Category: Fact Check

Is support for Roe. v. Wade — the now-overturned Supreme Court ruling that federally protected abortion access — higher than ever?

That’s what President Joe Biden said in response to an April 8 video in which former President Donald Trump said “everyone” wanted the ruling overturned. We rated Trump’s statement False.

Biden’s campaign responded to Trump’s video by releasing a Facebook post in which Biden said:

“Trump is lying: There was no groundswell of support in America for overturning Roe. In fact, support for Roe is higher today in America than it has ever been. The real truth is Trump made a political deal in 2016. He promised to appoint a (Supreme) Court that would get rid of Roe, so he did.”

Asking about support for Roe is one way to take Americans’ temperature on abortion policy, and opinions are often nuanced, hinging on how questions are worded. 

Polls show that since the ruling’s 2022 overturning, support for the status quo under Roe has easily outpaced support for dismantling its protections. Some public opinion measures show support for Roe spiked after the Supreme Court’s ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that ended Roe’s federally protected abortion access.

However, long-term polling data is sparse, making it hard to verify whether today’s support is indeed the highest in history.

PolitiFact did not hear back from Biden’s campaign for comment. 

How do Americans view Roe today?

Polling from 2023 and 2024, after Roe’s overturning, is consistent: Many more Americans would have preferred that Roe remain in place rather than be overturned. 

We found five media- or university-based polls from that period, and each found support for Roe from 56% to 64%. Support for overturning Roe was lower, from 36% to 41%.

However, these results are a snapshot in time and don’t address whether, in Biden’s words, support is higher “than it has ever been.”

Long-term trends in abortion polling Only one pollster, Gallup, has tracked opinion on abortion with similarly worded questions over an extended, yearslong period. 

One of Gallup’s regular questions doesn’t cite Roe by name but asks: “Are you satisfied with the abortion laws in this country? If not, would you like to see abortion laws in this country made more strict, less strict or remain as they are?”

From 2001 to 2021, Americans who said they were dissatisfied because they thought the laws should be less strict ranged from 8% to 22%.

In 2022, the year Roe was overturned, that shot up to 30%. In 2023, it spiked again, hitting 46%. 

In 2024, it dropped to 44% but that remained high by historical standards.

The poll didn’t strictly ask people how they felt about Roe, but its wording is close and provides the strongest evidence for Biden’s assertion. 

Gallup also asked a separate question specifically naming Roe — although its wording changed slightly after Roe was overturned.

In surveys from 1989 to the eve of Roe’s overturning in 2022, support for keeping Roe in place ranged from 53% to 66%. In the 2022 poll, conducted a few weeks before Roe’s overturning, support for Roe was at 56%.

In two 2023 polls, Gallup asked a different question — whether respondents thought overturning Roe was a “good thing” or a “bad thing.” In those polls, the percentage of people answering that it was a “bad thing” reached 61% and 63%.

This shows an uptick in support for Roe compared with 2022, before the ruling’s overturning. However, the 2023 level of support for Roe was not as high as it was in a few isolated years, the Gallup results show. In 2006, for example, it was 66%.

We also looked at other surveys that asked the same question for a couple of years in a row, but not as long as Gallup. We found five that asked about Roe in 2022 and 2023, and the level of support for Roe remained consistent.

 

Our ruling

Biden said support for the now-overturned Roe v. Wade “is higher today in America than it has ever been.” 

Polls show that since the Supreme Court issued its June 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe, support for the previous status quo under Roe has outpaced support for dismantling Roe’s federal abortion protections. Gallup’s long-term public opinion tracking shows a clear spike in support for Roe after the ruling’s overturning. 

However, long-term polling data is sparse, making it hard to know whether today’s level of support represents the historical apex.

The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True. 

Former President Donald Trump often boasts about his role in overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that federally protected abortion access.

Trump reiterated that point in an April 8 video statement outlining his position on abortion. He said he was proud to have nominated three U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn the ruling in 2022 in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

But Trump went further in the video, arguing that overturning Roe was what “everyone” had wanted. 

“I was proudly responsible for the ending of something that all legal scholars, both sides, wanted, and in fact demanded: Roe v. Wade. They wanted it ended,” Trump said in the video, shared on his Truth Social platform. Later in the clip, Trump said Roe’s overturning has left “abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint.” 

Previously, we rated False a claim from his video that Democrats support the “execution” of babies “after birth.” 

Trump is also wrong about whether “all” legal scholars wanted and called for Roe’s demise. 

Some legal scholars wanted the ruling tossed out, including many whose anti-abortion beliefs would have aligned with overturning Roe. But there were plenty who did not want Roe overturned, including some who told us so.

“This is not accurate. Many legal scholars have not only decried the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but have also been highly critical of Alito’s opinion, which places other recognized constitutional rights in questions” such as marriage and contraception, said Lois Shepherd, a professor of law and biomedical ethics at the University of Virginia. “I also take exception to Trump’s claim about ‘both sides’ — both sides of what? Legal scholars are not divided into two camps where they see issues either all one way or the other. Legal scholarship is much more complex and nuanced that suggested by that phrase.”

“It’s very obvious that the vast majority of legal scholars support the result in Roe v. Wade and oppose Dobbs,” added Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, and former co-editor of the Supreme Court Economic Review. “Some have issues with the details of Roe’s reasoning. But they overwhelmingly like the result, at least insofar as it generally protects abortion rights.”

Leslie Francis, a University of Utah professor of law and philosophy, agreed.

“Roe v. Wade has been the subject of extensive discussion among legal scholars, from many different facets. While groups of scholars have sometimes coalesced, for example signing amicus briefs, I don’t think it’s fair to say that legal scholars on both sides wanted or demanded the end of Roe,” she said. 

The Trump campaign did not answer an inquiry for this article.

Dobbs case includes evidence that contradicts Trump’s statement

After the Supreme Court decided Roe in 1973, its general principles were upheld, though sometimes scaled back, in subsequent rulings.

But in June 2022, the Supreme Court decided the Dobbs case, which challenged the constitutionality of Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, a law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The court upheld the Mississippi law, and thanks to Trump’s three appointees who joined the 6-3 majority, voted to overturn Roe.

The Dobbs case holds clear evidence that not “all” legal scholars “wanted, and in fact demanded” that Roe be overturned: At least three amicus briefs collectively signed by six law professors urged the court not to overturn Roe. 

One, submitted by Serena Mayeri of the University of Pennsylvania, Melissa Murray of New York University and Reva Siegel of Yale University, argued that the Mississippi law was unconstitutional under equal-protection standards — the idea that the government cannot deny people equal protection of the law.

Another brief, submitted by Khiara M. Bridges of the University of California, Berkeley and Dorothy E. Roberts of the University of Pennsylvania, argued the Mississippi law would disproportionately hurt people of color and people with low incomes. 

A third amicus brief, submitted by Northeastern University’s Martha F. Davis disagreed with Mississippi’s assertion that overturning Roe would align American abortion laws more closely with those of other countries. She wrote that the argument was based on an “oversimplified and cursory review” that looked only at time limits on abortion access “without any regard for the broader context and application of those laws” and said the court should reject the analysis, calling it misleading.

Some scholars disliked the Roe decision but didn’t favor overturning it

Some legal experts, even those who support abortion rights, thought Roe should have been decided on different constitutional grounds than the ones the justices used in 1973. But this is not the same as “demanding” it be overturned, legal experts told PolitiFact.

The late liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg shared this view. She argued that Roe would have been better supported constitutionally if it had been based on the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which would have justified it on gender equality rather than the privacy rights implied in the 14th Amendment protecting abortion as a fundamental right. 

“It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling,” Ginsburg told senators during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing. “If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.”

The University of Utah’s Francis said Ginsburg was arguing that “an equal protection analysis would also have supported the conclusion in Roe: that a failure to recognize abortion rights has direct effects on people who are physiologically female.” 

Ginsburg wasn’t the only one with this view.

University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt said most of the liberal critics of Roe’s reasoning, including himself, argued that Roe’s argument, based on privacy, was “not very persuasive and people should be looking at equality-based arguments instead.”

Mary Ziegler, an abortion historian and law professor at University of California-Davis, agreed. The critics of Roe’s legal reasoning “didn’t say they wanted it overturned. They just said it would be more convincing” if it had been argued on different legal grounds, Ziegler told us.

Roosevelt called Trump’s framing inaccurate.

Roosevelt said “there are a fair number” of liberal critics of the Roe decision, but “the number who called for it to be overturned was far smaller, maybe zero.”

Our ruling

Trump said “all legal scholars, both sides, wanted, and in fact demanded” that Roe v. Wade be overturned.

As one of the most contentious legal issues of the past half century, Roe v. Wade inspired legions of supporters and opponents. Before it was overturned in 2022, numerous legal scholars wrote briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the case.

Many legal scholars in favor of abortion rights have criticized the 1973 ruling’s legal underpinnings, saying that different constitutional arguments based on equal protection would have provided a stronger case. But legal experts, including some who hold this view, told PolitiFact that those scholars would not have advocated for overturning Roe because of those underpinnings. 

We rate the statement False.

Millions of people saw the April 8 total solar eclipse that raced across North America as a chance to view a rare celestial event that won’t be visible again in the continental U.S. for two decades.

One social media user, however, saw a broader purpose.

“I don’t know who planned this. But this was a brilliant wake up strategy,” an April 8 Facebook post’s caption said. It continued, “And this will be the first time so many look up and realize what chemtraiIs are. The main path so far is full of ChemtraiIs. It’s all over tiktok. People are PISSED.” 

The 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 and Instagram.)

The post shared a photo of white streaks across a sunlit sky — presumably the evidence of chemtrails — but it doesn’t say where or when it was taken.

But the photo doesn’t show chemtrails. We know that because they don’t exist.

(Facebook screenshot)

As PolitiFact has reported numerous times, chemtrails are a conspiracy theory that the condensation trails left behind aircraft are part of a secret program by the government or others to poison the atmosphere with toxic chemicals for various, nefarious reasons.

PolitiFact has also debunked numerous social media claims about the solar eclipse, including claims that NASA was shooting rockets at three moons and that state and local governments were preparing for a catastrophic event that day.

The conspiracy theory about chemtrails was amplified recently when the Tennessee Senate passed a bill prohibiting the release of chemicals into the state’s atmosphere to affect the weather, a concept known as geoengineering. The bill didn’t mention chemtrails, but some lawmakers and witnesses referred directly or indirectly to them, PolitiFact reported. The Washington Post reported that many chemtrail believers are confusing the theory with geoengineering.

Multiple government agencies and scientists say chemtrails don’t exist. Contrails — shorthand for condensation trails, the white streaks seen in the Facebook photo and routinely seen in the sky — do exist and are harmless. 

The National Weather Service said the condensation trails left behind by passing jets form when hot, humid air from the jet exhaust mixes with cooler atmospheric air. Contrails are not a recent phenomenon and have been visible since the existence of jet planes, the agency said.

The U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also said contrails pose no threat to humans’ health.

It’s possible the Facebook post creator saw an increase in contrails during the eclipse because there was increased air traffic. The Federal Aviation Administration was expecting a busy week because of spring break travel and the eclipse, the agency said in a March 27 news release.

“Travelers flying along the eclipse path may encounter limited parking and potential delays at airports due to the high volume of aircraft and drones attempting to witness the total solar eclipse,” the FAA said.

CNBC reported that high demand from tourists flocking to the path of totality jammed smaller airports, briefly causing the FAA to briefly halt some flights ahead of the event. Delta Airlines sold two special eclipse viewing flights, and several large airlines had flights that coincided with the path of totality.

Kelly Korreck, NASA’s program manager for the solar eclipse, speculated that more contrails might have been visible because the eclipse’s path crossed several major cities and airports, a spokesperson told PolitiFact. In addition, Korreck said, people were looking up at the sky more frequently than usual and noticing them.

NASA, meanwhile, sent three WB-57 jet planes with scientific instruments to take measurements along the eclipse’s path.

Whatever the creator of the Facebook post and others saw in the sky during the solar eclipse weren’t chemtrails. They don’t exist, and the claim is Pants on Fire!

Gigi Sohn, President Joe Biden’s onetime nominee to join the Federal Communications Commission, withdrew from consideration in March 2023. 

More than a year later, a Facebook post suggests this happened only recently. 

“Biden’s FCC pick just withdrew after being humiliated by Senator J.D. Vance,” the April 3 post said. 

The post includes a clip of Vance questioning Sohn about racial rhetoric.

 It 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 and Instagram.)

The footage of Vance is from Sohn’s confirmation hearing Feb. 14, 2023. 

Her nomination struggled against opposition from Republicans and some Democrats. Biden first nominated Sohn in October 2021 and then renominated her in January 2023 after her nomination had lapsed because objections had stalled it. 

Sohn withdrew from consideration a few weeks after the February 2023 confirmation hearing that included the exchange with Vance — not recently. 

We rate claims that she “just” withdrew in April False.

 

A recirculated claim falsely says a pending international health treaty would mean the end of U.S. sovereignty during a pandemic.

“The WHO is pushing for the United States to approve their ‘Pandemic Accord’ by this May,” a woman says in an April 2 Facebook video. “This accord would take away American sovereignty and give the WHO power to put in legally binding policies in America in the case of another pandemic.” 

The woman claims the WHO would be able to institute lockdowns and implement mask mandates, and the Facebook post directs people to sign a petition to “Defund the WHO.” Population Research Institute, a nonprofit organization that opposes abortion, shared the video.

The Facebook video 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 and Instagram.)

The video mischaracterizes the accord’s powers. The WHO Pandemic Agreement is still under discussion by the WHO’s 194 member states, including the United States. The draft text does not authorize the WHO to dictate pandemic responses to the U.S. or any country.

World leaders first proposed the idea for a new treaty in response to sparse international cooperation during the COVID-19 pandemic. If adopted by member countries, the agreement would outline how member countries would inform the WHO and one another about infectious disease outbreaks and structure a global plan for vaccine sharing.

Jesse Bump, executive director of the Takemi Program in International Health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told PolitiFact in 2023, “The draft is best understood as an attempt to encourage better performance during pandemics by countries and WHO, as motivated by the commonly shared opinion that neither WHO nor most countries did well in the COVID-19 pandemic.” 

Member countries have met nine times since February 2022 about the accord and have agreed to a two-week meeting later this month to finalize the treaty in time for the 77th World Health Assembly in late May.

PolitiFact has previously checked similar claims that misinterpreted U.S. proposed amendments to the treaty and claimed the accord will give the WHO control over U.S. pandemic policy. Contrary to the claims, the accord’s latest draft highlights the importance of nations’ sovereignty. 

As it outlines the treaty’s principles, the text says parties to the agreement will be guided by “the sovereign right of States to adopt, legislate and implement legislation, within their jurisdiction.”

In another instance, the text says, “Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the WHO Secretariat, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns.”

Lawrence Gostin, director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, who helped draft the WHO accord, told PolitiFact in 2023 that the accord would not give the WHO any powers to dictate policy in the U.S., and that “this narrative is so far from the truth that it is dangerous and malicious.”

We rate the claim that the WHO pandemic accord “would take away American sovereignty and give the WHO power to put in legally binding policies in America in the case of another pandemic” False.

En Instagram y TikTok, videos virales muestran a un hombre diciéndole a la gente que hay una forma legal de invadir una casa abandonada. 

“He pensado invadir una casa en United States, ya que me entere que existe una ley que dice que si una casa no está habitada, podemos expropiarla”, dice el influencer Leonel Moreno, conocido como “Leito Oficial”, en un video en Instagram del 16 de marzo. 

Moreno es un inmigrante venezolano que llegó a Estados Unidos en 2022. Sus videos que le dicen a las personas cómo “tomar ventaja del sistema de Estados Unidos” se hicieron virales en 2023. 

Un vocero del Servicio de Control de Inmigración y Aduanas (ICE, por sus siglas en inglés), le dijo a PolitiFact que Moreno fue puesto en un programa de Alternativas a la Detención luego de que llegó a los Estados Unidos. El programa le requería reportarse a una Oficina de Detención y Deportación dentro de los 60 días de su llegada a Estados Unidos. Ya que él no se reportó a la oficina, oficiales de inmigración arrestaron a Moreno el 29 de marzo en Gahanna, Ohio. Él está detenido esperando nuevos procedimientos de inmigración, dijo un vocero de ICE, el 4 de abril. 

En el video en Instagram, Moreno dijo que expropiar casas ayudaría a las personas a evitar vivir en las calles o ser una carga pública. Él agregó que una ley dice que una persona puede expropiar una casa abandonada deteriorada, repararla, vivir en ella y eventualmente venderla. 

Otras cuentas en las redes sociales también compartieron el video. 

Las publicaciones fueron marcadas como parte del esfuerzo de Meta para combatir las noticias falsas y la desinformación en su plataforma. (Lea más sobre nuestra colaboración con Meta, propietaria de Facebook e Instagram).

Teri A. Walter, una abogada de litigación civil en Texas, le dijo a PolitiFact que Moreno usa el término expropiar erróneamente en su publicación.

“El término ‘expropiar’ no sugiere lo que a menudo se conoce como ‘derechos de los ocupantes ilegales’”, dijo ella. 

Walter explicó que la expropiación es la toma de una propiedad por parte de una agencia gubernamental, y ocurre sin importar si la casa está habitada o no. Pero esto no es hecho por una persona independiente y usualmente es hecho cuando una persona no paga sus impuestos.

 

Ninguna ley federal permite invadir casas abandonadas, los derechos de ocupantes ilegales varían por estado 

No hay autoridad del Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano de EE. UU. (HUD, por sus siglas en inglés), que le deja a una persona poseer casas no habitadas, le dijo un vocero del departamento a PolitiFact. Expertos nos dijeron que no hay una ley federal que permita a las personas poseer casas abandonadas. 

Pero Moreno parece estar refiriéndose a las leyes de posesión adversa, comúnmente conocidas como derechos de “squatters” o derechos de ocupantes ilegales. 

Todos los 50 estados tienen leyes de posesión adversa. Cada estado tiene sus propias reglas de como propietarios pueden remover a ocupantes ilegales, y como los ocupantes ilegales pueden poseer una propiedad. 

Estas leyes se aplican cuando una persona ha ocupado ilegalmente un espacio por un tiempo específico; en algunos estados toma siete años, en otros hasta 20 años. 

Un ocupante ilegal puede ser alguien que deje de pagar renta o quien entre a una propiedad y la ocupe sin documentación legal o permiso de estar ahí. Pero, ex-inquilinos no pueden aplicar por posesión adversa ya que ellos estaban en la propiedad inicialmente con el permiso del dueño. 

Algunos estados, como en Georgia, Illinois y Wisconsin, requieren mostrar “buena fe” para poder tomar posesión adversa. En otras palabras, las personas declarando la propiedad deben demostrar que ellos tenían una base para creer que son dueños de la propiedad, aun si estaban equivocados. 

Típicamente, para obtener una posesión adversa, las personas deben vivir en la casa por un periodo continuo y haber ocupado la propiedad sin permiso. También debe ser obvio para el dueño que los ocupantes están ahí. 

Los ocupantes ilegales pueden hacer un caso para reclamar una posesión adversa si ellos proveen evidencia de que han pagado los impuestos de la propiedad o las facturas de utilidades. La diferencia entre un ocupante ilegal y un intruso o “trespasser” es que el intruso irrumpe en la propiedad para vandalizar o quedarse por un corto tiempo.

Como las reglas de posesión adversa varían

PolitiFact examinó las leyes de posesión adversa en varios estados.

Encontramos que en la mayoría de los estados, los ocupantes ilegales pueden ser acusados de allanamiento, por lo general un delito menor.

Algunos estados han criminalizado la ocupación ilegal. El 27 de marzo, el gobernador de Florida Ron DeSantis firmó la ley H.B. 621, la cual le permite a propietarios pedirle a los policías remover inmediatamente a los ocupantes ilegales de su propiedad. La ley que toma efecto el 1 de julio, criminaliza causar daños de $1,000 o más a una propiedad ocupada ilegalmente, usar documentación falsa para quedarse en ella o para listar la propiedad y hacer falsas declaraciones escritas para obtener los derechos de la propiedad. 

Jose Rivas, un abogado de defensa criminal en Florida, le dijo a PolitiFact que el video en Instagram desinforma a los espectadores, ya que en Florida, los ocupantes ilegales pueden ser acusados de allanamiento. 

“En el contexto del video, el dueño actual tendría bastante oportunidad de remover a un ocupante ilegal antes de que el ocupante pueda tomar posesión”, dijo Shawn Eaton, director de operaciones de Eaton Realty, una compañía de bienes raíces en Florida. 

En Florida, si ocupantes ilegales quieren reclamar una casa que no es de ellos, ellos pueden hacerlo luego de vivir ahí por siete años (aun si están ilegalmente en el país), pero ellos deben pagar los impuestos de la propiedad y solo una persona puede declarar la propiedad, según World Population Review, una organización independiente que publica y analiza datos demográficos. 

En la ciudad de Nueva York, a donde muchos inmigrantes han llegado recientemente, las personas pueden reclamar posesión adversa sin importar su estatus migratorio. Si alguien se queda en una propiedad sin permiso por más de 30 días, el dueño debe proveerles una notificación escrita de evicción de 10 días. Si una persona ha ocupado la propiedad sin permiso por menos de 30 días, no se requiere una notificación. 

Alguien que entró a los Estados Unidos ilegalmente, o cualquier otro, puede reclamar posesión adversa en Nueva York, pero la persona tendría que “mostrar evidencia convincente y clara, lo cual es un estándar muy alto, y tienes que exclusivamente ocupar la propiedad por 10 o más años continuamente”, dijo Joshua Price, un abogado de bienes raíces en Nueva York.

“No puedes, no te puedes mudar a la casa de alguien y decir ‘yo estoy aquí ahora, posesión adversa, Yo soy dueño de esta casa’”, dijo Price. “No funciona así”.

En Texas, puede tomar al menos tres años para que un ocupante ilegal obtenga el título de una propiedad bajo posesión adversa, dependiendo de cuánto tiempo ha estado ocupada la propiedad. Las personas en el país ilegalmente también pueden usar esta ley para tratar de tomar posesión de una propiedad, dijo Walter. 

“La ciudadanía no es un elemento de posesión adversa bajo ningún estatuto, así que no importa”, dijo ella. 

Un error que la gente suele cometer cuando presenta una reclamación por posesión adversa es decir que comparte la propiedad con otra persona, dijo Walter. En Texas, las personas no pueden reclamar posesión si permiten que otros intrusos o reclamantes entren a la propiedad, dijo ella.

En California, un ocupante ilegal puede reclamar una propiedad después de vivir en ella por cinco años, haciéndole mejores a la casa y pagando impuestos. Los dueños tienen que saber que los ocupantes están ahí sin su consentimiento. En otros estados, como Illinois, las personas deben continuamente ocupar la propiedad por 20 años antes de reclamar la propiedad legalmente. 

El video en Instagram omite contexto y detalles importantes. Este video hace que parezca como si hacerse cargo legalmente de una casa abandonada fuera tan sencillo y fácil como entrar en ella.

Nuestro veredicto

Una publicación en Instagram afirma que una ley en Estados Unidos dice que “si una casa no está habitada, podemos expropiarla”.

La gente puede intentar mudarse a casas abandonadas, pero los propietarios tendrán la oportunidad de desalojarlas antes de que ellas puedan solicitar la propiedad, dijeron expertos. Las personas que se encuentren en estas casas también podrían ser acusadas de allanamiento, dependiendo del estado.

Las leyes de posesión adversa de algunos estados pavimentan el camino para que las personas eventualmente sean propietarias de una casa que no compraron ni heredaron legalmente. Pero la publicación de Instagram omite un contexto legal importante.

Calificamos esta afirmación como Mayormente Falsa.

Read a version of this article in English.

Lee más reportes de PolitiFact en Español.

---

Debido a limitaciones técnicas, partes de nuestra página web aparecen en inglés. Estamos trabajando en mejorar la presentación.

 

En Facebook circulan fotos que supuestamente muestran a la venta osos de peluche con motivos satánicos en la tienda Build-A-Bear. 

En la publicación aparecen imágenes de supuestos osos de peluche de color negro y con motivos satánicos. También muestra a empleados con ropa con motivos satánicos supuestamente montando la colección en lo que aparenta ser una tienda de Build-A-Bear. 

“OSO DIABÓLICO?” dice la publicación en Facebook del 4 de abril. “#Viral: ¡CONSTRUYE UN OSO! ¡Estas tiendas se están llevando con los tiempos! Quieres construir un bebé oso baphomet? Se llamará Baphy”.

La publicación fue marcada como parte del esfuerzo de Meta para combatir las noticias falsas y la desinformación en su plataforma. (Lea más sobre nuestra colaboración con Meta, propietaria de Facebook e Instagram).

@politifactenespanol ¡Sigue el canal de WhatsApp de PolitiFact en Español para estar al día de lo que es cierto, falso, engañoso o fuera de contexto! #whatsapp #canales #verificacion #factcheck ♬ Querulous Shred – DJ BAI

PolitiFact contactó a Build-A-Bear pero no recibió respuesta. Al buscar la palabra “devil” (diablo) en la página web de la tienda en internet, lo único que aparece es un oso sonriente de color rojo con cuernos, que no es como el de las publicaciones en Facebook. Este se llama “Oso de peluche diabólicamente lindo” y se trata de una edición especial para San Valentín. 

Las imágenes de los peluches satánicos en Facebook no son de un oso que realmente está de venta en Build-A-Bear. Esas imágenes fueron creadas por inteligencia artificial por The Pumpkin Empress, una página en  Facebook e Instagram. Esta cuenta se auto define como “spooky babe” (chica espeluznante), y crea contenido digital, atuendos y accesorios para vender. 

Las imágenes que estamos verificando aparecen en publicaciones en Facebook del 27 de marzo de The Pumpkin Empress.

 

(Captura de pantalla de la publicación en Facebook).

Otras creaciones de The Pumpkin Empress también han sido compartidas en otras publicaciones, falsamente diciendo que mostraban a satanistas adoctrinando a niños en bibliotecas de Estados Unidos. También desmentimos otras publicaciones que decían que Target vende ropa con motivos satánicos.

Calificamos la afirmación de que Build-A-Bear vende un oso de peluche diabólico como Falsa.

Lee más reportes de PolitiFact en Español aquí.

---

Debido a limitaciones técnicas, partes de nuestra página web aparecen en inglés. Estamos trabajando en mejorar la presentación

For some Americans, the prospect of the April 8 total solar eclipse was invigorating. Millions of people along the eclipse’s path from Texas to Maine gathered in backyards, rooftops and balconies to witness a rare solar event. 

But if social media is a guide, other people perceived the eclipse as something more ominous: Midday, April 8 the moon would block the sun, successfully distracting everyone from some unknown — but certainly terrible — incident that would follow. 

An April 2 Instagram post said the total solar eclipse “provides a unique opportunity to do a black swan event,” a term often used in conspiratorial posts to refer to a significant event with cascading consequences. People “wouldn’t see it coming,” the post said. “All of the signs are there, the biggest being, calling in the National Guard.”

“The National Guard in the HISTORY of its life, gets called in AFTER a disaster, not BEFORE something happens,” it claimed. “How blind can you be?” 

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 and Instagram.) 

(Screenshot from Instagram.)

National Guard support is not exclusive to a disaster’s aftermath. Sometimes, troops help prepare or stand ready to provide a response. 

In a few states along the eclipse’s path of totality, the National Guard’s support has been requested by or offered to local authorities working to manage extraordinary numbers of tourists. 

National Guard troops in Arkansas distributed about 23,000 eclipse glasses. In Oklahoma, Illinois and New York, National Guard troops were prepared to support state and local authorities with large crowds of eclipse-watchers. 

The Oklahoma National Guard said its troops would support local officials with increased visitors from “eclipse tourism.” 

Lt. Col. LeeAnn Tumblson, an Oklahoma National Guard spokesperson, told PolitiFact that “it is not unusual” for its Civil Support Team to provide support at events such as the eclipse. In 2023, Tumblson said the unit had supported local authorities for events such as the Oklahoma City Memorial Marathon and football games at the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University.

In August, Nevada National Guard troops were sent to southern Nevada before Hurricane Hilary made landfall. In September, 50 New York National Guard troops were deployed to make hurricane preparations on Long Island as Hurricane Lee approached. Ahead of bad winter weather in January, Arkansas National Guard troops were activated to help local authorities with drivers stranded around the state by severe winter weather. 

Similar preparations are sometimes made for large gatherings. 

In November, the National Guard provided support to Washington, D.C., police during the March for Israel, on the National Mall. In June 2020, Oklahoma National Guard troops supported local law enforcement during President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The National Guard was also called to support local authorities in Oregon before the 2017 total solar eclipse.

It’s inaccurate to say that the National Guard is exclusively called in for support after disasters strike. 

We rate this claim False.

RELATED: Oklahoma National Guard’s deployment for April eclipse doesn’t signal something ‘bigger’

After months if not years of mixed messages, former President Donald Trump shared an abortion position that leaves policy to the states and includes some exceptions, rather than backing a national abortion limit.

In an April 8 video released on Truth Social, Trump tried to strike a pragmatic tone for a party that has suffered electoral setbacks over abortion, saying he was proud to have nominated three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court who decided to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. 

Then he turned the issue back on Democrats, claiming that they were the “radical” party on abortion.

“They support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month,” Trump said. “The concept of having an abortion in the later months, and even execution after birth. And that’s exactly what it is. The baby is born, the baby is executed after birth is unacceptable, and almost everyone agrees with that.”

We have rated similar statements from Trump and other Republican leaders False. Democrats aren’t calling for the killing of infants after birth. Willfully ending a newborn’s life is illegal in every U.S. state.

Reproductive health experts told us Trump’s claim misleads by equating medical interventions for fetal abnormalities in the third trimester with someone deciding after birth that they no longer want a baby.

“Using the word ‘execute’ heightens the rhetoric here, but even if he said ‘killing’ it doesn’t matter,” said Lois Shepard, a University of Virginia law and biomedical ethics professor who has authored several books about end of life care. “Abortion providers do not do this, doctors do not do this, no politicians that I know of support this — it’s a made up issue.”

Trump’s use of “execution” “goes back to a much earlier era, right after Roe, when abortion methods were more primitive,” said Mary Ziegler, an abortion historian and law professor at University of California, Davis. “Occasionally there were live births and doctors would be prosecuted.”

Trump’s wording describes a position Democrats do not hold. 

“The language of ‘execution’ is ignorant, deceptive, inappropriate and is being used only to provoke outrage when in fact it is mercy and compassion that drives post-abortion care of horribly malformed children,” said Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University Langone Medical Center. 

PolitiFact reached out to the Trump campaign but did not hear back. 

Federal laws require care for newborns

Democrats prefer wider access to abortion throughout pregnancy. President Joe Biden, for example, pledged to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law before it was overturned; it protected the right to an abortion until the fetus was viable outside of the womb, at about 24 weeks of gestation.

Lawmakers who have made similar claims have pointed to legislation requiring infants to receive medical care after attempted abortions. 

Democrats have largely not supported these bills, saying they would be redundant under current law.

The number of cases these laws might cover is small, and typically involve lethal fetal conditions or anomalies that allow for little or no prospect for long-term survival. 

Legal experts pointed to specific federal laws that apply to newborns:

• The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, passed in 1974 and since revised, makes certain types of federal funding for states conditional on their adopting policies to prevent improper withholding of treatment from newborns, including those with disabilities.

• The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 established that federal legal protections that applied to “persons” also covered children born at any stage of development, including after an attempted abortion.
   

State laws are the primary source of protection against active or negligent killing of infants born after attempted abortions, legal experts said.

“People have been looking for evidence for decades of being born alive after abortions and there aren’t any to my knowledge, and that’s not particularly surprising,” Ziegler said. “The procedures most doctors would use later in pregnancy today would make it impossible to result in a live birth.”  

A 2022 California law aims to protect parents from prosecution when they lose a baby after delivery because of a pregnancy-related complication, including miscarriages and stillbirths. 

How and why some abortions happen later in pregnancy

Abortions later in pregnancy, typically in the third trimester, are rare and often happen because of severe fetal anomalies or health risks to the mother. They do not involve doctors wantonly killing babies after birth.

Some families choose palliative care when they learn during pregnancy that the fetus has a genetic or structural condition that would likely result in the baby surviving only minutes or days after delivery. These problems can sometimes surface by the end of the first trimester, but may not be discovered until halfway through the pregnancy, or later.

Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB-GYN who provides reproductive health care, including abortions, said patients have sought abortions in the third trimester after receiving a grim fetal diagnosis. She gave an example of a baby who didn’t develop a brain and wouldn’t survive after birth and patients who have been diagnosed with life-threatening medical conditions that require delivery. 

“In these situations, I counsel my patients about the options, and in many situations, based on my patient’s wishes, proceed with an induction of labor or (cesarean)-section that aims to protect both the patient and the baby,” Verma told us in July. 

Palliative care can accompany life-prolonging treatment, but some patients choose not to pursue these treatments because they are often invasive, complex or have uncertain outcomes, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says on its website.

“Ultimately, the parent or parents, in consultation with their physician, decide which course of perinatal palliative care to pursue,” the organization said. “At no point in the course of delivering a newborn with life-limiting conditions and subsequently providing palliative care does the obstetrician–gynecologist end the life of the newborn receiving palliative care.”

The vast majority of abortions in the U.S., over 90%, occur in the first trimester, or before 13 weeks. About 1% take place after 21 weeks, and far less than 1% occur in the third trimester.

Our ruling

Trump claimed that Democrats support abortion measures that result in the “execution” of babies “after birth.”

This is grossly inaccurate. Rather than discuss Democratic support for broad abortion access throughout pregnancy, Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric exaggerates by saying the party supports killing an unwanted infant after birth. This would be infanticide and is illegal in every state. 

Situations resulting in a fetal death in the third trimester are rare, and involve emergencies such as fetal anomalies or life-threatening medical emergencies affecting the mother. Babies that are delivered are not killed.

We rate this claim False.

RELATED:  Ron DeSantis’ False claim that some states allow ‘post-birth’ abortions. None do

RELATED: Fact-checking Donald Trump’s tweet saying Democrats ‘don’t mind executing’ babies after birth