Category: Fact Check

  • Social Media Posts Twist Harris Campaign’s ‘Joyful’ Message

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Vice President Kamala Harris has referred to participants in the Democratic presidential campaign as “joyful warriors,” and “joy” has been a theme at the party’s rallies and convention. Instagram posts, however, have falsely claimed the phrase “strength through joy,” which echoes a Nazi-era program, has become a Harris campaign slogan.


    Full Story

    Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, embraced a theme of “joy” and optimism early in their campaign.

    At the Aug. 6 rally in Philadelphia where Harris introduced Walz as her vice presidential choice, Walz said to Harris, “Thank you for bringing back the joy.” The next day, at a rally in Detroit, Walz used the word repeatedly: “Our next president brings the joy. She emanates the joy.” Harris herself said in Detroit, “And understand, in this fight, we are joyful warriors — because while fighting for a brighter future may take hard work, we all here know hard work is good work.”

    The word “joy” also seemed to capture the mood of many participants at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, where Oprah Winfrey told the delegates, “Let us choose truth, let us choose honor, and let us choose joy.” The word “joy” was used dozens of times by DNC speakers.

    But some social media posts have distorted the Democrats’ “joyful” message and falsely linked it to a Nazi-era program in Germany.

    An Aug. 25 Instagram reel begins with a narrator saying, “I’m sure by now you’re heard Kamala Harris running around the country. Joy! We’re gonna bring back joy! Strength through joy! I want you to Google ‘strength through joy.’” The reel then displays a Wikipedia page and a webpage on German history that describe “Strength Through Joy” as an organization in Nazi Germany that was a division of the national labor organization.

    An Instagram post on Aug. 27 reads, “Homework assignment. I need everyone to Google; Kamalas slogan, ‘Strength through joy.’ After you’ve done this let me know. You won’t believe it. You’ve got to see it.”

    But the social media posts do not cite any specific example of when the phrase from the 1930s Nazi organization was used by Harris or her campaign.

    We could find no use of the phrase “strength through joy” as a slogan or message in the vice president’s remarks or rallies. The prominent slogan on the Harris campaign homepage is, “Let’s win this.” The official campaign merchandise includes a variety of phrases, including, “Yes she can” and “When we fight, we win.”


    Sources

    Corum, Jonathan. “Words Used at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.” New York Times. 23 Aug 2024.

    KamalaHarris.com. Harris Walz Official Store. Accessed 29 Aug 2024.

    KamalaHarris.com. Official website. Accessed 29 Aug 2024.

    Louis, Errol. “Kamala Harris and the New Politics of Joy.” New York Magazine. 23 Aug 2024.

    Rogers, Kate. “Harris Used to Worry About Laughing, Now Joy Is Fueling Her Campaign.” New York Times. Updated 19 Aug 2024.

    White House. “Remarks by Vice President Harris and Governor Walz at a Campaign Event in Detroit, MI.” 7 Aug 2024.

    White House. “Remarks by Vice President Harris and Governor Tim Walz at a Campaign Event in Philadelphia, PA.” 6 Aug 2024.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Trump’s False claim: Harris wants to ‘forcibly compel” doctors to give children ‘castration drugs’

    Since Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris announced her presidential candidacy, her opponent, Republican former President Donald Trump, has attacked her stance on gender-affirming care. 

    “Harris wants to forcibly compel doctors and nurses against their will to give chemical castration drugs to young children,” Trump said at a July 26 Turning Point USA event in West Palm Beach, Florida. 

    PolitiFact contacted Trump’s campaign for comment and received a reply from Republican National Committee spokesperson Anna Kelly, who pointed to instances in which the Biden-Harris administration supported access to gender-affirming care. Kelly provided no evidence to support Trump’s specific claim. 

    Although neither Trump nor his team specified which policies he referred to, we identified one connected to Harris that has faced similar criticism. 

    Harris has supported anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people. But PolitiFact found no evidence that Harris has advocated for doctors to be forced against their will to give medical care to children.

    LGBTQ+ discrimination protections under Biden have faced similar criticism

    An antidiscrimination regulation the Department of Health and Human Services formalized in 2024 has been similarly described by critics as forcing medical professionals to provide care.

    Section 1557 of the 2010 Affordable Care Act is a nondiscrimination clause that prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, disability, age and sex in federally funded health programs and activities. 

    The scope of one of those definitions, “sex discrimination,” has varied across presidential administrations. During the Obama administration, sex discrimination included gender identity and sex stereotypes. The Trump administration’s regulations did not define sex. 

    In April 2024, during the Biden-Harris administration, the Department of Health and Human Services formalized regulations that again said sexual orientation and gender identity would be included as part of sex discrimination. The change meant that LGBTQ+ people are again included in the Affordable Care Act’s prohibition on sex discrimination. 

    This means that refusing to treat patients solely because they are gay or transgender could be considered discriminatory. 

    A 2023 survey by KFF, a health policy research center, showed that LGBTQ+ adults report higher levels of health care discrimination, including disrespect and unfair treatment from providers.The report also found that negative experiences can lead to worse health outcomes among LGBTQ+ patients, and discourage people from seeking medical care. 

    The inclusion of LGBTQ+ identities under Section 1557 followed a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision that determined that discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity is a form of sex discrimination. Since the decision, the Biden administration has sought to extend this LGBTQ+-inclusive understanding of sex discrimination to other civil rights laws and agency regulations, but is facing lawsuits from conservative groups and states that seek to stop the expansion. 

    Trump’s statement could have been referring to this Affordable Care Act rule change. Following the announcement, critics such as the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group, expressed concern that doctors would be forced to provide care they disagreed with. 

    But HHS’ page of frequently asked questions about the rule change says otherwise. It addresses the question: “Does the final rule require the … provision of treatment (e.g., hormone therapy, surgery, etc.) for children and/or adults with gender dysphoria if prescribed by a doctor?”

    The answer says providers are not obligated “to offer any health care, including gender-affirming care, that they do not think is clinically appropriate or if religious freedom and conscience protections apply.” 

    Elana Redfield, federal policy director at the Williams Institute, an LGBTQ+ research and policy center at the UCLA School of Law, said, “In my reading, it’s really extremely unlikely that a provider would be unable to get an exemption from Section 1557 if they had any kind of religious or moral objection to providing gender affirming care.”

    “The Section 1557 rule is very explicit,” said Ma’ayan Anafi, senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, “Providers can’t discriminate against transgender patients, but they’re not required to provide any care that is contrary to their judgment or their expertise.” 

    Lawsuits have been filed by states and clinics challenging the rule and arguing that clinicians could be obligated to provide care.

    With the lawsuits pending, enforcement of the rule is paused nationwide following a federal district court ruling in Mississippi. 

    Trump inaccurately characterizes gender-affirming care

    In his comment, Trump referred to “chemical castration drugs” given “to young children.” 

    “Chemical castration” is a phrase people who oppose access to gender-affirming medicine often use to describe puberty blockers.

    Gender-affirming care supports transgender and nonbinary people’s gender identity and can go beyond medical interventions. For the small population of transgender youth, this mainly involves support through social transition, puberty blockers and hormones as children become adolescents. Gender-affirming surgery is rarely performed on minors.

    Puberty blockers are medications that pause or suppress the release of hormones that lead to bodily changes that accompany puberty.

    A lowered sex drive is normal when an adolescent is taking them. But these effects end when adolescents stop taking the medications. 

    The most common medication for pubertal suppression is gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa), which signals the pituitary gland to slow production of sex hormones such as testosterone and estrogen.

    GnRHa have been FDA-approved since 1985, and they are used in adults to treat prostate cancer and endometriosis. Since 1981, they have also been used to treat “precocious puberty,” which is when kids start going through early puberty, around ages 6 or 7. 

    Use of GnRHa in transgender kids is considered an “off-label” use because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration didn’t approve the medication for that purpose. Physicians first started prescribing blockers to this population in 1997 in the Netherlands.

    Experts say that after puberty blockers are stopped, sex hormone production and puberty resumes. For this reason, numerous major medical organizations in the U.S. consider these treatments reversible. Puberty blockers by themselves do not affect fertility. 

    But if a teen decides to go directly from blockers to cross-sex hormones, which can affect fertility, they can risk not having mature eggs or sperm to preserve, depending on their age when they started treatment.

    Surgical interventions in minors are rare and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

    Our ruling

    Trump said, “Harris wants to forcibly compel doctors and nurses against their will to give chemical castration drugs to young children.”

    An RNC spokesperson provided information about the Biden-Harris administration’s general support for access to gender affirming care for youth, but did not specify what Trump was referring to or a policy that would “force” doctors to provide care. 

    During Harris’ vice presidency, the Department of Health and Human Services passed a rule that included LGBTQ+ people in the Affordable Care Act’s prohibition on sex discrimination. Medical providers can still object to providing gender-affirming care if it goes against their clinical judgment or religious beliefs. The rule is being litigated and is paused nationwide.

    There is no certainty Trump was referring to this policy. Trump’s characterization of puberty blockers also is misleading. 

    At PolitiFact, the burden of proof is on the speaker. We rate the statement False.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Live: Fact-checking Kamala Harris and Tim Walz’s CNN interview

    PolitiFact is live fact-checking Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, in their first joint interview since since announcing their presidential campaign.

    CNN anchor Dana Bash’s interview with the Democratic presidential and vice presidential nominees will air at 9 p.m. ET. 

    PolitiFact has rated Harris on our Truth-O-Meter 52 times since 2012 and rated Walz three times in 2024. We also fact-checked their remarks at last week’s Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

    To suggest a claim for us to fact-check, email [email protected] or text “Facts” to (727) 382-472.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Air ball: WNBA players weren’t disqualified under a new national anthem rule

    The WNBA season is winding down amid a spate of social media misinformation about athletes kneeling during the national anthem.

    “BREAKING: WNBA referees disqualify two players under league’s new ‘no anthem kneeling’ rule,” an Aug. 22 Facebook post said. 

    This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads.)

    The WNBA didn’t immediately respond to PolitiFact’s questions about the post, but we found no evidence, such as credible news reports or public statements from the league, to corroborate the claim that two players had been disqualified. 

    The Facebook post referenced a “full story in comments” and linked to an Aug. 21 blog post with a headline that matched the Facebook post and the following paragraph: “Iп a sigпificaпt move that has sparked widespread debate, WNBA referees disqυalified two players dυriпg a receпt game for violatiпg the leagυe’s пewly implemeпted ‘No Aпthem Kпeeliпg’ rυle. This coпtroversial regυlatioп, which was iпtrodυced to eпsυre υпiformity aпd respect dυriпg the пatioпal aпthem, has beeп met with both sυpport aпd criticism from faпs, players, aпd aпalysts alike.”

    The blog post said the players’ identities hadn’t been disclosed but that “with the WNBA’s new rule in place, this act resulted in their immediate disqualification from the game.”

    The 2024 WNBA rulebook says that “players, coaches, and trainers are to stand and line up in a dignified posture along the sidelines or on the foul line during the playing of the National Anthem.” But it doesn’t dictate a punishment for violating this rule, such as an “immediate disqualification from the game,” as the blog post said. 

    This also isn’t a new rule. It predates August 2016, when Colin Kaepernick, then a San Francisco 49ers quarterback, started sitting and then taking a knee during the anthem to protest the treatment of Black Americans after several unarmed Black men had been shot that summer. 

    In August 2017, the league suspended its anthem protocol so that WNBA teams could lock arms with each other to show their support for victims of racially charged violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, The Associated Press reported.

    The AP is among many news outlets to report on anthem protests and subsequent responses and reprimands. The disqualification of two WNBA players for kneeling during the anthem would draw news coverage but we found none.

    We rate claims that WNBA referees recently disqualified two players over a new anthem rule False.

     



    Source

  • Fact Check: This isn’t a real endorsement quote attributed to Beyoncé and Taylor Swift

    First were the false claims that singer-songwriter Taylor Swift had announced a fundraising concert with Beyoncé to support Vice President Kamala Harris, the 2024 Democratic nominee for president.

    Then came the rumors that both women would appear Aug. 22 at the Democratic National Convention. 

    They didn’t, and they also didn’t announce an endorsement concert. And yet, multiple social media posts recently claimed such “breaking news.” 

    “Beyoncé and Taylor Swift are about to have a BIG Endorsement Concert,” an Aug. 21 Facebook post said. “No more silence, before it’s too late, our voice must be heard NOW!”

    This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads.)

    A representative for Swift didn’t immediately respond to PolitiFact’s questions about the post but we found no evidence, such as credible news reports or public statements from Swift or Beyoncé, to corroborate the claim. 

    Searching for the supposed quote attributed to the singers turned up only other social media and blog posts.

    Swift and Beyoncé endorsed Joe Biden and Harris in 2020. And Beyoncé gave Harris permission to use her song “Freedom” for Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign. But neither Swift nor Beyoncé had formally endorsed any candidate of Aug. 27.

    We rate claims they announced an endorsement concert and said, “No more silence, before it’s too late, our voice must be heard NOW,” False.

     



    Source

  • Fact Check: Football’s coming back for the 2024 regular season, and so is misinformation about Colin Kaepernick

    It’s been seven years since quarterback Colin Kaepernick played for the former San Francisco 49ers — or any NFL team. But misinformation about the football player-turned-civil rights activist continues to spread on social media with the NFL’s regular 2024 season looming Sept. 5.

    “Colin Kaepernick ‘SCREAMS’ as Coach Kyle Shanahan denies his return request: ‘The kneeling symbol has no chance of coming back,’” an Aug. 23 Facebook post said. 

    The post shared an image of Shanahan at a July 29 press conference after a 49ers training camp practice in Santa Clara, California. The words “no more chances for someone who disrespects America” and “full story in comment” appeared over the image. 

    But the supposed “full story” that the post linked to in its comments section makes no mention of Kaepernick or Shanahan, the 49ers’ head coach. 

    This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads.)

    Representatives for the 49ers didn’t immediately respond to PolitiFact’s questions about the post, but Calder Hynes, a spokesperson for Kaepernick, said the claim is false.

    “There is no truth to the rumor,” Hynes said. 

    We also found no evidence that Shanahan rebuffed a request from a screaming Kaepernick to rejoin the team or said that “the kneeling symbol has no chance of coming back.” 

    Searching for that quote turned up only a few other social media posts.

    Kaepernick, who led the 49ers to the Super Bowl XLVII in 2013, has not played in the NFL since the 2016 season, when he began protesting police violence against Black Americans by sitting or kneeling during the pregame national anthem. In 2019, he and the NFL settled a grievance alleging that the league and team owners colluded to keep him out of football.

    Brock Purdy is poised to start as quarterback for the 49ers in the 2024 season, backed up by Joshua Dobbs and Brandon Allen. 

    We rate this post False. 

     



    Source

  • Fact Check: No, North Carolina’s ballot order doesn’t show ‘attempt at voter manipulation’

    A social media post claims that North Carolina’s ballot for the November election has been “manipulated” to hurt former President Donald Trump.

    “Reports show Trump is poised to appear near the bottom of the ballot in North Carolina,” the Aug. 27 post says on X, formerly Twitter. “This is indefensible and a clear attempt at voter manipulation.”

    A day after the claim was posted, it had been viewed nearly 1 million times.

    Pundits and political strategists pay attention to the order of names on a ballot because candidates whose names are listed first tend to perform better than candidates whose names are listed further down the ballot, researchers have found. 

    The names of some of Trump’s presidential election opponents do appear higher than Trump’s on the North Carolina ballot. But there’s no evidence that the ballot was manipulated.

    North Carolina state law requires the order of candidates’ names to be determined by a drawing, and election officials have used the same process for many years.

    For this year’s election, the state board conducted the drawing Dec. 15. 

    First, election officials place 26 balls, each labeled with a letter of the alphabet, in a bingo wheel.An election official spins the wheel until a ball comes out.

    This year, the ball showed the letter D.

    Then, election officials flip a coin to see whether candidates will be listed in alphabetical order (heads) or reverse alphabetical order (tails). 

    This year, the coin showed heads, meaning the candidates would appear on ballots in alphabetical order, starting with the letter D. The candidates are sorted by last name. 

    That’s how the state elections board determined that the candidates would appear in the following order: D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, A, B, C.

    As a result, the names of five presidential candidates — Kamala Harris, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chase Oliver, Jill Stein, and Randall Terry — appear above Trump’s name on the ballot. 

    Kennedy recently suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump. However, his name remains on the ballot because the We The People party — which nominated Kennedy — has not asked the state elections board to remove his name from the ballot.

    If President Joe Biden hadn’t dropped out of the race, his name would have appeared on the ballot last.

    Trump had better luck in previous drawings, appearing first on the ballot in both the 2016 and 2020 elections. 

    In 2020, candidates’ names appeared alphabetically starting with the letter O. In 2016, candidates’ names appeared alphabetically starting with the letter H.

    PolitiFact NC contacted the X user who claimed this year’s ballot was manipulated, but the user didn’t respond. 

    Our ruling

    The post said the order of names listed on North Carolina’s ballot shows a “clear attempt at voter manipulation.”

    There’s no evidence North Carolina’s election ballot has been manipulated. We rate this claim False.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Tracking Trump’s abortion position: Harris says he’ll ban it, but he now says it’s up to states.

    Several Democratic National Convention speakers warned Americans that former President Donald Trump would limit abortion access if he returned to the White House — regardless of what he says on the matter.

    “As part of his agenda, (Trump) and his allies would enact a nationwide abortion ban, with or without Congress,” Harris said Aug. 22 after she accepted her party’s nomination for president in Chicago.

    On the convention’s first night, President Joe Biden said, “You know Trump will do everything he can to ban abortion nationwide. Oh, he will.” 

    In an interview Aug. 25 on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. J.D. Vance said he can “absolutely commit” that Trump would not impose a federal abortion limit if he wins, and that Trump has been “clear” on the topic.

    “Donald Trump’s view is that we want the individual states and their individual cultures and their unique political sensibilities to make these decisions, because we don’t want to have a nonstop federal conflict over this issue,” Vance said.

    Trump has said since April that abortion regulation should be left to the states.

    For almost just as long, Harris has said she simply doesn’t believe Trump’s change of perspective.

    “Trump wants us to believe he will not sign a national ban,” Harris said May 1 in Jacksonville, Florida, the day the state’s six-week abortion ban took effect. “Well, I say, enough with the gaslighting. The great Maya Angelou once said, ‘When someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time.’”

    Democrats who agree with Harris have cited Trump’s history on abortion and his boasts about appointing three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade.

    Trump’s history on the policy is mixed. In the weeks before his April announcement, Trump had floated 15- and 16- week national cutoffs for abortion — which would lengthen access in some states and reduce it in others. In his first year as president, and five years before the Supreme Court’s Roe reversal, Trump supported legislation for a 20-week abortion ban.

    Here’s what we know about Trump’s past support and current distancing from a one-size-fits-all abortion policy.

    Trump’s “ban” journey

    Until recent months, Trump sounded open to a national cutoff.

    As president in 2017, he endorsed a 20-week national abortion ban the Republican-led House had approved. (Fetal viability, when the fetus is able to survive outside the womb, is typically considered to be about 24 weeks of pregnancy. Roe v. Wade allowed access to that point, with health exceptions.) Trump promised anti-abortion groups he would sign a bill from Congress that would impose the 20-week ban. The bill failed to earn 60 votes needed to beat a Democratic Senate filibuster in 2018.

    Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, 18 states have banned abortion, restricted abortion with some exceptions, or banned it after six weeks of pregnancy, when many women don’t yet know they are pregnant. When Republicans underperformed in the 2022 midterm elections, exit polls showed that voters in battleground states ranked abortion as the most important issue affecting their voting.

    Trump came to view strict anti-abortion measures as a political liability for Republicans and his own reelection hopes. In September 2023, Trump called Florida’s six-week law, signed by Republican presidential primary opponent Gov. Ron DeSantis, “a terrible mistake.” In April, Trump said Arizona’s Supreme Court went too far by allowing a Civil War-era abortion ban to take effect; state lawmakers repealed the measure, and voters will decide on a constitutional right to abortion up to fetal viability in November, up from a 15-week cutoff.

    In February, The New York Times reported that Trump floated a 16-week nationwide abortion ban to his advisers and allies. The report quoted two unnamed people who said Trump liked the idea of a 16-week ban with three exceptions, in cases of rape, cases of incest or to save the pregnant woman’s life. 

    In a March 19 radio interview, Trump considered a 15-week policy: “The number of weeks now, people are agreeing on 15. And I’m thinking in terms of that. And it’ll come out to something that’s very reasonable. But people are really, even hard-liners are agreeing, seems to be, 15 weeks seems to be a number that people are agreeing at.”


    Former President Donald Trump speaks at the National Guard Association’s 146th General Conference on Aug. 26, 2024 (AP)

    On April 8, Trump released a Truth Social video with a new position that states should decide abortion rules.

    “The states will determine by vote or legislation, or perhaps both. And whatever they decide must be the law of the land, or in this case the law of the state,” Trump said. “Many states will be different, many will have a different number of weeks, or some will have more conservative than others and that’s what they will be.” 

    Trump has maintained that view through summer.

    During his June 27 debate with Biden on CNN, Trump said states were now “making their own decisions” and “right now the states control it.”

    “It’s going to be the vote of the people and it’s a state vote,” Trump said during a July 27 rally in St. Cloud, Minnesota. “It’s the way it was supposed to be. It should have never been in the federal government.”

    What Trump said about signing a national ban

    Since April, journalists have tried to clarify whether Trump would sign or veto a national abortion limit from a Republican-controlled Congress.

    Trump has dismissed the possibility of one reaching his desk.

    On April 10, Trump gave a brief “no” when reporters on an airport tarmac asked whether he would sign a national abortion ban.

    In an April 12 interview for Time magazine, reporter Eric Cortellessa asked Trump whether he would veto any bill that federally restricts abortions.

    “You don’t need a federal ban. We just got out of the federal,” Trump said. “Florida is going to be different from Georgia and Georgia is going to be different from other places.” 

    When asked again, Trump said he would never have the chance to veto a bill, because “it won’t happen,” citing the insurmountable filibuster.

    “You’re not going to have it for many, many years, whether it be Democrat or Republican. Right now, it’s essentially 50-50. I think we have a chance to pick up a couple, but a couple means we’re at 51 or 52. We have a long way to go,” Trump said.

    When Cortellessa pressed Trump again, Trump repeated “it’ll never happen” and that “it’s about states’ rights” and “getting abortion out of the federal government.”

    As the exchange ended, Cortellessa mentioned House Republican support of the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life starts at “the moment of fertilization,” and asked whether Trump would veto the bill.

    “I don’t have to do anything about vetoes, because we now have it back in the states,” Trump said. “They’re gonna make those determinations.”

    On “Meet the Press” on Aug. 25, host Kristen Welker pressed Vance on whether Trump would veto a federal abortion ban from Congress.

    Vance: “I want to be very clear he would not support it.” 

    Welker: “But would he veto it?” 

    Vance: “Yeah, I mean I think if you’re not supporting it as the President of the United States, you fundamentally would have to veto it.” 

    Welker: “So he would veto a federal abortion ban?”

    Vance: “I think he would.”

    Other ways Republicans might try to ban abortion under Trump

    When Democrats, including Harris, say Trump could ban abortion “without Congress,” they are referring to efforts to ban mailing abortion materials, restrict abortion medication and enact fetal personhood laws. 

    Trump has not offered direct support of these ideas.

    Executive actions that could limit abortion include enforcing the Comstock Act — a 19th century law that bans the mailing of “obscene” materials — that could prohibit sending abortion medication and surgical equipment used in abortions anywhere in the country. 

    On Aug. 19, Trump told CBS News he wouldn’t use the law to ban mailing abortion pills. “No, we will be discussing specifics of it, but generally speaking, no,” he said.

    “You would not enforce the Comstock Act?” the reporter repeated.

    “I would not do that,” Trump said. 


    Bottles of abortion pills mifepristone, left, and misoprostol, right, are shown in Septmber 2010 at a clinic in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP)

    Reporters asked Trump on Aug. 9 whether he would direct the Food and Drug Administration to revoke access to mifepristone, the first of two pills used in medication abortions. Abortion pills are used in more than 60% of U.S. abortions.

    Trump’s answer was hard to parse: “You can do things that will be, that would supplement, absolutely. And those things are pretty open and humane. But you have to be able to have a vote.”

    Trump has said that the Supreme Court “approved” mifepristone in June and he would enforce its decision. But the court didn’t bless the pill’s FDA approval; it rejected a legal challenge over procedural grounds, so the court could face the question again.

    Democrats have also pointed to the Republican National Committee’s 2024 platform, which says “we believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those rights.” 

    Reproductive health experts say this language supports states establishing fetal personhood laws under the 14th Amendment, which would give citizenship rights to fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses. If courts agree with these state laws, it could outlaw abortion and restrict access to in vitro fertilization across the U.S.

    We have not seen Trump weigh in on the 14th Amendment language, though his allies drafted it; this statement is not reflected on his core campaign promises.

    RELATED: All of our fact-checks on abortion including statements by Trump

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Elissa Slotkin’s vote for Inflation Reduction Act was not a vote for a Medicare ‘cut’

    Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike Rogers recently accused his opponent, Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., of voting to cut Medicare benefits. 

    Slotkin “voted to cut Medicare benefits for seniors just two years ago,” Rogers’ campaign wrote in a recent blog post. After we contacted the campaign for comment, the item was deleted. 

    The blog post linked to a Wall Street Journal opinion column written by two economists who served on the White House Council of Economic Advisers under former President Donald Trump. The column argued that funding changes under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act to Medicare Part D — which helps cover prescription drug costs — could lead to higher premiums and fewer benefits for older Americans. 

    The Inflation Reduction Act, a wide-ranging climate and health care bill Democrats passed and President Joe Biden signed into law, made a raft of changes to prescription drug pricing and spending under Medicare. The law is expected to reduce the federal deficit by $237 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, largely because Medicare will negotiate drug prices, lowering the federal government’s costs. 

    The negotiated drug prices also will mean lower costs for beneficiaries who take those drugs, and a new $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket spending will lower costs for older Americans who pay the most.

    Under the law’s new funding structure, insurers who offer Medicare Part D plans will pay a higher share of drug costs starting in 2025 after a beneficiary crosses the $2,000 annual cap. This could increase premiums for beneficiaries on those plans, according to experts and an analysis from KFF, a health policy research organization.

    We asked Rogers’ campaign for evidence to support the claim that Slotkin “voted to cut Medicare benefits.” It pointed us to articles, including from KFF, Politico and Fox Business, that said premiums were likely to increase because of the Inflation Reduction Act changes.

    But to characterize the Inflation Reduction Act as a “cut” to Medicare is misleading, and it ignores the many new benefits beneficiaries will receive because of the law. 

    What changed with Medicare under the Inflation Reduction Act? 

    Medicare Part D, which offers insurance coverage for prescriptions, is a voluntary program, and about 50 million of the 65 million people Medicare covers are enrolled — either through a standalone Prescription Drug Plan or through Medicare Advantage. Private insurers contract with the federal government to offer prescription drug plans, which beneficiaries can choose from.

    The Inflation Reduction Act allowed Medicare, for the first time, to negotiate the price of common drugs and required all plans to cover those drugs at the same rate. The Department of Health and Human Services announced in August new negotiated prices for 10 common drugs; more prices will be negotiated in the years to come. The law also capped out-of-pocket insulin costs for Medicare enrollees at $35 a month.

    Starting in 2025, after prescription costs cross the new $2,000 out-of-pocket threshold, the plan pays the majority of the remaining cost, while Medicare and the drugmaker also share some of the cost. 

    This change means health plans will pay significantly more of the share over that threshold than they paid before the law was signed. Some critics have argued that to cover that new expense, insurers will need to increase premium costs for Medicare Part D enrollees.

    Will the Inflation Reduction Act increase Medicare Part D premiums? 

    Concerns about rising premium costs have merit, said William Hoagland, a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center who studies health policy. 

    The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said in July that the average monthly bid amount — the amount the plans expect to spend per person, not the cost to the beneficiary — for 2025 Part D plans will be $179.45, a 180% increase from 2024. The actual premium costs for beneficiaries will be announced in September, according to KFF. 

    But the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has also instituted policies intended to keep premiums from rising dramatically for standalone Prescription Drug Plans. The agency announced a premium stabilization plan that will limit premium increases for participating plans to $35 from 2024 to 2025. The plan will also alter the “risk corridor” for Part D plans, meaning Medicare will assume more of the risk if plans lose money.

    The Inflation Reduction Act also caps the annual increase in the base beneficiary premium at 6%. This is a standard the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sets that affects the total premium cost. But there is no limit to how much the total premium for a Part D plan can increase if it is not participating in the stabilization program. 

    Republicans have criticized the stabilization plan as an attempt to soften the shock of potential rising premium costs ahead of the 2024 election. 

    Hoagland said if the standalone Prescription Drug Plan enrollees’ premiums become too expensive, some people will likely move to Medicare Advantage, a more wide-ranging program that often includes drug benefits at a lower premium. Medicare-approved private companies run Medicare Advantage.

    “I don’t think it entirely eliminates the availability of them receiving benefits and Medicare, it just means there’s going to be some churn on what programs they participate in or not,” he said.

    The opinion column that Rogers’ campaign cited also argued that some insurers may decide it is not profitable to operate in the traditional Prescription Drug Plan market and leave the program.

    Mutual of Omaha said in March that it will exit the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan market at year’s end because of the “pending impact of the Inflation Reduction Act” on Medicare drug plans. 

    On average, beneficiaries had fewer plan options for standalone drug plans in 2024 than any other year since the plan’s inception. 

    But Mariana Socal, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University who researches Medicare and drug pricing policy, said fewer options does not necessarily mean worse benefits. Most beneficiaries, according to her research, would prefer lower drug costs to having a greater number of plans to choose from. 

    Inflation Reduction Act lowers drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries

    Rogers’ statement ignores the ways the law significantly expands benefits for Medicare enrollees by lowering drug costs and capping out-of-pocket spending.

    The new negotiated drug prices will result in significantly lower costs for Medicare enrollees who take the medications selected for negotiation this year, Socal said. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, about 8.8 million people enrolled in Medicare take at least one of the 10 drugs selected this year for negotiation, and those 10 drugs account for 20% of the total gross prescription cost under Medicare Part D. 

    “There is a huge difference between paying $200 at the pharmacy counter versus $50 or $40 at the pharmacy counter every month,” Socal said. “So, I think there will still be a benefit even for those populations who don’t necessarily expect or anticipate that they will cross the cap in that year.”

    The law also requires that Medicare Part D plans cover each of the negotiated drugs. That means beneficiaries who take more than one of the drugs will not need to research Part D plans to find one that covers all of the drugs they need. 

    The out-of-pocket spending cap will also result in savings for the beneficiaries who have the highest drug prices. Under the previous rules, beneficiaries paid 5% of their drug costs over $7,500 throughout the whole year. 

    According to KFF, 1.5 million people enrolled in Medicare Part D plans exceeded $2,000 a month in 2021, and nearly 5 million people have exceeded that threshold once in the last 10 years.

    “These are very very sick individuals, and they often would forgo treatments that are important,” Socal said. 

    Our ruling 

    Rogers said Slotkin’s vote for the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act was a vote to “cut Medicare benefits for seniors.”

    That mischaracterizes the effect of the law, which did not cut any benefits. 

    The law lowered the cost of some of the most commonly prescribed, and most expensive, drugs for Medicare enrollees and capped out-of-pocket insulin costs at $35 a month. It also capped out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries at $2,000 a year. 

    Some critics have expressed concern that the law could increase premiums for beneficiaries and reduce options for prescription drug plans. Premium increases do not equal “cuts,” and were not part of the law that Slotkin voted for. Experts noted that if Medicare Part D premiums increase, enrollees can switch to other plans, such as Medicare Advantage.

    We rate this claim False. 



    Source

  • Fact Check: Did Pa. Sen. Bob Casey vote to sell American oil to China? That misconstrues the facts

    Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate candidates, incumbent Democrat Bob Casey and Republican Dave McCormick, are jockeying to show they are tough on China, whether it’s about investments, donations or votes. 

    In an ad released Aug. 25, McCormick’s campaign listed Casey’s purported ties to China. Among the claims: Casey “even voted to sell American oil to China.” 

    President Joe Biden’s administration sold oil to a Chinese state-owned company in 2022, as part of a large Strategic Petroleum Reserve drawdown. But the Senate never voted on those sales. Casey voted no on a procedural vote about whether to consider an amendment that would have limited foreign exports of oil from the reserve. He later voted in favor of similar limits.

    The McCormick ad cites a July 2022 article from the conservative Washington Free Beacon, which details the Biden administration’s sale of oil to Unipec America. China Petrochemical Corp., commonly known as Sinopec, the largest state-owned oil company in China, owns Unipec. 

    The federal Energy Department sold at least 180 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve throughout 2022 to combat high gasoline prices exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The oil sales followed a competitive bidding process required by law. In April and July of that year, the administration sold a collective 1.9 million barrels of oil to Unipec.

    The Strategic Petroleum Reserves sales were executive actions that required no Senate action. So, Casey did not vote on them. 

    Senate voted to restrict oil exports to China 

    When contacted for comment, the McCormick campaign pointed to an August 2022 Senate vote on whether to consider an amendment that would have blocked the sale of American oil reserves for export to China. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, offered the amendment to the Democratic-backed Inflation Reduction Act. 

    The Senate voted on whether to consider Cruz’s amendment. The motion to consider, which required 60 votes to pass, failed with a 54-46 vote. Four Democrats joined Republicans to vote in favor of considering the amendment, but Casey was not among them. 

    Reporting on the “vote-a-rama” at the time, Roll Call said Democrats used the procedure so its party members who faced competitive elections could “show their support for the underlying amendment” without it being added to the bill. 

    Casey’s campaign, when reached for comment, said Casey’s nay vote was for a procedural measure — the motion to consider — not the amendment itself. 

    A year later, when Cruz proposed a similar amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2024, Casey joined most Democrats in voting in favor of it. The amendment passed on an 85-14 vote, but the provision was stripped in the bill that the House and Senate agreed to and that Biden signed into law.

    This year, Casey co-sponsored a bill fellow Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman introduced that also would limit oil exports from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It would ban sales from the reserve to China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Cuba or “any entity owned, controlled or influenced” by any of those countries or the Chinese Communist Party. The energy secretary could issue a waiver to allow sales that were deemed in the interest of national security.

    The Senate referred the bill to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, but it received no further action. 

    Petroleum reserve is part of a global market

    The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an emergency supply of crude oil used to stabilize oil prices in the U.S. during crises. 

    Responding to soaring gasoline prices after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Biden announced a plan to draw down and sell 180 million barrels of oil from the reserve. Republicans accused Biden of tapping the reserves to lower gasoline prices in an election year.

    By law, the petroleum reserves must be sold through a competitive bidding process, and the sale goes to the highest bidders. The oil sometimes goes to foreign-owned companies, as long as the federal government authorizes them and they operate in the U.S., said Hugh Daigle, a University of Texas at Austin associate professor in the Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering.

    Selling to an American company doesn’t guarantee that oil stays in the U.S., Daigle said.

    Oil companies buy and sell on a global market, and an American company is just as likely as a foreign company to export its oil to China, he said. There’s also no record of the oil sold to Unipec being exported to China, he said, because the U.S. does not track the oil after it leaves the reserve. 

    “It can be really difficult even to keep track of where that specific oil goes,” Daigle said. “It can be mixed with other oil in a crude tanker. Unless you’re tracking individual molecules it can be incredibly difficult to verify that no strategic petroleum reserve oil has ever gone to China.” 

    Our ruling

    A McCormick campaign ad said Casey “voted to sell American oil to China.” 

    Casey never participated in a Senate vote that led to the sale of American oil to China. Sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to a Chinese-owned company in 2022 were an executive action that required no Senate vote. 

    Casey voted against a procedural measure that would have allowed consideration of an amendment to ban exports of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to China. He later voted in favor of a similar amendment, and backed a bill with stricter limits on Strategic Petroleum Reserve sales this year. 

    We rate the statement False.



    Source