear on a screen behind him. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Most of the images are actually from an episode about the 'Osaka flu' - a factory employee coughs into a package bound for Homer back in Springfield and he gets sick. But the image of the cat behind the broadcaster seems to have been altered from how it originally appeared in an episode about 'housecat flu.' On the show, the text doesn't say 'corona virus' but 'apocalypse meow.' Eat our shorts: We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
Eat our shorts: We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
Says 'The Simpsons' predicted the coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
'The Simpsons,' Fox's long-running, animated TV show, has famously predicted the future on several occasions. In season 11, for example, President Lisa Simpson has inherited a 'budget crunch from President Trump.' But what about the coronavirus? A Feb. 20 Facebook post appears to show stills from a 1993 episode of the show in which both Homer Simpson and Principal Skinner are sick; another image shows a broadcaster reading off a piece of paper while the words 'corona virus' and a cat appear on a screen behind him. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Most of the images are actually from an episode about the 'Osaka flu' - a factory employee coughs into a package bound for Homer back in Springfield and he gets sick. But the image of the cat behind the broadcaster seems to have been altered from how it originally appeared in an episode about 'housecat flu.' On the show, the text doesn't say 'corona virus' but 'apocalypse meow.' Eat our shorts: We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
Eat our shorts: We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
'We spent billions on a border wall and quit when it was 90% finished.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post claims that construction of a southern border wall stopped just before completion. It's highly misleading. 'We spent billions on a border wall and quit when it was 90% finished,' said a March 23 Facebook post, which included a photo claiming to show people streaming through an opening at the border. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) President Joe Biden on his first day in office issued a proclamation to pause construction on the southern border and to assess the legality of the funding and construction contracts. Critics of the Biden administration say his policies are encouraging people to migrate illegally to the U.S. But the post fails to account for some important facts. Among them is that former President Donald Trump routinely moved the goal post regarding how many miles of border wall he wanted to build. Most of the construction that happened under his presidency involved the replacement of old barriers with new fencing that's expected to be more effective in stopping illegal immigration. And experts have said that the border barriers are not a significant factor in the current migration surge. 'The amount of wall that would have been built between January and now is negligible and would have practically no effect on how many people are crossing the border,' Nicole Hallett, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School, recently told PolitiFact North Carolina. Trump's shifting promise As a presidential candidate, Trump repeatedly said that the nearly 2,000-mile southern border needed a wall only along 1,000 miles. Natural barriers took care of the rest, he said. After his election, Trump offered varying estimates on the length of the wall and how many miles needed protection. He lowered projections the longer he was in office. 'You'll need anywhere from 700 to 900 miles,' he said in July 2017. 'We are going to do about 537 miles altogether,' he said in July 2020. About a week before he left office - with about 450 miles of barriers completed - Trump claimed to have 'completed the wall.' 'And today, we celebrate an extraordinary milestone, the completion of the promised 450 miles of border wall, 450 miles,' Trump said Jan. 12. He claimed that an additional 300 miles were 'either in construction or pre-construction.' Trump's inconsistent statements make it tough to measure his success. But we did not find a way to get to 90% completion, regardless of the metric used. Construction under Trump's tenure Trump's talk of a border wall commonly gave the impression that no barriers existed at the southern border and that he would build a wall along hundreds of unprotected miles. That's not what happened. The Trump administration is responsible for about 7% of the approximately 700 miles of primary barriers now in place on the southern border. When Trump entered office, the southern border had 654 miles of primary barriers - fencing to stop people on foot and in vehicles. By the time he left, that increased by 52 miles, to 706 miles of primary barriers. U.S. Customs and Border Protection said that since January 2017, officials had 'identified' about $15 billion for about 738 miles of border projects. As of late January 2021, crews had completed work on about 458 miles of those 738 miles (mainly replacement projects). So even by that metric, overall construction was not '90% finished' by the time Trump left office. Here's a breakdown of what construction crews had done by late January: Replaced 351 miles of outdated and/or dilapidated primary barriers; Replaced 22 miles of outdated and/or dilapidated secondary barriers; Installed 52 miles of primary barriers in places where no barriers previously existed; Installed 33 miles of secondary barriers in places where no barriers previously existed. Despite Trump's promise, Mexico did not pay for the construction. Funding for the projects came from the U.S. departments of Homeland Security and Defense, and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, CBP said.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'We spent billions on a border wall and quit when it was 90% finished.' Contracts for construction at the southern border total billions of dollars, and Biden has directed a pause in construction. That's not in dispute. But construction was not 90% finished. In addition, most of the work completed under the Trump administration involved the replacement of older barriers. The post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"106292-proof-22-22f452444a2a649f8d1a7fedfee22915.jpg"
] |
'We spent billions on a border wall and quit when it was 90% finished.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post claims that construction of a southern border wall stopped just before completion. It's highly misleading. 'We spent billions on a border wall and quit when it was 90% finished,' said a March 23 Facebook post, which included a photo claiming to show people streaming through an opening at the border. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) President Joe Biden on his first day in office issued a proclamation to pause construction on the southern border and to assess the legality of the funding and construction contracts. Critics of the Biden administration say his policies are encouraging people to migrate illegally to the U.S. But the post fails to account for some important facts. Among them is that former President Donald Trump routinely moved the goal post regarding how many miles of border wall he wanted to build. Most of the construction that happened under his presidency involved the replacement of old barriers with new fencing that's expected to be more effective in stopping illegal immigration. And experts have said that the border barriers are not a significant factor in the current migration surge. 'The amount of wall that would have been built between January and now is negligible and would have practically no effect on how many people are crossing the border,' Nicole Hallett, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School, recently told PolitiFact North Carolina. Trump's shifting promise As a presidential candidate, Trump repeatedly said that the nearly 2,000-mile southern border needed a wall only along 1,000 miles. Natural barriers took care of the rest, he said. After his election, Trump offered varying estimates on the length of the wall and how many miles needed protection. He lowered projections the longer he was in office. 'You'll need anywhere from 700 to 900 miles,' he said in July 2017. 'We are going to do about 537 miles altogether,' he said in July 2020. About a week before he left office - with about 450 miles of barriers completed - Trump claimed to have 'completed the wall.' 'And today, we celebrate an extraordinary milestone, the completion of the promised 450 miles of border wall, 450 miles,' Trump said Jan. 12. He claimed that an additional 300 miles were 'either in construction or pre-construction.' Trump's inconsistent statements make it tough to measure his success. But we did not find a way to get to 90% completion, regardless of the metric used. Construction under Trump's tenure Trump's talk of a border wall commonly gave the impression that no barriers existed at the southern border and that he would build a wall along hundreds of unprotected miles. That's not what happened. The Trump administration is responsible for about 7% of the approximately 700 miles of primary barriers now in place on the southern border. When Trump entered office, the southern border had 654 miles of primary barriers - fencing to stop people on foot and in vehicles. By the time he left, that increased by 52 miles, to 706 miles of primary barriers. U.S. Customs and Border Protection said that since January 2017, officials had 'identified' about $15 billion for about 738 miles of border projects. As of late January 2021, crews had completed work on about 458 miles of those 738 miles (mainly replacement projects). So even by that metric, overall construction was not '90% finished' by the time Trump left office. Here's a breakdown of what construction crews had done by late January: Replaced 351 miles of outdated and/or dilapidated primary barriers; Replaced 22 miles of outdated and/or dilapidated secondary barriers; Installed 52 miles of primary barriers in places where no barriers previously existed; Installed 33 miles of secondary barriers in places where no barriers previously existed. Despite Trump's promise, Mexico did not pay for the construction. Funding for the projects came from the U.S. departments of Homeland Security and Defense, and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, CBP said.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'We spent billions on a border wall and quit when it was 90% finished.' Contracts for construction at the southern border total billions of dollars, and Biden has directed a pause in construction. That's not in dispute. But construction was not 90% finished. In addition, most of the work completed under the Trump administration involved the replacement of older barriers. The post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"106292-proof-22-22f452444a2a649f8d1a7fedfee22915.jpg"
] |
'This man who was kicked and stomped' was killed by an 'antifa murderer.
|
Contradiction
|
Amid many peaceful Black Lives Matter protests, there have been instances of violence that resulted in death. One alarming social media post claims that one of those deaths was the result of an attack by an 'antifa murderer.' The June 3 Facebook post includes many pictures of a young man in a black shirt and a white mask at a protest. In one picture it appears he is kicking someone who is face-down on the ground wearing a blue shirt and light blue jeans. 'This man who was kicked and stomped has died,' the post claims. 'The antifa murderer is in the white mask.' It then calls for anyone who recognizes the man to call the police or the FBI. This post was flagged by Facebook as part of efforts to combat false news and information on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This attack did happen, and the victim was seriously injured. But police confirmed that he survived, and said they had arrested a teenage suspect. There is no evidence that the person attacking him is part of antifa, a loosely organized left-wing movement that at times uses violence. What the videos show This attack happened on May 30 in Portland, Ore., at the intersection of SW 4th Street and SW Salmon Street, where journalists photographed protests against police brutality around 8 p.m. Based on a review of images and videos tweeted and shared by journalists, it appears that the victim seen lying on the ground in these photos was involved in a skirmish immediately prior to what we see in this Facebook post. And videos also show that after these pictures were taken, he was able to stand and speak to others who came to his aid. In a video posted by a journalist from the Oregonian newspaper, a large crowd is seen attacking a man with a flag. Twenty-eight seconds in, we see the man in the blue shirt and light blue jeans run into the melee and become involved in the conflict with his arms swinging. In a separate video of the same incident captured by another Oregonian journalist from a different angle, it looks like the man is punching and pushing someone before exiting the crowd again. As the man walks from the scene, according to a third video tweeted by conservative journalist Andy Ngo, two men start chasing him. One pushes him, and the man in blue collapses face-down. Then another man, wearing a black T-shirt, kicks him in the head before fleeing. 'He's dead,' we hear someone yell. But as the video continues, we see others come to the man's aid, treating his wounds, helping him off the ground and talking to him. Ngo, of conservative Canadian website The Post Millennial, on May 31 posted a compilation of pictures similar to those seen in the Facebook post and identified the attackers as 'antifa.' On June 4, Portland police announced that with 'the public's help, the suspect who was kicking the victim in the head was identified and detectives were notified.' The 14-year-old suspect was charged with felony assault and taken to a juvenile detention center, while the investigation continues. Portland police said in their statement that 'the male victim sustained serious injuries but is not deceased.' Sgt. Michael Roberts told PolitiFact that the police currently have no evidence of antifa being involved in this incident.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that an 'antifa murderer' had killed a man that 'was kicked and stomped' at a protest. There is no evidence that the attackers are part of the antifa movement. The attack took place where many were peacefully protesting the Minneapolis police's treatment of George Floyd. According to videos of the attack from journalists at the protest, the man in the blue shirt got up after the attack and was walking around and talking. Portland police also confirmed in a press release that the victim isn't dead. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'This man who was kicked and stomped' was killed by an 'antifa murderer.
|
Contradiction
|
Amid many peaceful Black Lives Matter protests, there have been instances of violence that resulted in death. One alarming social media post claims that one of those deaths was the result of an attack by an 'antifa murderer.' The June 3 Facebook post includes many pictures of a young man in a black shirt and a white mask at a protest. In one picture it appears he is kicking someone who is face-down on the ground wearing a blue shirt and light blue jeans. 'This man who was kicked and stomped has died,' the post claims. 'The antifa murderer is in the white mask.' It then calls for anyone who recognizes the man to call the police or the FBI. This post was flagged by Facebook as part of efforts to combat false news and information on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This attack did happen, and the victim was seriously injured. But police confirmed that he survived, and said they had arrested a teenage suspect. There is no evidence that the person attacking him is part of antifa, a loosely organized left-wing movement that at times uses violence. What the videos show This attack happened on May 30 in Portland, Ore., at the intersection of SW 4th Street and SW Salmon Street, where journalists photographed protests against police brutality around 8 p.m. Based on a review of images and videos tweeted and shared by journalists, it appears that the victim seen lying on the ground in these photos was involved in a skirmish immediately prior to what we see in this Facebook post. And videos also show that after these pictures were taken, he was able to stand and speak to others who came to his aid. In a video posted by a journalist from the Oregonian newspaper, a large crowd is seen attacking a man with a flag. Twenty-eight seconds in, we see the man in the blue shirt and light blue jeans run into the melee and become involved in the conflict with his arms swinging. In a separate video of the same incident captured by another Oregonian journalist from a different angle, it looks like the man is punching and pushing someone before exiting the crowd again. As the man walks from the scene, according to a third video tweeted by conservative journalist Andy Ngo, two men start chasing him. One pushes him, and the man in blue collapses face-down. Then another man, wearing a black T-shirt, kicks him in the head before fleeing. 'He's dead,' we hear someone yell. But as the video continues, we see others come to the man's aid, treating his wounds, helping him off the ground and talking to him. Ngo, of conservative Canadian website The Post Millennial, on May 31 posted a compilation of pictures similar to those seen in the Facebook post and identified the attackers as 'antifa.' On June 4, Portland police announced that with 'the public's help, the suspect who was kicking the victim in the head was identified and detectives were notified.' The 14-year-old suspect was charged with felony assault and taken to a juvenile detention center, while the investigation continues. Portland police said in their statement that 'the male victim sustained serious injuries but is not deceased.' Sgt. Michael Roberts told PolitiFact that the police currently have no evidence of antifa being involved in this incident.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that an 'antifa murderer' had killed a man that 'was kicked and stomped' at a protest. There is no evidence that the attackers are part of the antifa movement. The attack took place where many were peacefully protesting the Minneapolis police's treatment of George Floyd. According to videos of the attack from journalists at the protest, the man in the blue shirt got up after the attack and was walking around and talking. Portland police also confirmed in a press release that the victim isn't dead. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'This man who was kicked and stomped' was killed by an 'antifa murderer.
|
Contradiction
|
Amid many peaceful Black Lives Matter protests, there have been instances of violence that resulted in death. One alarming social media post claims that one of those deaths was the result of an attack by an 'antifa murderer.' The June 3 Facebook post includes many pictures of a young man in a black shirt and a white mask at a protest. In one picture it appears he is kicking someone who is face-down on the ground wearing a blue shirt and light blue jeans. 'This man who was kicked and stomped has died,' the post claims. 'The antifa murderer is in the white mask.' It then calls for anyone who recognizes the man to call the police or the FBI. This post was flagged by Facebook as part of efforts to combat false news and information on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This attack did happen, and the victim was seriously injured. But police confirmed that he survived, and said they had arrested a teenage suspect. There is no evidence that the person attacking him is part of antifa, a loosely organized left-wing movement that at times uses violence. What the videos show This attack happened on May 30 in Portland, Ore., at the intersection of SW 4th Street and SW Salmon Street, where journalists photographed protests against police brutality around 8 p.m. Based on a review of images and videos tweeted and shared by journalists, it appears that the victim seen lying on the ground in these photos was involved in a skirmish immediately prior to what we see in this Facebook post. And videos also show that after these pictures were taken, he was able to stand and speak to others who came to his aid. In a video posted by a journalist from the Oregonian newspaper, a large crowd is seen attacking a man with a flag. Twenty-eight seconds in, we see the man in the blue shirt and light blue jeans run into the melee and become involved in the conflict with his arms swinging. In a separate video of the same incident captured by another Oregonian journalist from a different angle, it looks like the man is punching and pushing someone before exiting the crowd again. As the man walks from the scene, according to a third video tweeted by conservative journalist Andy Ngo, two men start chasing him. One pushes him, and the man in blue collapses face-down. Then another man, wearing a black T-shirt, kicks him in the head before fleeing. 'He's dead,' we hear someone yell. But as the video continues, we see others come to the man's aid, treating his wounds, helping him off the ground and talking to him. Ngo, of conservative Canadian website The Post Millennial, on May 31 posted a compilation of pictures similar to those seen in the Facebook post and identified the attackers as 'antifa.' On June 4, Portland police announced that with 'the public's help, the suspect who was kicking the victim in the head was identified and detectives were notified.' The 14-year-old suspect was charged with felony assault and taken to a juvenile detention center, while the investigation continues. Portland police said in their statement that 'the male victim sustained serious injuries but is not deceased.' Sgt. Michael Roberts told PolitiFact that the police currently have no evidence of antifa being involved in this incident.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that an 'antifa murderer' had killed a man that 'was kicked and stomped' at a protest. There is no evidence that the attackers are part of the antifa movement. The attack took place where many were peacefully protesting the Minneapolis police's treatment of George Floyd. According to videos of the attack from journalists at the protest, the man in the blue shirt got up after the attack and was walking around and talking. Portland police also confirmed in a press release that the victim isn't dead. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'This man who was kicked and stomped' was killed by an 'antifa murderer.
|
Contradiction
|
Amid many peaceful Black Lives Matter protests, there have been instances of violence that resulted in death. One alarming social media post claims that one of those deaths was the result of an attack by an 'antifa murderer.' The June 3 Facebook post includes many pictures of a young man in a black shirt and a white mask at a protest. In one picture it appears he is kicking someone who is face-down on the ground wearing a blue shirt and light blue jeans. 'This man who was kicked and stomped has died,' the post claims. 'The antifa murderer is in the white mask.' It then calls for anyone who recognizes the man to call the police or the FBI. This post was flagged by Facebook as part of efforts to combat false news and information on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This attack did happen, and the victim was seriously injured. But police confirmed that he survived, and said they had arrested a teenage suspect. There is no evidence that the person attacking him is part of antifa, a loosely organized left-wing movement that at times uses violence. What the videos show This attack happened on May 30 in Portland, Ore., at the intersection of SW 4th Street and SW Salmon Street, where journalists photographed protests against police brutality around 8 p.m. Based on a review of images and videos tweeted and shared by journalists, it appears that the victim seen lying on the ground in these photos was involved in a skirmish immediately prior to what we see in this Facebook post. And videos also show that after these pictures were taken, he was able to stand and speak to others who came to his aid. In a video posted by a journalist from the Oregonian newspaper, a large crowd is seen attacking a man with a flag. Twenty-eight seconds in, we see the man in the blue shirt and light blue jeans run into the melee and become involved in the conflict with his arms swinging. In a separate video of the same incident captured by another Oregonian journalist from a different angle, it looks like the man is punching and pushing someone before exiting the crowd again. As the man walks from the scene, according to a third video tweeted by conservative journalist Andy Ngo, two men start chasing him. One pushes him, and the man in blue collapses face-down. Then another man, wearing a black T-shirt, kicks him in the head before fleeing. 'He's dead,' we hear someone yell. But as the video continues, we see others come to the man's aid, treating his wounds, helping him off the ground and talking to him. Ngo, of conservative Canadian website The Post Millennial, on May 31 posted a compilation of pictures similar to those seen in the Facebook post and identified the attackers as 'antifa.' On June 4, Portland police announced that with 'the public's help, the suspect who was kicking the victim in the head was identified and detectives were notified.' The 14-year-old suspect was charged with felony assault and taken to a juvenile detention center, while the investigation continues. Portland police said in their statement that 'the male victim sustained serious injuries but is not deceased.' Sgt. Michael Roberts told PolitiFact that the police currently have no evidence of antifa being involved in this incident.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that an 'antifa murderer' had killed a man that 'was kicked and stomped' at a protest. There is no evidence that the attackers are part of the antifa movement. The attack took place where many were peacefully protesting the Minneapolis police's treatment of George Floyd. According to videos of the attack from journalists at the protest, the man in the blue shirt got up after the attack and was walking around and talking. Portland police also confirmed in a press release that the victim isn't dead. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
Says Gov. Tony Evers 'is proposing a new plan, a 150 day shutdown of the state (5 MONTHS!) followed by a 120 day extension.
|
Contradiction
|
Wisconsin's coronavirus response has been in a state of flux since the state Supreme Court threw out Gov. Tony Evers' safer-at-home order on May 13, 2020. Absent statewide rules, counties implemented a patchwork of policies, some of which were quickly dropped. Other local orders remain, but expire on different dates. Evers' administration proposed new rules, only to withdraw them after Republican blowback. In the middle of this uncertainty, a Facebook post claiming to detail Evers' plan spread among conservatives and ended up on the Republican Party of Kenosha County's page. 'HEADS UP WISCONSIN!! This is no joke!,' the post reads. 'Evers is proposing a new plan, a 150 day shutdown of the state (5 MONTHS!) followed by a 120 day extension.' It goes on to ask readers to call 10 members of a key legislative committee to voice their outrage, suggesting the Evers order included forced masks, forced testing, forced quarantines and even forced vaccinations. (Never mind that no vaccination currently exists.) But that is not at all what the administration proposed. Let's take a look. The process When asked for evidence to back up the Facebook post, the Republican Party of Kenosha County said it reposted the message from someone else and pointed PolitiFact Wisconsin to the Evers administration's proposed rules. The message, which urges people to copy and paste it to share, has been shared more than 600 times based on the Kenosha County GOP post alone. It was also posted to the Recall Tony Evers Facebook group and shared by the La Crosse Tea Party. It's unclear where the post originated. On May 14, 2020, Evers approved what's called a statement of scope put together by the state Department of Health Services. The document is the first step in the rulemaking process that Evers' administration must operate under after the Supreme Court ruling. A Republican-led committee could veto the proposed rules, which Sen. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, asked Evers to withdraw saying it could not win support. On May 18, 2020, the governor said the proposal would be his last attempt at a statewide rule to contain the virus. The proposal DHS' statement of scope said the agency would implement temporary measures to limit gatherings, enforce social distancing and ensure businesses protect employees and customers from COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. The proposal also promised to establish a phased approach to reopening the state's economy. All in all, DHS' statement of scope largely replicated the plan -- which Evers had dubbed the 'Badger Bounce Back' -- that was struck down by the state Supreme Court. DHS officials admitted as much, writing that 'the proposed emergency rule may re-articulate some or all the parameters specified in Badger Bounce Back.' 'The proposed rule will implement measures to reduce and slow the rate of infection of COVID-19, to reduce strain on the health care system, to mitigate economic hardship, and to save lives,' the document states. 150 days? Nothing in the statement of scope suggests state officials planned to shut down the state for 150 more days, plus an extension. Nor did the previous order that it's based on. (And remember, the Evers order challenged by the GOP was 13 days away from expiring when the Supreme Court ruled.) The Evers administration's Badger Bounce Back plan provided for a phased reopening of the economy as the state achieved certain public health criteria. Among them: Increased testing and contact tracing, a downward trajectory of positive tests as a percentage for 14 days and a decline in influenza-like illnesses. The state had met five of six benchmarks on May 12, a day before the court's ruling came down. Wisconsin state statutes do specify that emergency rules can only remain in effect for 150 days, unless extended by no more than 120 days. But that should not be confused with DHS' statement of scope, which was done under the emergency rules framework but did not establish a set time for reopening. Moreover, a phased reopening based on public health is hardly a complete shutdown as the Facebook post implies. When asked about the post during a May 18, 2020 media call, the governor's response was brief. 'That'd be a lie,' Evers said.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post shared by conservative groups in Wisconsin said Evers was proposing a five-month shutdown of the state, plus a 120-day extension. At no time did the Evers administration suggest this. The Supreme Court ruling meant Evers had to turn to the emergency rulemaking process through the Legislature. That process includes limits and timetables for any such rule. The Facebook post wrongly conflates that timetable with the governor's plan to reopen the state. As such, it is entirely incorrect. What's more, the post encourages people to spread misinformation. We rate the claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"106326-proof-24-b19647427741baef18c5be9d001408a0.jpg"
] |
Says Gov. Tony Evers 'is proposing a new plan, a 150 day shutdown of the state (5 MONTHS!) followed by a 120 day extension.
|
Contradiction
|
Wisconsin's coronavirus response has been in a state of flux since the state Supreme Court threw out Gov. Tony Evers' safer-at-home order on May 13, 2020. Absent statewide rules, counties implemented a patchwork of policies, some of which were quickly dropped. Other local orders remain, but expire on different dates. Evers' administration proposed new rules, only to withdraw them after Republican blowback. In the middle of this uncertainty, a Facebook post claiming to detail Evers' plan spread among conservatives and ended up on the Republican Party of Kenosha County's page. 'HEADS UP WISCONSIN!! This is no joke!,' the post reads. 'Evers is proposing a new plan, a 150 day shutdown of the state (5 MONTHS!) followed by a 120 day extension.' It goes on to ask readers to call 10 members of a key legislative committee to voice their outrage, suggesting the Evers order included forced masks, forced testing, forced quarantines and even forced vaccinations. (Never mind that no vaccination currently exists.) But that is not at all what the administration proposed. Let's take a look. The process When asked for evidence to back up the Facebook post, the Republican Party of Kenosha County said it reposted the message from someone else and pointed PolitiFact Wisconsin to the Evers administration's proposed rules. The message, which urges people to copy and paste it to share, has been shared more than 600 times based on the Kenosha County GOP post alone. It was also posted to the Recall Tony Evers Facebook group and shared by the La Crosse Tea Party. It's unclear where the post originated. On May 14, 2020, Evers approved what's called a statement of scope put together by the state Department of Health Services. The document is the first step in the rulemaking process that Evers' administration must operate under after the Supreme Court ruling. A Republican-led committee could veto the proposed rules, which Sen. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, asked Evers to withdraw saying it could not win support. On May 18, 2020, the governor said the proposal would be his last attempt at a statewide rule to contain the virus. The proposal DHS' statement of scope said the agency would implement temporary measures to limit gatherings, enforce social distancing and ensure businesses protect employees and customers from COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. The proposal also promised to establish a phased approach to reopening the state's economy. All in all, DHS' statement of scope largely replicated the plan -- which Evers had dubbed the 'Badger Bounce Back' -- that was struck down by the state Supreme Court. DHS officials admitted as much, writing that 'the proposed emergency rule may re-articulate some or all the parameters specified in Badger Bounce Back.' 'The proposed rule will implement measures to reduce and slow the rate of infection of COVID-19, to reduce strain on the health care system, to mitigate economic hardship, and to save lives,' the document states. 150 days? Nothing in the statement of scope suggests state officials planned to shut down the state for 150 more days, plus an extension. Nor did the previous order that it's based on. (And remember, the Evers order challenged by the GOP was 13 days away from expiring when the Supreme Court ruled.) The Evers administration's Badger Bounce Back plan provided for a phased reopening of the economy as the state achieved certain public health criteria. Among them: Increased testing and contact tracing, a downward trajectory of positive tests as a percentage for 14 days and a decline in influenza-like illnesses. The state had met five of six benchmarks on May 12, a day before the court's ruling came down. Wisconsin state statutes do specify that emergency rules can only remain in effect for 150 days, unless extended by no more than 120 days. But that should not be confused with DHS' statement of scope, which was done under the emergency rules framework but did not establish a set time for reopening. Moreover, a phased reopening based on public health is hardly a complete shutdown as the Facebook post implies. When asked about the post during a May 18, 2020 media call, the governor's response was brief. 'That'd be a lie,' Evers said.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post shared by conservative groups in Wisconsin said Evers was proposing a five-month shutdown of the state, plus a 120-day extension. At no time did the Evers administration suggest this. The Supreme Court ruling meant Evers had to turn to the emergency rulemaking process through the Legislature. That process includes limits and timetables for any such rule. The Facebook post wrongly conflates that timetable with the governor's plan to reopen the state. As such, it is entirely incorrect. What's more, the post encourages people to spread misinformation. We rate the claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"106326-proof-24-b19647427741baef18c5be9d001408a0.jpg"
] |
Says Ford agreed to invest $900 million at an Ohio plant because Donald Trump 'lowered taxes' and is now moving the project to Mexico because Joe Biden is 'increasing taxes.
|
Contradiction
|
The United Auto Workers Union told its members at Ford Motor Co. in March that the automaker is backing out of a planned $900 million investment at an Ohio assembly plant and moving a key vehicle project to Mexico. A Facebook post attributes Ford's apparent about-face to a shift in corporate tax policy between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The post begins by stating: 'Trump lowered taxes and in 2019 Ford made a commitment to invest $900 million at its Avon Lake, OH plant.' Below that is a photo of Biden speaking and the text: 'I am increasing taxes and NOW the entire Ford project is moving to Mexico. I will always put other countries first.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There are signs that Ford might be shifting plans for production of a new vehicle from Ohio to Mexico. But we didn't find clear evidence from news reports or from Ford that the change is directly due to shifting tax policy. Meanwhile, the post leaves out context about other factors that influence automakers' production decisions. Trump, Ford and auto production Mexico has long been an attractive production site for U.S. and foreign automakers because of its relatively low labor costs and trade agreements that make it economical to export Mexican-made vehicles around the world. But balancing production between the U.S. and Mexico is a politically delicate task. As a candidate and as president, Trump continually pressured Ford and other automakers to boost manufacturing in the U.S. and reduce their dependence on Mexico, including threatening a border tax on imported vehicles and pushing for a rewrite of the North American Free Trade Agreement that would favor U.S. production. He pitched his 2017 corporate tax-cut proposal as a way to help reverse a decline in U.S. manufacturing. Ford praised Trump's proposals to reduce corporate tax rates, although companies such as Ford with heavy debt were not expected to benefit from the tax cuts he signed into law in 2017. In November 2019, Ford and the United Auto Workers union approved a four-year contract with $6 billion in investment in Ford's U.S. manufacturing facilities, including $900 million at the Ohio plant, which builds heavy-duty trucks and employs about 1,740 people. The plant was to get production of a new, unnamed vehicle by 2023. News stories on the tentative contract agreement - including those by CNBC, Automotive News, the New York Times and Fox Business - made no mention of Trump's tax policy as a factor. The next month, Ford announced another domestic investment, saying it would invest $1.45 billion in its plants in southeast Michigan. While U.S. automakers keep an eye on trade rules, federal policy and political winds to guide their production strategies, other important trends have also influenced their thinking and reordered their production plans in recent years: a shift away from traditional car models in favor of SUVs and pickup trucks, a strategic shift toward electric vehicles, and rising costs for research on autonomous vehicle and fuel-efficiency technology. At Ford, several sedan models that Ford were built at its Mexico plants have been eliminated from its U.S. lineup. And this year, Ford doubled its spending commitment to electric vehicles. Biden's tax proposals Biden campaigned on plans to grow federal revenue by $3.6 trillion over the next decade, primarily by raising business taxes and taxes on households with incomes over $400,000 a year. In mid-March 2021, news reports said Biden was considering moves to increase taxes on the wealthy and corporations. More recently, after the Facebook post we're checking was posted, Biden announced plans to finance his $2.3 million infrastructure plan in part by raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, and by imposing a 21% global minimum tax, so that companies cannot avoid taxes by shifting income to low-tax countries. Ford's statements on production shift Reuters reported that Ford issued a statement that did not directly address the union's criticism, but had said in a letter to employees that conditions had changed since 2019. Asked about whether its decisions about the Ohio plant were tied to tax policies, a Ford spokesman told PolitiFact: 'The business decision in question was not a result of then-presidential candidate Biden's corporate tax proposals.' 'We remain committed to investing $6 billion in our U.S. plants and creating and retaining 8,500 jobs in America during this four-year UAW contract. We are invested in Ohio Assembly Plant and our dedicated workforce there,' the spokesman said. 'Since 2019, we have invested more than $185 million and created and retained more than 100 jobs at Ohio Assembly Plant, including actions planned for this year.' A Ford spokeswoman declined to say what vehicle the company plans to manufacture in Mexico, according to Fox Business.
|
Our ruling A post shared on Facebook claims that Trump 'lowered taxes and in 2019 Ford made a commitment to invest $900 million at its Avon Lake, OH plant,' and Biden is 'increasing taxes and now the entire Ford project is moving to Mexico.' There are signs that Ford might be shifting plans for manufacturing a new model of vehicle from Ohio to Mexico. But there are no indications that Trump's tax cuts led to the initial plans in Ohio or that Biden's possible tax hikes had any role in a possible shift in those plans to Mexico. For a post that contains only an element of truth and leaves out important context, our rating is Mostly False.
|
[
"106336-proof-22-eb3c8739467590599ab865f0c06148fb.jpg"
] |
Says Ford agreed to invest $900 million at an Ohio plant because Donald Trump 'lowered taxes' and is now moving the project to Mexico because Joe Biden is 'increasing taxes.
|
Contradiction
|
The United Auto Workers Union told its members at Ford Motor Co. in March that the automaker is backing out of a planned $900 million investment at an Ohio assembly plant and moving a key vehicle project to Mexico. A Facebook post attributes Ford's apparent about-face to a shift in corporate tax policy between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The post begins by stating: 'Trump lowered taxes and in 2019 Ford made a commitment to invest $900 million at its Avon Lake, OH plant.' Below that is a photo of Biden speaking and the text: 'I am increasing taxes and NOW the entire Ford project is moving to Mexico. I will always put other countries first.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There are signs that Ford might be shifting plans for production of a new vehicle from Ohio to Mexico. But we didn't find clear evidence from news reports or from Ford that the change is directly due to shifting tax policy. Meanwhile, the post leaves out context about other factors that influence automakers' production decisions. Trump, Ford and auto production Mexico has long been an attractive production site for U.S. and foreign automakers because of its relatively low labor costs and trade agreements that make it economical to export Mexican-made vehicles around the world. But balancing production between the U.S. and Mexico is a politically delicate task. As a candidate and as president, Trump continually pressured Ford and other automakers to boost manufacturing in the U.S. and reduce their dependence on Mexico, including threatening a border tax on imported vehicles and pushing for a rewrite of the North American Free Trade Agreement that would favor U.S. production. He pitched his 2017 corporate tax-cut proposal as a way to help reverse a decline in U.S. manufacturing. Ford praised Trump's proposals to reduce corporate tax rates, although companies such as Ford with heavy debt were not expected to benefit from the tax cuts he signed into law in 2017. In November 2019, Ford and the United Auto Workers union approved a four-year contract with $6 billion in investment in Ford's U.S. manufacturing facilities, including $900 million at the Ohio plant, which builds heavy-duty trucks and employs about 1,740 people. The plant was to get production of a new, unnamed vehicle by 2023. News stories on the tentative contract agreement - including those by CNBC, Automotive News, the New York Times and Fox Business - made no mention of Trump's tax policy as a factor. The next month, Ford announced another domestic investment, saying it would invest $1.45 billion in its plants in southeast Michigan. While U.S. automakers keep an eye on trade rules, federal policy and political winds to guide their production strategies, other important trends have also influenced their thinking and reordered their production plans in recent years: a shift away from traditional car models in favor of SUVs and pickup trucks, a strategic shift toward electric vehicles, and rising costs for research on autonomous vehicle and fuel-efficiency technology. At Ford, several sedan models that Ford were built at its Mexico plants have been eliminated from its U.S. lineup. And this year, Ford doubled its spending commitment to electric vehicles. Biden's tax proposals Biden campaigned on plans to grow federal revenue by $3.6 trillion over the next decade, primarily by raising business taxes and taxes on households with incomes over $400,000 a year. In mid-March 2021, news reports said Biden was considering moves to increase taxes on the wealthy and corporations. More recently, after the Facebook post we're checking was posted, Biden announced plans to finance his $2.3 million infrastructure plan in part by raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, and by imposing a 21% global minimum tax, so that companies cannot avoid taxes by shifting income to low-tax countries. Ford's statements on production shift Reuters reported that Ford issued a statement that did not directly address the union's criticism, but had said in a letter to employees that conditions had changed since 2019. Asked about whether its decisions about the Ohio plant were tied to tax policies, a Ford spokesman told PolitiFact: 'The business decision in question was not a result of then-presidential candidate Biden's corporate tax proposals.' 'We remain committed to investing $6 billion in our U.S. plants and creating and retaining 8,500 jobs in America during this four-year UAW contract. We are invested in Ohio Assembly Plant and our dedicated workforce there,' the spokesman said. 'Since 2019, we have invested more than $185 million and created and retained more than 100 jobs at Ohio Assembly Plant, including actions planned for this year.' A Ford spokeswoman declined to say what vehicle the company plans to manufacture in Mexico, according to Fox Business.
|
Our ruling A post shared on Facebook claims that Trump 'lowered taxes and in 2019 Ford made a commitment to invest $900 million at its Avon Lake, OH plant,' and Biden is 'increasing taxes and now the entire Ford project is moving to Mexico.' There are signs that Ford might be shifting plans for manufacturing a new model of vehicle from Ohio to Mexico. But there are no indications that Trump's tax cuts led to the initial plans in Ohio or that Biden's possible tax hikes had any role in a possible shift in those plans to Mexico. For a post that contains only an element of truth and leaves out important context, our rating is Mostly False.
|
[
"106336-proof-22-eb3c8739467590599ab865f0c06148fb.jpg"
] |
Photos show Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Gretchen Whitmer and Cory Booker violating COVID-19 safety precautions.
|
Contradiction
|
Recent Facebook posts critical of Democrats feature three photos, all showing the same celebratory scene. Standing behind a podium that says 'Biden' and 'Michigan,' Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, cheer, hug and hold hands all while flanked by rows of people holding their phones up to capture the moment. 'Last night at the DNC!! Hypocrites! Can we get back to living now???' one person who shared the image wrote. 'Mask?' another poster wrote. 'Only you SHEEP need masks! No 6ft distance or masks here! They all must be immune to covid!' 'Not a mask in sight, Governor,' wrote another person who shared the images. 'Tell me again why you are trying to force Michigan to wear one.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) These photos aren't from the Democratic National Convention, which is happening remotely, or from Biden and Harris' first appearance together after the presidential nominee named her his running mate. These photos are from March 9, when the politicians gathered for a Biden campaign rally at a high school in Detroit. This was before the first case of COVID-19 was identified in Michigan, and well before the state required people to wear face coverings. Here are some relevant dates, which the Detroit Free-Press includes in its comprehensive timeline of the coronavirus in the state. On Jan. 25, three people from Michigan were tested for COVID-19 but the tests came back negative. On Jan. 29, the Detroit Metro Airport started screening people for COVID-19. On Feb. 5, a sick traveler at the airport is suspected of having COVID-19 but cleared the following day. By Feb. 25, about 325 people in Michigan were being monitored for the disease and self-isolating. There were only 34 confirmed cases in the United States at that point. On March 2, the U.S. surgeon general asks people not to stockpile masks. On March 10, the state's department of health and human services identified the first two presumptive-positive COVID-19 cases in Michigan. Whitmer declared an emergency. On March 12, Whitmer ordered the state's schools to close for three weeks. On March 13, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency. Whitmer issued a press release that day about a temporary ban on large gatherings and urged people to stay 5 feet away from each other in public settings. On March 16, Whitmer ordered bars, restaurants, theaters and casinos to close, and she restricted gatherings to less than 50 people. On March 23, she issued a stay-at-home order. On April 1, she declared a state disaster. On April 24, more than a month after Biden's campaign rally, Whitmer signed an executive order requiring people to wear face coverings in enclosed public spaces. This Facebook post, though, suggests that the politicians in the photos are flouting the restrictions that the state has imposed on residents to try to stop the spread of COVID-19. In reality, the rally happened before such limitations existed. We rate this post False. Correction: This story has been updated to reflect that Sen. Cory Booker is from New Jersey. The story initially said he was from New York.
|
We rate this post False. Correction: This story has been updated to reflect that Sen. Cory Booker is from New Jersey. The story initially said he was from New York.
|
[] |
'4 republican senators now on board...no vote until January on (Supreme Court): Murkowski, Romney, Collins, Grassley.
|
Contradiction
|
Tensions are high with control of the Supreme Court hanging in the balance, and a Facebook post is offering misleading information about how a Republican nominee to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg might be considered in the Senate. The post was dated Sept. 18, the same day as Ginsburg's death. It says, '4 republican senators now on board...no vote until January on (Supreme Court): Murkowski, Romney, Collins, Grassley.' The post is referring to four Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, and Charles Grassley of Iowa. Under the Senate's current rules, the Democrats would need to win over four Republican senators to block action on a nominee from President Trump. While these four senators have in the past stated their unease with filling a hypothetical vacancy this late in an election cycle, their past declarations don't necessarily carry any weight for the decision over the actual Supreme Court vacancy they are now confronted with. The Senate, currently under Republican control, would be able to proceed to consideration of Trump's nominee with simple majority support. Until 2017, the Senate required 60 votes to proceed to a Supreme Court nomination, but that year the Republicans voted to reduce the number to a simple majority. The lower threshold was used for the first time with the nomination of Neil Gorsuch and was then used again for Brett Kavanaugh. The current partisan breakdown in the Senate is 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats or Democratic-aliged independents. This means that the Democrats could only block the nomination if they can convince four Republicans to oppose it. (Three Republicans wouldn't be enough, because Vice President Mike Pence, as president of the Senate, would be able to cast a tie-breaking vote for Trump's nominee.) The Facebook post makes it sound like the four Republicans have already committed to doing so. But their past comments on the topic have addressed a theoretical court vacancy this late in the process, not the actual vacancy we have now. And their past comments are not binding; they could switch their view at any time and vote accordingly. Two of the four senators named in the Facebook post have reiterated their opposition to taking up the expected Trump nomination, but they've phrased their words carefully. On Sept. 19, one day after the Facebook post was published, Collins said in a statement, 'Given the proximity of the presidential election ... I do not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election.' On Sept. 20, two days after the post was published, Murkowski said, 'For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election. Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed.' However, even these statements do not back up the Facebook post, since they did not explicitly rule out the option of voting on Trump's nomination after the election, during the lame duck period before the next Congress is sworn in. That would be allowable under the Senate's rules, though it would be highly controversial if the Democrats have already won back the presidency and enough seats to control the Senate. As of the afternoon of Sept. 20, neither Romney nor Grassley had taken an official position on consideration of a Trump nominee. In 2016, Grassley, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said, 'A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn't be denied a voice.' He reiterated this in October 2018, saying the committee, then under his chairmanship, wouldn't consider a Supreme Court nominee in 2020. 'If I'm chairman they won't take it up,' he told Fox News. The current chairman is Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has said he'll take up Trump's nomination in committee. (This is a reversal from a position Graham stated as recently as 2018.) Romney, who was the lone Republican to break from his party on the Trump impeachment vote, has not formally commented on how to fill the Ginsburg vacancy.
|
Our ruling The Facebook post says, '4 republican senators now on board...no vote until January on (Supreme Court): Murkowski, Romney, Collins, Grassley.' Prior to Ginsburg's death, three of the four named senators had expressed concerns about a theoretical appointment being filled close to an election. Two of the senators, Murkowski and Collins, have stated their position since Ginsburg's death. They both said they opposed a vote before the election, but they did not explicitly rule out a vote after the election during the lame-duck period before a new Congress is sworn in. The other two senators, Romney and Grassley, have not commented about how to proceed with the current vacancy. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"106374-proof-24-11bdb08526f9b21d3f21b5ec6dbde257.jpg"
] |
'4 republican senators now on board...no vote until January on (Supreme Court): Murkowski, Romney, Collins, Grassley.
|
Contradiction
|
Tensions are high with control of the Supreme Court hanging in the balance, and a Facebook post is offering misleading information about how a Republican nominee to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg might be considered in the Senate. The post was dated Sept. 18, the same day as Ginsburg's death. It says, '4 republican senators now on board...no vote until January on (Supreme Court): Murkowski, Romney, Collins, Grassley.' The post is referring to four Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, and Charles Grassley of Iowa. Under the Senate's current rules, the Democrats would need to win over four Republican senators to block action on a nominee from President Trump. While these four senators have in the past stated their unease with filling a hypothetical vacancy this late in an election cycle, their past declarations don't necessarily carry any weight for the decision over the actual Supreme Court vacancy they are now confronted with. The Senate, currently under Republican control, would be able to proceed to consideration of Trump's nominee with simple majority support. Until 2017, the Senate required 60 votes to proceed to a Supreme Court nomination, but that year the Republicans voted to reduce the number to a simple majority. The lower threshold was used for the first time with the nomination of Neil Gorsuch and was then used again for Brett Kavanaugh. The current partisan breakdown in the Senate is 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats or Democratic-aliged independents. This means that the Democrats could only block the nomination if they can convince four Republicans to oppose it. (Three Republicans wouldn't be enough, because Vice President Mike Pence, as president of the Senate, would be able to cast a tie-breaking vote for Trump's nominee.) The Facebook post makes it sound like the four Republicans have already committed to doing so. But their past comments on the topic have addressed a theoretical court vacancy this late in the process, not the actual vacancy we have now. And their past comments are not binding; they could switch their view at any time and vote accordingly. Two of the four senators named in the Facebook post have reiterated their opposition to taking up the expected Trump nomination, but they've phrased their words carefully. On Sept. 19, one day after the Facebook post was published, Collins said in a statement, 'Given the proximity of the presidential election ... I do not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election.' On Sept. 20, two days after the post was published, Murkowski said, 'For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election. Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed.' However, even these statements do not back up the Facebook post, since they did not explicitly rule out the option of voting on Trump's nomination after the election, during the lame duck period before the next Congress is sworn in. That would be allowable under the Senate's rules, though it would be highly controversial if the Democrats have already won back the presidency and enough seats to control the Senate. As of the afternoon of Sept. 20, neither Romney nor Grassley had taken an official position on consideration of a Trump nominee. In 2016, Grassley, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said, 'A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn't be denied a voice.' He reiterated this in October 2018, saying the committee, then under his chairmanship, wouldn't consider a Supreme Court nominee in 2020. 'If I'm chairman they won't take it up,' he told Fox News. The current chairman is Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has said he'll take up Trump's nomination in committee. (This is a reversal from a position Graham stated as recently as 2018.) Romney, who was the lone Republican to break from his party on the Trump impeachment vote, has not formally commented on how to fill the Ginsburg vacancy.
|
Our ruling The Facebook post says, '4 republican senators now on board...no vote until January on (Supreme Court): Murkowski, Romney, Collins, Grassley.' Prior to Ginsburg's death, three of the four named senators had expressed concerns about a theoretical appointment being filled close to an election. Two of the senators, Murkowski and Collins, have stated their position since Ginsburg's death. They both said they opposed a vote before the election, but they did not explicitly rule out a vote after the election during the lame-duck period before a new Congress is sworn in. The other two senators, Romney and Grassley, have not commented about how to proceed with the current vacancy. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"106374-proof-24-11bdb08526f9b21d3f21b5ec6dbde257.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Biden 'imports oil from Iran.
|
Contradiction
|
A blog post widely shared on Facebook claimed that President Joe Biden imported oil from Iran and called the deal 'pure evil.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) 'PURE EVIL: Biden Imports Oil from Iran After Shutting Down Keystone Pipeline and Putting US Oil Workers Out of Work,' read the headline on an article from The Gateway Pundit written by Jim Hoft. Hoft's @gatewaypundit Twitter account was permanently suspended in February for 'repeated violations' of Twitter's policies on election-related messages, according to news reports. But the headline misleads: The oil was seized, not purchased. The article refers to another Gateway Pundit article that links to a two-paragraph news story by Reuters in the Financial Post. Reuters, citing data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, reported that the U.S. in March imported 1 million barrels of Iranian crude, despite sanctions on Iran's energy sector, in only the second such oil import since late 1991. Technically, the oil was imported to the U.S. But this was no ordinary transaction. A longer version of the story on Reuters' website explained that the Iranian crude came from the Liberian-flagged tanker MT Achilleas. The oil landed in Texas a month after U.S. authorities seized the MT Achilleas, which 'was in line with tough economic sanctions imposed by Washington on Tehran over its nuclear program and the U.S. designation of a number of Iranian groups as terrorist organizations.' An Associated Press story added context. When the Energy Information Administration data was released May 28, it raised the eyebrows of commodities traders because of the sanctions, according to the story. But as the AP explained: 'The oil came from the MT Achilleas, a ship seized in February by the U.S. off the coast of the Emirati port city of Fujairah. U.S court documents allege the Achilleas was subject to forfeiture under American anti-terrorism statues as Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard tried to use it to sell crude oil to China. The U.S. has identified the Guard as a terrorist organization since the administration of former President Donald Trump. Prosecutors say shippers tried to disguise the shipment by labeling it as 'Basra light crude' from neighboring Iraq.' The U.S. brought the Achilleas to Houston, where it sold the oil, according to AP. Trump's administration did a similar seizure. In August, it confiscated cargo in vessels allegedly loaded with Iranian fuel in violation of sanctions and sent them to Houston. Biden in January signed an executive order revoking the permit for the Keystone XL oil pipeline, halting its construction in the U.S. TC Energy Corp., the Canadian company that owns the Keystone XL with the Alberta government, said at the time it would lay off 1,000 or more workers, and had previously estimated that the pipeline would employ 11,000 Americans in 2021. For a post that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False.
|
For a post that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False.
|
[] |
'If Bezos has 200 billion dollas, and there's 7 billion people on earth, why can't we each get a billion and (he'd) be left with 193 billion dollas?'
|
Contradiction
|
Income inequality is so severe, an Instagram post suggests, that a single American billionaire could give away enough money to make everyone else in the world a billionaire - and still keep the bulk of his fortune. 'If Bezos has 200 billion dollas, and there's 7 billion people on earth, why can't we each get a billion and (he'd) be left with 193 billion dollas left?' the Oct. 25 post says. There's a reason we can't, and it's not selfishness or the gift tax. It's arithmetic. The post, which received more than 128,000 likes, was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Many of the commenters also noticed the flaw in the argument. First, let's check the numbers. According to Forbes, which tracks the real-time wealth of the world's richest people, Jeff Bezos - the founder of Amazon.com, and owner of the Washington Post and aerospace company Blue Origin - had a net worth of $197.6 billion as of the end of trading on Oct. 27. So yes, close to $200 billion. He and Tesla CEO Elon Musk run neck-and-neck for the title of world's wealthiest person. The world's population is on the cusp of 7.8 billion people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's population clock. So the post is off on the population figure, but on the correct order of magnitude. Now for the math. In order to provide $1 billion to each person on Earth, Bezos would have to have more money than even he has. $1 billion X 7.8 billion people = $7,800,000,000,000,000,000 That's $7.8 quintillion, or about 40 million times Bezos' fortune. Looked at a different way, if you rounded up Bezos' fortune to the even $200 billion stated in the post, and apportioned it evenly among the world's 7.8 billion people, each one would get about $25. Bezos, as one of those 7.8 billion, would be left with just $25. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"106391-proof-00-7d2497ea36b0fe0efe37ad1eab047033.jpg"
] |
'A known antifa member' dressed as a Donald Trump supporter 'and caused the Capitol riot' on Jan. 6.
|
Contradiction
|
A viral image claims that a member of the left-wing movement antifa disguised himself as a Donald Trump supporter and instigated the Jan. 6 attack at the U.S. Capitol that left five people dead. The image, posted on Facebook on June 21 and widely shared more than a month later, was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post alludes to activist John Earle Sullivan, a 27-year-old Utah man who has often posed as a journalist to record protests. He joined Trump supporters rioting at the Capitol, extensively recorded the violence and is charged with crimes for his participation. But we found no evidence that Sullivan is a member of antifa, or that he caused the riot, even as he celebrated the violent acts he recorded. Antifa stands for 'anti-fascist.' It's a broad, loosely affiliated coalition of left-wing activists that's been around for decades, but has had a resurgence since Trump's election in 2016. Sullivan told PolitiFact in January that he's not part of the antifa coalition, and that he went to the Capitol to document what was going on. The viral image The image shows two whiteboards, both of which have a photo and text. The top panel, without identifying him by name, shows a widely circulated photo of Sullivan, who became one of the better known figures in the riot. The caption says: 'This is a known antifa member who was paid $70,000 for his Capitol riot video Jan. 6.' The bottom panel shows a man wearing a 'Trump 2020' hat pulled over his eyes. The caption suggests the photo is of Sullivan, saying: 'The FBI says they have no proof antifa members dressed as Trump supporters & caused the Capitol riot January 6, 2021.' Sullivan's role in the riot According to news reports, news outlets paid $90,000 to Sullivan for his riot videos, including one that captured the fatal shooting by a Capitol Police officer of Ashli Babbit, who was with rioters who tried to force their way into the House chamber. Federal authorities in May seized $90,000 from Sullivan as part of the criminal case against him. The Justice Department has so far charged 556 people in connection with the siege, according to a database run by the George Washington University Center on Extremism. The charges against Sullivan include felony interference with law enforcement and weapons counts. According to the charges, he led an organization called Insurgence USA, through which he organized protests, and he has posed as a journalist. Wearing a bulletproof vest and gas mask on Jan. 6, he said, he entered the Capitol with others through a broken window and filmed the violence, which the video footage shows him cheering on. The charges do not say whether Sullivan wore pro-Trump gear. Sullivan's affiliations are complicated, according to news stories about him. The protests he organized included one that featured Black leaders as well as members of the Proud Boys, an all-male extremist group with ties to white nationalism, and he organized racial justice rallies as well as a pro-gun rights rally, in which he marched with self-styled militia members, the Washington Post reported. He 'made a habit of blurring the lines between activism, advocacy journalism and opposition research,' wrote the New Yorker. The New Yorker quoted Sullivan as writing in an unpublished memoir: 'I was able to collaborate with the left in their community to gather information. But I also can connect with the right and successfully be in their presence without them being combative towards me.'
|
Our ruling A viral image claims that a 'known antifa member' dressed as a Trump supporter 'and caused the Capitol riot' on Jan. 6. Activist John Earle Sullivan, whose photo appears in the image, joined Trump supporters in the riot, extensively filmed and cheered on the violence, and is charged with crimes for his participation. But there is no evidence that he is part of antifa, or that he caused the riot. We rate the post Mostly False.
|
[] |
'A known antifa member' dressed as a Donald Trump supporter 'and caused the Capitol riot' on Jan. 6.
|
Contradiction
|
A viral image claims that a member of the left-wing movement antifa disguised himself as a Donald Trump supporter and instigated the Jan. 6 attack at the U.S. Capitol that left five people dead. The image, posted on Facebook on June 21 and widely shared more than a month later, was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post alludes to activist John Earle Sullivan, a 27-year-old Utah man who has often posed as a journalist to record protests. He joined Trump supporters rioting at the Capitol, extensively recorded the violence and is charged with crimes for his participation. But we found no evidence that Sullivan is a member of antifa, or that he caused the riot, even as he celebrated the violent acts he recorded. Antifa stands for 'anti-fascist.' It's a broad, loosely affiliated coalition of left-wing activists that's been around for decades, but has had a resurgence since Trump's election in 2016. Sullivan told PolitiFact in January that he's not part of the antifa coalition, and that he went to the Capitol to document what was going on. The viral image The image shows two whiteboards, both of which have a photo and text. The top panel, without identifying him by name, shows a widely circulated photo of Sullivan, who became one of the better known figures in the riot. The caption says: 'This is a known antifa member who was paid $70,000 for his Capitol riot video Jan. 6.' The bottom panel shows a man wearing a 'Trump 2020' hat pulled over his eyes. The caption suggests the photo is of Sullivan, saying: 'The FBI says they have no proof antifa members dressed as Trump supporters & caused the Capitol riot January 6, 2021.' Sullivan's role in the riot According to news reports, news outlets paid $90,000 to Sullivan for his riot videos, including one that captured the fatal shooting by a Capitol Police officer of Ashli Babbit, who was with rioters who tried to force their way into the House chamber. Federal authorities in May seized $90,000 from Sullivan as part of the criminal case against him. The Justice Department has so far charged 556 people in connection with the siege, according to a database run by the George Washington University Center on Extremism. The charges against Sullivan include felony interference with law enforcement and weapons counts. According to the charges, he led an organization called Insurgence USA, through which he organized protests, and he has posed as a journalist. Wearing a bulletproof vest and gas mask on Jan. 6, he said, he entered the Capitol with others through a broken window and filmed the violence, which the video footage shows him cheering on. The charges do not say whether Sullivan wore pro-Trump gear. Sullivan's affiliations are complicated, according to news stories about him. The protests he organized included one that featured Black leaders as well as members of the Proud Boys, an all-male extremist group with ties to white nationalism, and he organized racial justice rallies as well as a pro-gun rights rally, in which he marched with self-styled militia members, the Washington Post reported. He 'made a habit of blurring the lines between activism, advocacy journalism and opposition research,' wrote the New Yorker. The New Yorker quoted Sullivan as writing in an unpublished memoir: 'I was able to collaborate with the left in their community to gather information. But I also can connect with the right and successfully be in their presence without them being combative towards me.'
|
Our ruling A viral image claims that a 'known antifa member' dressed as a Trump supporter 'and caused the Capitol riot' on Jan. 6. Activist John Earle Sullivan, whose photo appears in the image, joined Trump supporters in the riot, extensively filmed and cheered on the violence, and is charged with crimes for his participation. But there is no evidence that he is part of antifa, or that he caused the riot. We rate the post Mostly False.
|
[] |
'A known antifa member' dressed as a Donald Trump supporter 'and caused the Capitol riot' on Jan. 6.
|
Contradiction
|
A viral image claims that a member of the left-wing movement antifa disguised himself as a Donald Trump supporter and instigated the Jan. 6 attack at the U.S. Capitol that left five people dead. The image, posted on Facebook on June 21 and widely shared more than a month later, was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post alludes to activist John Earle Sullivan, a 27-year-old Utah man who has often posed as a journalist to record protests. He joined Trump supporters rioting at the Capitol, extensively recorded the violence and is charged with crimes for his participation. But we found no evidence that Sullivan is a member of antifa, or that he caused the riot, even as he celebrated the violent acts he recorded. Antifa stands for 'anti-fascist.' It's a broad, loosely affiliated coalition of left-wing activists that's been around for decades, but has had a resurgence since Trump's election in 2016. Sullivan told PolitiFact in January that he's not part of the antifa coalition, and that he went to the Capitol to document what was going on. The viral image The image shows two whiteboards, both of which have a photo and text. The top panel, without identifying him by name, shows a widely circulated photo of Sullivan, who became one of the better known figures in the riot. The caption says: 'This is a known antifa member who was paid $70,000 for his Capitol riot video Jan. 6.' The bottom panel shows a man wearing a 'Trump 2020' hat pulled over his eyes. The caption suggests the photo is of Sullivan, saying: 'The FBI says they have no proof antifa members dressed as Trump supporters & caused the Capitol riot January 6, 2021.' Sullivan's role in the riot According to news reports, news outlets paid $90,000 to Sullivan for his riot videos, including one that captured the fatal shooting by a Capitol Police officer of Ashli Babbit, who was with rioters who tried to force their way into the House chamber. Federal authorities in May seized $90,000 from Sullivan as part of the criminal case against him. The Justice Department has so far charged 556 people in connection with the siege, according to a database run by the George Washington University Center on Extremism. The charges against Sullivan include felony interference with law enforcement and weapons counts. According to the charges, he led an organization called Insurgence USA, through which he organized protests, and he has posed as a journalist. Wearing a bulletproof vest and gas mask on Jan. 6, he said, he entered the Capitol with others through a broken window and filmed the violence, which the video footage shows him cheering on. The charges do not say whether Sullivan wore pro-Trump gear. Sullivan's affiliations are complicated, according to news stories about him. The protests he organized included one that featured Black leaders as well as members of the Proud Boys, an all-male extremist group with ties to white nationalism, and he organized racial justice rallies as well as a pro-gun rights rally, in which he marched with self-styled militia members, the Washington Post reported. He 'made a habit of blurring the lines between activism, advocacy journalism and opposition research,' wrote the New Yorker. The New Yorker quoted Sullivan as writing in an unpublished memoir: 'I was able to collaborate with the left in their community to gather information. But I also can connect with the right and successfully be in their presence without them being combative towards me.'
|
Our ruling A viral image claims that a 'known antifa member' dressed as a Trump supporter 'and caused the Capitol riot' on Jan. 6. Activist John Earle Sullivan, whose photo appears in the image, joined Trump supporters in the riot, extensively filmed and cheered on the violence, and is charged with crimes for his participation. But there is no evidence that he is part of antifa, or that he caused the riot. We rate the post Mostly False.
|
[] |
'Wisconsin found 112k votes at 3am.
|
Contradiction
|
As votes were being counted in Wisconsin, Facebook posts - and President Donald Trump - claimed that the state 'found' votes and that it meant something nefarious was going on. That's a distortion of the elections process. Trump on Nov. 4 tweeted that 'they are finding Biden votes all over the place - in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.' In another tweet, Trump said: 'Last night I was leading, often solidly, in many key States, in almost all instances Democrat run & controlled. Then, one by one, they started to magically disappear as surprise ballot dumps were counted. VERY STRANGE, and the 'pollsters' got it completely & historically wrong!' 'Oh Wisconsin found 112k votes at 3am...,' said a Nov. 4 Facebook post. The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Are votes being 'found' in Wisconsin? 'Absolutely no ballots were 'found',' Reid Magney, a spokesperson for the Wisconsin Elections Commission, told PolitiFact. 'All of the election results that were reported in the early morning hours of Wednesday were valid ballots that were received by 8 p.m. on Election Day according to the law.' Clerks are required to continue counting ballots until all ballots have been counted, Magney said. Magney said he didn't know exactly what the Facebook post was referring to by its mention of 112,000 votes. But he said that perhaps the post was alluding to counts of absentee ballots. The most populous county in Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, has 19 municipalities. Eight of those municipalities, including the City of Milwaukee, process their absentee ballots at a central location within the municipality. The other 11 municipalities process absentee ballots at their respective polling locations. Shortly after midnight Nov. 4, Milwaukee County Clerk George Christenson said his office had received an update from the City of Milwaukee, which said they had processed over 140,000 absentee ballots, and had about 30,000 left to process. 'They are estimating, three to four hours,' he said, 'So, we're upping our estimates and hoping to be done by about 3 a.m., that's better than 5 a.m.' As of mid-afternoon Nov. 4, Milwaukee County's election results page said it was last updated at 3:56 a.m. Julietta Henry, director of elections for Milwaukee County, said she also didn't know where the 112,000 reference in the Facebook post was coming from, but she refuted claims of ballots being 'found.' 'We are not finding ballots, ballots are being counted,' Henry said. Wisconsin election officials on Nov. 2, before Election Day, posted information alerting the public that due to the coronavirus pandemic and a high number of absentee ballots, it would likely be Wednesday before all the unofficial results were in. 'It doesn't mean something went wrong - it means election officials are doing their jobs and making sure every legitimate ballot gets counted,' said Meagan Wolfe, Wisconsin's chief election official.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed, 'Wisconsin found 112k votes at 3am.' The suggestion that ballots randomly appear is wrong. Election officials in Wisconsin told us that they didn't know what the post specifically meant by the 112,000 reference. The City of Milwaukee was still counting absentee ballots around 3 a.m., but that doesn't mean that those ballots were found or appeared at that time. We rate the Facebook post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. RELATED: Fact-checking the avalanche of Wisconsin election misinformation
|
[
"106409-proof-31-3ac3d190e0e2468041f7d4df1f1a3e74.jpg"
] |
'Wisconsin found 112k votes at 3am.
|
Contradiction
|
As votes were being counted in Wisconsin, Facebook posts - and President Donald Trump - claimed that the state 'found' votes and that it meant something nefarious was going on. That's a distortion of the elections process. Trump on Nov. 4 tweeted that 'they are finding Biden votes all over the place - in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.' In another tweet, Trump said: 'Last night I was leading, often solidly, in many key States, in almost all instances Democrat run & controlled. Then, one by one, they started to magically disappear as surprise ballot dumps were counted. VERY STRANGE, and the 'pollsters' got it completely & historically wrong!' 'Oh Wisconsin found 112k votes at 3am...,' said a Nov. 4 Facebook post. The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Are votes being 'found' in Wisconsin? 'Absolutely no ballots were 'found',' Reid Magney, a spokesperson for the Wisconsin Elections Commission, told PolitiFact. 'All of the election results that were reported in the early morning hours of Wednesday were valid ballots that were received by 8 p.m. on Election Day according to the law.' Clerks are required to continue counting ballots until all ballots have been counted, Magney said. Magney said he didn't know exactly what the Facebook post was referring to by its mention of 112,000 votes. But he said that perhaps the post was alluding to counts of absentee ballots. The most populous county in Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, has 19 municipalities. Eight of those municipalities, including the City of Milwaukee, process their absentee ballots at a central location within the municipality. The other 11 municipalities process absentee ballots at their respective polling locations. Shortly after midnight Nov. 4, Milwaukee County Clerk George Christenson said his office had received an update from the City of Milwaukee, which said they had processed over 140,000 absentee ballots, and had about 30,000 left to process. 'They are estimating, three to four hours,' he said, 'So, we're upping our estimates and hoping to be done by about 3 a.m., that's better than 5 a.m.' As of mid-afternoon Nov. 4, Milwaukee County's election results page said it was last updated at 3:56 a.m. Julietta Henry, director of elections for Milwaukee County, said she also didn't know where the 112,000 reference in the Facebook post was coming from, but she refuted claims of ballots being 'found.' 'We are not finding ballots, ballots are being counted,' Henry said. Wisconsin election officials on Nov. 2, before Election Day, posted information alerting the public that due to the coronavirus pandemic and a high number of absentee ballots, it would likely be Wednesday before all the unofficial results were in. 'It doesn't mean something went wrong - it means election officials are doing their jobs and making sure every legitimate ballot gets counted,' said Meagan Wolfe, Wisconsin's chief election official.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed, 'Wisconsin found 112k votes at 3am.' The suggestion that ballots randomly appear is wrong. Election officials in Wisconsin told us that they didn't know what the post specifically meant by the 112,000 reference. The City of Milwaukee was still counting absentee ballots around 3 a.m., but that doesn't mean that those ballots were found or appeared at that time. We rate the Facebook post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. RELATED: Fact-checking the avalanche of Wisconsin election misinformation
|
[
"106409-proof-31-3ac3d190e0e2468041f7d4df1f1a3e74.jpg"
] |
Says for otherwise healthy people 'experiencing mild to moderate respiratory symptoms with or without a COVID-19 diagnosis ... only high temperatures kill a virus, so let your fever run high,' but not over 103 or 104 degrees.
|
Contradiction
|
If you're a mostly healthy person who contracts the coronavirus, will letting your fever run high help get rid of it? That's what a post shared on Facebook suggests. It says: 'Passing along corona advise from a retired respiratory therapist' for 'the otherwise generally healthy population.' It lists eight recommendations, starting with: 'For people experiencing mild to moderate respiratory symptoms with or without a COVID-19 diagnosis. ... Only high temperatures kill a virus, so let your fever run high. ... Use common sense and don't let fever go over 103 or 104 if you got the guts.' The final recommendation is: 'If your still dying go to ER.' (Yes, it says, 'advise' instead of 'advice' and 'your' instead of 'you're' in the post.) The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We'll first note that it's best to take your medical advice from health care professionals, not from random Facebook posts. Doctors say it's true that a high temperature can help the body fight off a virus, but not enough is known about the new coronavirus to support the post's advice, and running a high fever could be dangerous. What is a fever? A fever means you have a temperature of 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius) or higher, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fevers are a common sign of illness, but they also play a key role in fighting infections. Generally speaking, a fever is 'basically a symptom of your immune system trying to fight the virus' Richard Watanabe, a professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California, told PolitiFact. 'The higher temperature does make it more difficult for some viruses to survive.' The Mayo Clinic offers general tips - for otherwise healthy people and not specifically for coronavirus - on deciding whether to treat a fever or let it run its course. For example, for adults with a temperature above 102, Mayo recommends acetaminophen (Tylenol and other brands), ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin IB) or aspirin. But it says treatment decisions also depend on age, medical history, other symptoms and other factors, not just temperature. Fever and the coronavirus Fever, along with cough and shortness of breath, is among the symptoms of COVID-19. If you have symptoms and think you have been exposed to COVID-19, call your healthcare provider, the CDC advises. CDC's Self-Checker tool can help you make decisions about seeking medical care. Mayo Clinic also offers a tool that helps you decide on seeking medical care and whether you need a COVID-19 test. If you'll be treating COVID-19 symptoms at home, get enough rest, stay well-hydrated, and take medications to relieve fever and aches and pains, Harvard Medical School says. For fever, aches and pains, the school recommends acetaminophen. But if you are taking any combination cold or flu medicine, keep track of all the ingredients and doses, and make sure not to exceed a total of 3,000 milligrams of acetaminophen per day. Mayo Clinic recommends rest and fluids, as well as cough medication, and pain relievers such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen. There have been some claims that using ibuprofen to treat coronavirus symptoms is risky. We found that some medical experts believe ibuprofen's anti-inflammatory properties could damp the immune system's ability to fight off COVID-19. But experts say this is just a theory and that there's no scientific evidence that links ibuprofen and other anti-inflammatory medications with COVID-19 complications. That said, there is no rule that says you need to lower a fever with over-the-counter medication if you're feeling only mild symptoms and are not uncomfortable, Consumer Reports says in an article on COVID-19 and fevers. It lists a cold compress for sweating and blankets for chills, along with rest and liquids, as alternatives. The article says there is an argument for letting a fever run its course, because lowering a fever with medication might suppress your body's ability to fend off illness, 'but if your fever is running at or above 103 degrees, you should call a doctor. A high fever could lead to a seizure or brain damage.' Dr. Myron Cohen, professor of medicine, microbiology and immunology, and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina and director of its Institute for Global Health & Infectious Diseases, told PolitiFact that while there is research suggesting that fever can defend against infection, 'it is extremely difficult to relate the magnitude of fever to the severity of infection, or to demonstrate the benefits of fever for any given microorganism,' including the COVID-19 virus. The body's immune response is the most important factor in killing the virus, said Dr. Wilbur Chen, an infectious disease physician-scientist at the University of Maryland. 'The fever response is just one of the symptoms that are experienced when the immune response is revved up when fighting the virus. It is like what smoke is to fire-the point is that you are not focusing your concern on putting out the smoke; you want to put out the fire,' he said. Said Watanabe: 'The caveat here is how heat-tolerant is COVID-19? That is, as far as I am aware, an unanswered question. There are viruses that are relatively heat-tolerant, so your body's fever defense may not be effective.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post advises that generally healthy people 'experiencing mild to moderate respiratory symptoms with or without a COVID-19 diagnosis' should 'let your fever run high' to kill a coronavirus. Generally speaking, a fever under 103 degrees doesn't necessarily need treatment. But that depends on other factors, such as age, underlying health conditions and other symptoms. Higher temperatures and persistent fevers are dangerous. And it isn't yet known whether a fever might help the body fight the novel coronavirus, as it does other viruses. The advice on letting a fever run high to fight the coronavirus, even with generally healthy people and mild to moderate respiratory symptoms, is too broad. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[] |
Says for otherwise healthy people 'experiencing mild to moderate respiratory symptoms with or without a COVID-19 diagnosis ... only high temperatures kill a virus, so let your fever run high,' but not over 103 or 104 degrees.
|
Contradiction
|
If you're a mostly healthy person who contracts the coronavirus, will letting your fever run high help get rid of it? That's what a post shared on Facebook suggests. It says: 'Passing along corona advise from a retired respiratory therapist' for 'the otherwise generally healthy population.' It lists eight recommendations, starting with: 'For people experiencing mild to moderate respiratory symptoms with or without a COVID-19 diagnosis. ... Only high temperatures kill a virus, so let your fever run high. ... Use common sense and don't let fever go over 103 or 104 if you got the guts.' The final recommendation is: 'If your still dying go to ER.' (Yes, it says, 'advise' instead of 'advice' and 'your' instead of 'you're' in the post.) The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We'll first note that it's best to take your medical advice from health care professionals, not from random Facebook posts. Doctors say it's true that a high temperature can help the body fight off a virus, but not enough is known about the new coronavirus to support the post's advice, and running a high fever could be dangerous. What is a fever? A fever means you have a temperature of 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius) or higher, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fevers are a common sign of illness, but they also play a key role in fighting infections. Generally speaking, a fever is 'basically a symptom of your immune system trying to fight the virus' Richard Watanabe, a professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California, told PolitiFact. 'The higher temperature does make it more difficult for some viruses to survive.' The Mayo Clinic offers general tips - for otherwise healthy people and not specifically for coronavirus - on deciding whether to treat a fever or let it run its course. For example, for adults with a temperature above 102, Mayo recommends acetaminophen (Tylenol and other brands), ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin IB) or aspirin. But it says treatment decisions also depend on age, medical history, other symptoms and other factors, not just temperature. Fever and the coronavirus Fever, along with cough and shortness of breath, is among the symptoms of COVID-19. If you have symptoms and think you have been exposed to COVID-19, call your healthcare provider, the CDC advises. CDC's Self-Checker tool can help you make decisions about seeking medical care. Mayo Clinic also offers a tool that helps you decide on seeking medical care and whether you need a COVID-19 test. If you'll be treating COVID-19 symptoms at home, get enough rest, stay well-hydrated, and take medications to relieve fever and aches and pains, Harvard Medical School says. For fever, aches and pains, the school recommends acetaminophen. But if you are taking any combination cold or flu medicine, keep track of all the ingredients and doses, and make sure not to exceed a total of 3,000 milligrams of acetaminophen per day. Mayo Clinic recommends rest and fluids, as well as cough medication, and pain relievers such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen. There have been some claims that using ibuprofen to treat coronavirus symptoms is risky. We found that some medical experts believe ibuprofen's anti-inflammatory properties could damp the immune system's ability to fight off COVID-19. But experts say this is just a theory and that there's no scientific evidence that links ibuprofen and other anti-inflammatory medications with COVID-19 complications. That said, there is no rule that says you need to lower a fever with over-the-counter medication if you're feeling only mild symptoms and are not uncomfortable, Consumer Reports says in an article on COVID-19 and fevers. It lists a cold compress for sweating and blankets for chills, along with rest and liquids, as alternatives. The article says there is an argument for letting a fever run its course, because lowering a fever with medication might suppress your body's ability to fend off illness, 'but if your fever is running at or above 103 degrees, you should call a doctor. A high fever could lead to a seizure or brain damage.' Dr. Myron Cohen, professor of medicine, microbiology and immunology, and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina and director of its Institute for Global Health & Infectious Diseases, told PolitiFact that while there is research suggesting that fever can defend against infection, 'it is extremely difficult to relate the magnitude of fever to the severity of infection, or to demonstrate the benefits of fever for any given microorganism,' including the COVID-19 virus. The body's immune response is the most important factor in killing the virus, said Dr. Wilbur Chen, an infectious disease physician-scientist at the University of Maryland. 'The fever response is just one of the symptoms that are experienced when the immune response is revved up when fighting the virus. It is like what smoke is to fire-the point is that you are not focusing your concern on putting out the smoke; you want to put out the fire,' he said. Said Watanabe: 'The caveat here is how heat-tolerant is COVID-19? That is, as far as I am aware, an unanswered question. There are viruses that are relatively heat-tolerant, so your body's fever defense may not be effective.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post advises that generally healthy people 'experiencing mild to moderate respiratory symptoms with or without a COVID-19 diagnosis' should 'let your fever run high' to kill a coronavirus. Generally speaking, a fever under 103 degrees doesn't necessarily need treatment. But that depends on other factors, such as age, underlying health conditions and other symptoms. Higher temperatures and persistent fevers are dangerous. And it isn't yet known whether a fever might help the body fight the novel coronavirus, as it does other viruses. The advice on letting a fever run high to fight the coronavirus, even with generally healthy people and mild to moderate respiratory symptoms, is too broad. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.