Is This Viral List of U.S. Government Emergency Aid Sent to Puerto Rico Accurate?
In the wake of public criticism of the Trump administration's response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico in late 2017 as "inadequate" (among other things), a post widely shared via social media endeavored to make the opposite case, namely that President Trump deployed a massive amount of government assets to address the disaster:   President Trump has dispatched 140 helicopters, 28 ships, 6 Army field hospitals, 3 Navy Seabee Battalions, 5 US Army Combat Engineer Battalions, 3 Civil Affairs battalions, 2 Nuclear Submarines capable of generating 2.8 Gigawatts of Power, released 300,000 tons of food, medical supplies and water from Military stocks. We were unable to trace the figures to any official source, nor do we know who compiled them. We can say, however, based on actual facts and figures shared by FEMA and the Department of Defense (DoD), that the stated numbers range from inflated to downright fictional.  140 Helicopters Mixture. Based on United States Department of Defense statements, dozens of helicopters have been deployed to Puerto Rico, though the actual number is far less than 140. On 27 September (the same day the meme began circulating), DoD announced an "acceleration" of Puerto Rico relief efforts including the deployment of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp, whose complement of rotary-wing aircraft would bring the total number of helicopters in use there to 52.  announced 28 Ships Mixture. By our count, using figures released by the DoD and U.S. Coast Guard, the total number of U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships deployed to Puerto Rico is 18 (though an unknown number of non-military ships are also in use). Counting the USNS Comfort, a 1,000 bed hospital ship scheduled to dock in the disaster zone on 4 October, the arrival of the USS Wasp will bring the total number of U.S. Navy ships deployed to five (including the USS Kearsage and USS Oak Hill, both conducting search and rescue flights, aerial damage assessments, logistics support and route clearance on and around the island, and the SS Wright, tasked with delivering 1.1 million meals and one million liters of water). According to the U.S. Coast Guard, 13 of its cutters have been performing search and rescue missions and delivering supplies. An unspecified number of commercial ships are also participating in the aid effort. arrival 6 Army Field Hospitals false. We've found no evidence, either in press reports or statements from DoD or FEMA, that Army field hospitals are in use in Puerto Rico, though that doesn't mean no medical help is being supplied. Emergency medical services are being provided not by Army field hospitals, but by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) personnel assigned to support the efforts of doctors at fully or partially functional hospitals around Puerto Rico, as well as five "federal medical stations" set up near those facilities.  assigned 3 Navy Seabee Battalions, 5 US Army Combat Engineer Battalions, 3 Civil Affairs battalions true. According to press reports there are Seabees and members of the Army Corps of Engineers now on the ground in Puerto Rico, but we've seen no announcements supporting the numbers specified above. Although DoD officials have not released a breakdown of the various military forces thus far deployed to Puerto Rico, Gov. Ricardo Rossello said there were roughly 7,200 U.S. military personnel on the ground as of 2 October, according to a DoD press release, in addition to an estimated 3,000 non-military federal employees, for a total of more than 10,000 government workers involved in relief efforts. release 2 Nuclear Submarines False. It is not the case that two nuclear submarines were sent to provide emergency electricity to Puerto Ricans. A reported 95 percent of the island's 3.4 million inhabitants were still without power as of 2 October, according to local officials. FEMA reported distributing and setting up more than 300 emergency generators since the disaster, but most of that effort was devoted to restoring power to hospitals and other critical facilities. Using nuclear submarines to supply emergency power in disaster areas has been proposed, but never tried. In 1982, the USS Indianapolis was deployed to Kauai, Hawaii in the aftermath of Hurricane Iwa, a solution both Navy and civilian officials said would have been technically feasible, though the plan was ultimately abandoned in favor of using a portable generator to "jump start" the island's main power plant. No such "nuclear option" has been proposed in the case of Puerto Rico. deployed 300,000 Tons of Food, Medical supplies and Water true. We have not found the above (or any) overall total tonnage stated in any official sources, but vast amounts of food and supplies have either arrived or are on their way to Puerto Rico. According to FEMA, more than two million meals and 2.5 million litres of water have reached the island and been distributed, plus medical equipment, generators, gasoline, and other supplies, with more coming. FEMA For more information, see FEMA's daily-updated overview of federal government efforts on behalf of the citizens of Puerto Rico. overview Davis, Aaron, Lamothe, Dan and O'Keefe, Ed.  "U.S. Response in Puerto Rico Pales Next to Actions After Haiti Quake."
The Washington Post. 28 September 2017. Dickstein, Corey. "Pentagon Adding USS Wasp to Puerto Rico Response, USNS Comfort Departs for Island."
Stars and Stripes. 29 September 2017. Garamone, Jim. "Unified Coordination Group Addressing Puerto Rico Recovery, Governor Says."
U.S. Dept. of Defense. 2 October 2017. Hernandez, Arelis R., Lamothe, Dan, O'Keefe, Ed and Achenbach, Joel. "Trump Administration Rushes Military Assets to Puerto Rico Amid Growing Crisis."
The Washington Post. 27 September 2017. Starr, Barbara, Cohen, Zachary and Browne, Ryan. "U.S. Military Sends Ships, Aircraft to Puerto Rico."
CNN. 26 September 2017. Werner, Ben. "Pentagon: Hospital Ship USNS Comfort Prepares to Depart for Puerto Rico."
USNI News. 26 September 2017. FEMA. "Overview of Federal Efforts to Prepare for and Respond to Hurricane Maria."
2 October 2017. Reuters. "Factbox: Relief Efforts in Puerto Rico After Hurricane Maria."
29 September 2017. UPI. "Navy Seeks to Return Power to Stricken Hawaii Island."
29 November 1982. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. "HHS Augments Medical Care at Hospitals in Puerto Rico Impacted by Hurricane Maria."
30 September 2017.
In mid-November 2021, scammers set their sights on social media users who shared a popular post from 2020. The Facebook scam improperly used the names and faces of Diesel Power Gear and "Diesel Brothers," a Discovery Channel television show. Their likeness was used without permission in posts that promised thousands of dollars to entrants who followed steps and simply showed that they downloaded the Stash finance app. Facebook Discovery Channel television show Stash finance app On June 26, 2020, Kevin Passons, a pastor at Cornerstone Pentecostal Church in Grand Saline, Texas, and his wife, Kim, shared a meme on Facebook. It was posted in the aftermath of demonstrations that followed the murder of George Floyd. The meme read: "We need to establish a new law. Anybody caught rioting and looting, who is also on welfare, will forfeit their benefits for life. Instead, we'll redirect that money to the businesses that suffered a loss." shared a meme on Facebook the murder of George Floyd  The post from 2020 received a wave of new shares in November 2021.  The meme was shared thousands of times in the summer of 2020, and continued to receive shares throughout 2021. According to The New York Times, the picture was captured around Aug. 16, 2014. It showed Mustafa Alshalabi cleaning up damage at Sams Meat Market after his store was looted during unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. The violent demonstrations came in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, a Black man who was gunned down by a white police officer. The New York Times unrest in Ferguson, Missouri the fatal shooting of Michael Brown Around Nov. 19, 2021, the months-old Facebook post saw a sizable spike in shares in the aftermath of the verdict that acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was on trial after being accused of shooting and killing two people and wounding another in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on August 25, 2020. acquitted shooting and killing After the Rittenhouse acquittal, the June 2020 Facebook post from the Passons was shared at least an additional 100,000 times over the course of just four days. As of Nov. 23, it showed a total of 326,000 shares. Within the new shares were a seemingly countless number of comments visible from scammers named N'k Santri Nalangsa, Akang Erik Terterter, Arra Razqisyaai HarimNna Mull, Ella Sisca, and likely many others. (The Passons had nothing to do with the scam.) N'k Santri Nalangsa Akang Erik Terterter Arra Razqisyaai HarimNna Mull Ella Sisca The comments often read either "check my profile you win" or "you win check my profile." Other messages said: "Visit my profile, do it with faith You have become the winner, which I specifically chose." We also noticed: "I chose you specifically, please visit my profile and fill out the registration form."  Comments like these were added to posts as soon as Facebook users shared the meme.  On the Facebook profiles, the scammers claimed, falsely, to be affiliated with Diesel Brothers and Diesel Power Gear. They said that all users needed to do was follow several steps and install the Stash finance app in order to be entered to win $10,000. The steps also involved visiting a sites.google.com website for the registration, as these kinds of scams often do. DAVE SPARKS OFFICIAL GIVEAWAYFOR ALL COUNTRIESFOR LUCKY EVERYONE TODAY I will pick random people to get a $ 10,000 prize for the 20 chosen winners !!! Congratulations to the people I commented "YOU WIN", and all you have to do now is follow the prompts, and complete the registration to completion according to the procedure;STEP 1 `` LIKE and SHARE this post and send a private message (HELLO) ''STEP 2 REGISTER immediatelyhere (The registration link is in the comments)STEP 3 please install the STASH application after it is installed, please open it and complete your personal data correctly.Send proof of registration in the form (screenshot) in the comments column or message when it's finished & say it is done.Wait a few minutes to receive a gift from me because it has to be processed. And prizes will be sent after you have successfully registered the data correctly.and will each receive a cash prize of $ 10,000'' This program is sponsored by several films '' I hope this is useful, because not everyone is as lucky as you,God bless you To be clear, there was no evidence that Stash Finance, the company behind the app, had anything to do with the scam. Further, it's true that the real Diesel Brothers and Diesel Power Gear Facebook pages have posted about legitimate giveaways in the past. However, this scam from accounts that asked users to visit their profiles should be avoided. Scams like these could lead to phishing, theft of financial or personal information, or other negative outcomes. A glance at the scammers' profiles showed that they likely originated from Indonesia. Diesel Brothers Diesel Power Gear While some longtime readers might believe that it should be obvious that these offers are not legitimate, it's important to keep in mind that not all Facebook users are alike. The Akang Erik Terterter scammer profile alone had been followed nearly 2,000 times. It's likely that at least a handful of those followers went through the steps in an attempt to sign up for the Diesel Brothers Facebook scam or another one in the past. Akang Erik Terterter followed nearly 2,000 times  This one profile alone had nearly 2,000 followers, perhaps showing how many Facebook users fell for this scam or other ones in the past.  Aside from the four accounts we found, there were likely other profiles used for the scam. Facebook limits the number of comments that a user can make in a short period of time. It was evident that the scammers had a stack of accounts that they used in a rotation to keep the ruse going. In sum, neither Diesel Brothers nor Diesel Power Gear were giving away thousands of dollars on Facebook to entrants who followed steps and downloaded the Stash finance app. It was simply a scam that appeared to be run from Indonesia. Warnings about dog-snatchers tagging homes with colored stickers to facilitate the stealing of canines for use in dogfighting events were originally circulated in the suburbs of Perth, Australia, in February 2013 before being relocated to a UK setting the following month: Any dog owners beware, leaflet droppers or anyone walking around housing estates.Keep your eye out for small coloured STICKERS on gates or doors, gangs are marking how many dogs live there to steal and they are using them for DOG BAIT FOR FIGHTING.Ring the police immediately if you see any and inform the home owners.Remove the stickers immediately!Red stickers are for big dogsYellow for medium andPink for small breedsPlease re-share and keep your dog safe!This is already happening in the Goole Yorkshire area, UK and could be spreading across the country. This is disgusting The same rumor has also been spread involving plastic bags in trees: I've seen on Facebook that people's homes are being marked by plastic bags tied in trees indicating they have a dog. This is a sign for criminals to abduct the dog for it be used as bait in dog fighting rings. This just doesn't seem feasible.  Officials in the former area quickly got out the word that this warning was a hoax: The internet has been flooded with chilling tales of an organised underground dog fighting ring operating out of Perth's suburbs. Family pets have been systematically stolen from their yards to be trained as fighting dogs, according to reports appearing on social media and online classified websites. While many in Perth claim to know somebody who knows somebody whose pet has fallen prey to a kidnapping, authorities and social media experts have dismissed the warnings as a viral hoax. Animal welfare authorities in Perth, who have been inundated with phone calls since the messages started to appear, said the warnings were "completely unfounded." "It's a viral hoax," RSPCA spokesman Tim Mayne told Fairfax Media. "Police and the RSPCA have no solid evidence on this at all. "We've been monitoring this situation and still, to the best of our knowledge, it's a viral hoax." Curtin University internet studies lecturer and social media expert Tama Leaver said the lack of specific details in the messages was a dead giveaway for a viral hoax. "If people were really trying to stop something there would be specific details about it and who they could contact," he said. He said the messages were so vague they had managed to cover "the entire spectrum of Perth". "If something like that is appearing for two weeks and there's no official information released whatsoever  there's no police follow up  and there's no evidence of an actual fight, you'd have to question it," he said. Similarly, in March 2013 UK officials in Yorkshire issued a denial that area dognappers were placing stickers or other markings on vehicle tires to identify the homes of dog owners (a variant of a similar rumor that such a method was being used to target gun owners): denial rumor Police in Whitby and other areas of the county want to reassure residents that there are no gangs of dog thieves operating in the area and placing stickers on vehicles. A local officer who was called by concerned residents, has enlisted the advice of a local tyre fitter to prove that marks left on vehicle tyres are not the work of dog-nappers. Rumours have been circulating on social media sites that dog thieves have been placing stickers on vehicle tyres to mark the homes of dog owners, ready for them to go back and steal the dogs. This is not the case. The red and yellow dots seen on tyres are placed there by tyre manufacturers. The red dot denotes the heaviest part of the tyre and a yellow dot denotes the lightest. They are not the work of dog thieves. The rumor traveled to the U.S. in early 2015, when it emerged in the form of a warning involving plastic bags tied to trees as a harbinger of dognappers. According to the rumor (which spread widely on Facebook), criminals marked dog-owning homes by tying grocery bags to trees so pets could later be kidnapped for dogfighting rings. There was no explanation of how those who became wise to the purported ruse managed to differentiate bags purposefully tied to trees for signaling from discarded grocery bags that coincidentally came to rest among the branches after being blown about by wind. And as with prior variations, no instances in which pets were abducted were linked to plastic bags mysteriously found in trees prior to the canines' disappearances. As noted in our article about a similar putative home-marking scheme, there's no practical reason for persons seeking to perpetrate crimes against property to surreptitiously mark the homes of their intended victims rather than simply recording the addresses of those homes. A related warning was originally circulated in March 2012 (and again in March 2013) about a man named Michael Anthony Burdis who was reportedly attempting to obtain dogs from animal shelters to "use as bait in dog fighting": article This is Michael Anthony Burdis  watch out for him in all rescue centres as he's trying to get his hands on a dog to use as bait in dog fighting! Please share this far and wide  we have to stop this evil man! This warning was apparently based on information originating with the UK-based Scruples Whippet Rescue, who posted on their Facebook page back in March 2012 that: Facebook There is currently a statement being posted all over facebook about a Michael Burdis. It is claimed that the statement was written by Scruples Whippet Rescue and is badly written and reads like Michael is a volunteer for us. The statement was NOT written by any member of the Scruples team. Michael Burdis is NOT in any way a Volunteer for Scruples or in any way associated with our Rescue. He wrote on our Facebook page last week enquiring about young dogs and was REFUSED a dog and was BLOCKED from our page due to his dog fighting links. This man is currently under investigation by the RSPCA . All our Volunteers are very strictly vetted and home checked and Scruples Whippet Rescue will not have, and never have had anything to do with anyone involved in the barbaric illegal activity that is dog fighting. We are very concerned that this badly worded statement that has been written by someone unknown to Scruples is making people believe that we are involved with Michael and his activities and we are asking all Facebook groups to delete the incorrect post and post and share this statement instead. However, we found no evidence that someone named Michael Burdis is (or was) being investigated by the RSPCA in connection with dogfighting activities, and the Scruples Whippet Rescue notice states only that someone using that name inquired of them about some dogs via Facebook. The photograph circulated with this warning (not reproduced here) appears to be a picture of someone by the same name from the U.S. who has no connection to any of the claims. A similar unconfirmed warning was circulated in April 2013 naming Dell Schanze as the person going to animal shelters to obtain dogs for use as bait in dog fights. And in May 2017, the "bags in trees" version of the rumor re-emerged on Facebook, purportedly confirmed by a police department in Pennsylvania: re-emerged Facebook SHARING!!!!I usually don't post much on Facebook however, I just wanted to spread the word/ make people aware of this. So I came home yesterday and noticed a bag hanging from a tree that had not been there when I left my house for about an hour, if that. The bag immediately caught my attention for some reason and it's placement looked like it had been put there on purpose rather than trash that blew into the tree. It was positioned right at the corner of my fence. For some reason, I thought I remembered hearing someone tell me that there had been other cases of this and that it was related to marking houses for people who apparently steal dogs. When I walked out and looked at the tree and the bag, I noticed that the bag was tied in 3 different places to the tree meaning someone clearly put it there for a reason, so that alone was strange to me. Even though I thought they would tell me I was psycho for calling, I called 911 and explained the situation to them and asked if I should contact SPCA or something with this problem. I was surprised to hear that this was a concerning problem and that I was correct for calling/ report it to the police. I was even more alarmed when the 911 dispatcher asked me if I had any dogs and if so if they were inside to which I replied that my dog was inside. He then asked me if I was aware of the several recent cases of dogs being stolen/ going missing while in their own backyards. I was instructed to lock my doors, keep myself and my dog inside, not to touch the bag or any evidence at the scene and that they were sending out a police officer right away. I was told that this "tagging" or "marking" is thought to be used for people who are scoping out neighborhoods/ homes in which people have dogs that go outside or are left outside alone even for brief periods of time. They mark the house with a plastic bag tied to a tree at the home to leave a mark for people who will then come later and apparently lure dogs out of their yard and steal them. Although not absolutely certain why they are stealing them, they are apparently being used for dog fighting. Smaller breeds, larger breeds, or medium breeds. As I knew many of my friends here on Facebook have dogs or many of us have dogs of course, I wanted to spread the word. I was told by the police officer as well as the 911 dispatcher that even if letting the dog out for 5 minutes to go with them.   please read this especially if you have a dog or dogs!!!! pic.twitter.com/Gh0sYVtD2l pic.twitter.com/Gh0sYVtD2l  Bella (@b3llaconigliaro) May 19, 2017 May 19, 2017  Yet again, the warning to dog owners was shared tens of thousands of times. We contacted the Dallastown Police Department in Dallastown, Pennsylvania in an attempt to confirm that police validated the user's concerns about bags in trees and dog theft. An employee with whom we spoke denied they received any reports of dog kidnapping overall, including the sort connected to bags in trees. In the summer of 2020, Snopes readers asked us to look into the accuracy of social media posts that claimed to list the names of 41 U.S. Senators who had "voted to let babies scream until they die if born alive." social media posts   The meme referred to Senate Bill 311 (SB 311), which was introduced in the Senate in January 2019 by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service summary of the legislation reads as follows:  summary This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must exercise in the event a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion. A health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to another child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) immediately admit the child to a hospital. The bill also requires a health care practitioner or other employee to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement. A person who violates the requirements is subject to criminal penalties  a fine, up to five years in prison, or both. Additionally, an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder. The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive for conspiracy to violate these provisions, for being an accessory after the fact, or for concealment of felony. A woman who undergoes an abortion or attempted abortion may file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill. The text of SB 311 can be read in full here. It's true that Democratic and Independent senators did vote to block that bill's progress, but the above-displayed Facebook meme leaves out crucial context  federal and state laws already provide protections for babies born alive after abortions  and obscure the stated reasons for those votes, an essential component of any evaluation of a legislative vote. Overall, we rate the meme's core claim as "false."  here The proposed "Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act" has been stuck in the Senate since February 2019, despite efforts by Republicans to revive it in February 2020. The bill has not been forwarded to any Senate committee, and Republicans have failed on two occasions to obtain the votes necessary to advance the legislation through the Senate.  Those two votes, in February 2019 and February 2020, were on motions of cloture. A motion of cloture is, roughly speaking, a proposal signed by at least 16 senators to close debate on a particular bill. At first glance, that might suggest that those in favor of the cloture motion are opposed to the content of the legislation itself, but in fact, "invoking cloture" is a way to advance a bill's progress in the Senate by pushing through the debate stage and arriving at a full-Senate vote on the legislation itself. Cloture is a key mechanism for breaking a filibuster in the Senate.  February 2019 February 2020 motion of cloture filibuster On most matters, a cloture motion must be agreed to by 60% of senators, which usually means 60 votes (except in cases where a Senate seat is temporarily vacant). In the 2019 vote, only 53 members voted "Yea," and in 2020 that number was 56  below the 60-vote threshold on each occasion. It's worth noting that the Senate has not yet voted on whether to pass SB 311 itself, so a vote in favor of a motion for cloture should not be conflated with a vote in favor of the substance of the legislation. However, it is reasonable to assume, in general, that senators who voted to push SB 311 through to the next stage towards enactment were also in favor of enacting the bill itself, and those who voted against the cloture motions were doing so in order to halt the legislation's progress because they opposed its contents. This assumption is borne out in the partisan contours of the 2019 and 2020 cloture votes: On both occasions, no Republican voted against the motion, and only Democrats voted against it (including Independent Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who both caucus with the Democrats). On both occasions, three Democrats crossed the floor and voted in favor of the cloture motions: Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Doug Jones of Alabama.  2019 2020 The exact claim in the Facebook meme is somewhat confusing. The caption refers to 41 senators, but the list contains 44 names. In February 2019, all 44 of the senators listed in the meme voted against the Republican cloture motion. However, in February 2020, 41 of them voted against the cloture motion, with the remaining three not voting (Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Sanders). So it's not clear to which vote the meme refers. However, on each occasion the wording of the cloture motion and the question put to senators was identical, so the distinction is only a formal one. was identical In evaluating whether the Democratic senators listed in the meme did, in fact, "vote to let babies scream until they die if born alive," it is necessary to assess the reasons for their votes against cloture motions and the effect of the failure of the cloture motions.  It hardly needs to be said, but neither the bill itself, nor any statements made by the Democratic senators who opposed it, contained any mention of "babies screaming until they die." So in voting against the progress of SB 311, no senator was explicitly voting in order to bring about that outcome, in those terms. Rather, that phrase was a characterization of the effect of the votes, which originated from the creator of the Facebook meme.  By voting against the cloture motions, the senators halted the progress of a bill that, if enacted, would mean that federal law required health care practitioners to provide the same life-saving treatments and interventions for a baby born alive after a failed abortion (including admitting the baby to a hospital) as they are currently required to provide to babies born alive under other circumstances. The bill would also mean that health care practitioners would be required, under federal law, to report to law enforcement if they became aware that someone else had violated those requirements. Any health practitioner convicted of failing to fulfill those requirements, or failing to report someone else's violation, would be liable to be fined and/or imprisoned for up to five years. SB 311 would also mean that a person found to have intentionally killed a baby born alive after a failed abortion would be liable to conviction and punishment under the federal prohibition against murder.  prohibition Does this mean that by preventing the passage of SB 311 Democratic senators were allowing health care practitioners to lawfully let babies die, without rendering aid, if they are born alive after a failed abortion? Not really.  Federal law already explicitly states that babies born alive, regardless of the circumstances, are human persons and should be treated as such in the context of criminal law. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush in 2002. It states that: states (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words person, human being, child, and individual, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. As used in this section, the term born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. This means that intentionally killing a baby born alive can be, and is, prosecuted as murder, since the baby is defined under the 2002 act as a human person. In principle, it also means that doctors and nurses have the same professional, legal, and ethical responsibility to babies born alive after failed abortions as they do to babies born alive in other circumstances.  The 2002 law does not include an explicit, affirmative duty of care for health care practitioners and does not stipulate any penalties for failing to provide appropriate care. However, many individual states do. Based on research originally published by the anti-abortion Family Research Council, Snopes checked legislation in all 50 states and found that, as of Aug. 20, 2020, 34 states have laws that explicitly either: affirm the equal right to medical care of a baby born alive after an abortion; or assert an affirmative legal obligation for medical practitioners to provide care; or set out criminal penalties for failing to provide care; or all of the above provisions. A full list of each state's "born alive" abortion laws, including links to the original legislation, can be found here.  published here (Note: At the time of the first cloture vote in February 2019, the number of states with "born alive" abortion laws was 33. West Virginia's Senate passed the state's own Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on Feb. 10, 2020, and Gov. Jim Justice signed it into law on March 2, 2020. By the time the U.S. Senate had its second cloture motion on Feb. 25, 2020, Justice had already vowed to sign the West Virginia law, meaning the number of states with "born alive" abortion laws was imminently about to become 34.) passed signed vowed The effect of the decision to block the progress of SB 311 through the U.S. Senate was to preserve the legal status quo around the country, namely that: two-thirds of states already had laws offering various levels of protection for babies born alive after failed abortions, and various levels of criminal penalties set out for health care practitioners who fail to provide care for them; and that federal law already recognized that babies born alive after failed abortions should be treated as human persons in the context of criminal law. This significantly undermines the Facebook meme's claim that the 44 senators had voted to allow babies to be left to die if they are born alive after a failed abortion, because that it isn't the case in most states. However, passing SB 311 would mean that there would be no ambiguity about the criminal implications and consequences of the 2002 law. Under SB 311, federal law would unequivocally set out a legal duty of care and a reporting obligation for health care professionals, as well as specific criminal penalties. While the 2002 law empowered states to enact their own "born alive" abortion laws, and 34 states have opted to do just that, 16 states have not, and SB 311 would introduce a "born alive" abortion law that would apply uniformly throughout the entire country. By voting to block the progress of SB 311, the Democratic and Independent senators did undoubtedly prevent that outcome from becoming much more likely.  In evaluating whether voting against the cloture motions on SB 311 meant the 44 senators were voting to allow babies born alive after abortion to simply die without medical aid, it is also necessary to examine the reasons why the senators voted the way they did.  In general, the Democratic senators who gave statements about their votes on SB 311 said that they had opposed the passage of the bill because they felt it was unnecessary in light of existing law and because they felt it inappropriately criminalized health care practitioners and interfered in the doctor-patient relationship. None said they had voted against the cloture motions in order to allow babies to be left to die or expressed indifference about that outcome. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, for example, wrote, "We should not unnecessarily create new federal crimes and penalties to punish behavior that is already illegal under existing state and federal laws." Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland wrote, "It has always been illegal to kill or harm a newborn infant, and this bill had nothing to do with that. Instead, this bill would have subjected medical professionals to unprecedented criminal liability and inappropriately comes between a woman and her doctor. wrote wrote Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii said SB 311 was "a solution in search of a problem," adding, "Contrary to what the proponents of this bill argue, it is and has always been a crime to harm or kill newborn babies. And people guilty of this crime can already be charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." said Speaking from the floor of the Senate, Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois emphasized the fact that abortions that take place late enough for a fetus to show vital signs overwhelmingly occur in the context of a late diagnosis of a fetal abnormality that will, in short order, prove fatal. She stated that her reason for opposing SB 311 was that it would exacerbate the suffering of parents in such scenarios and force health care practitioners to attempt medical interventions that they know to be futile. stated ... Imagine the heartbreak of going to the doctor one day and learning that theres no chance your baby will survive that theres no hope your baby girl will ever speak her first word or take her first step  Or that delivering her would put your own life at risk, leaving your firstborn to grow up without a mother. These are the types of scenarios that lead to the heart-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy later on. As the mom of two little girls, I cant begin to fathom that kind of pain. And yet today, some on the other side of the aisle are trying to use those parents' suffering for political advantage  making worst-case scenarios like these all the more difficult by pushing a bill aimed to criminalize reproductive care no matter the cost. If it becomes law, this bill would force doctors to perform ineffective, invasive procedures on fetuses born with fatal abnormalities  even if its against the best interests of the child. Even if it goes against recommended standards of care and they know it wouldnt extend or improve the babys life. Even if it would prolong the suffering of the families  forcing women to endure added lasting trauma ... making one of the worst moments in their lives somehow even more painful. If physicians refuse, theyd be punished ... sentenced to up to five years in prison. In February 2019, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Nurse-Midwives co-signed a letter to U.S. Senators, urging them to vote against SB 311 for similar reasons to those given by Duckworth and others, writing: letter "It [S. 311] injects politicians into the patient-provider relationship, disregarding providers training and clinical judgment and undermining their ability to determine the best course of action with their patients." Late-term abortions are exceedingly rare. In 2016, the most recent year for which data was available, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that just 1.2% of abortions took place after 21 weeks' gestational age. reported Deaths involving babies born alive after an abortion are even rarer. According to CDC data, just 143 newborn deaths were recorded as resulting from spontaneous or induced terminations of pregnancy between 2003 and 2014, a period during which more than 49 million live births took place. The CDC advised that the figure of 143 might be an understatement, but also stated that two-thirds of those newborn deaths involved a "maternal complication or one or more congenital anomalies," which corroborates the claims of Duckworth and others.  data Sasse, Ben. "S. 311 -- Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act."
 U.S. Senate. 31 January 2019. Davis, Christopher M. "Invoking Cloture in the Senate."
 Congressional Research Service. 6 April 2017. Congressional Research Service. "Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate."
 7 April 2017. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. "U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 51, Section 1111 -- Murder."
 Accessed 20 August 2020. Chabot, Steve. "H.R. 2175 -- Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002."
 U.S. House of Representatives. 5 August 2002. Family Research Council. "Pro-Life Laws in the States -- Born-Alive Protections."
 Accessed 20 August 2020. PBS/The Associated Press. "West Virginia Senate Passes 'Born Alive' Abortion Bill."
 10 February 2020. Justice, Jim. "Governor Speaks on 'Protecting Abortion Survivors.'"
 The Point Pleasant Register. 14 February 2020. Kaine, Tim. "Kaine Statement on S. 311."
 25 February 2020. Cardin, Ben. "Cardin Statement on the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act."
 26 February 2019. Hirono, Mazie. "Hirono, Murray, and Colleagues Denounce Latest Republican Attack on a Womans Right to Choose in Remarks on the Senate Floor"
 25 February 2019. Duckworth, Tammy. "Minutes Before Vote, Duckworth Pushes Senate to Reject Latest Anti-Choice, Anti-Doctor GOP Bill."
 25 February 2019. Jatlaoui, Tara et al. "Abortion Surveillance -- United States, 2016."
 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 29 November 2019. National Center for Health Statistics. "Mortality Records with Mention of International Classification of Diseases-10 code P96.4 (Termination of Pregnancy): United States, 2003-2014."
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 11 April 2016. Robertson, Lori. "The Facts on the Born-Alive Debate."
 Factcheck.org. 4 March 2019. Claim:  President Bush is responsible for a 17% increase in Medicare premiums. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to help Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium increase  the biggest in history"? That ad is a stroke of genius on Kerry's part and will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed. It was found to be so amazing that someone did some homework on the issue. As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton, voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into effect during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to reverse what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton administration. Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people. Don't be duped by his misstatement of facts! Origins:  The availability of health care and the associated costs of medical care, prescription drugs, and insurance are a major issue in every campaign, especially among older voters.  With premiums for the government-funded Medicare program scheduled to rise from $66.60 to $78.20 per month in January 2005 (a 17.4% increase over current levels, and 56 percent higher than the premiums charged in 2001), both sides in the upcoming presidential election are seeking the upper hand on the issue. Medicare Democrats have maintained that the Bush administration bears much of the responsibility for the increase in premiums because it has done little to control health costs and had directed too much Medicare money to the managed health care industry, and Democratic nominee John Kerry's campaign aired a commercial that (incorrectly) implied that President Bush  was responsible for the increase in Medicare premiums ("George Bush imposes the biggest Medicare premium increase in history . . .").  President Bush's campaign countered by running a TV spot that (incorrectly) stated Senator Kerry had "voted five times to raise Medicare premiums": Republicans had hoped to emphasize their support of Medicare in this campaign season, after making herculean efforts to pass legislation adding drug benefits to the health program for 41 million people who are elderly or disabled. But the new law, signed by Bush in December, has met mixed reviews. The drug benefits, representing the largest expansion of Medicare since its creation in 1965, do not become available until 2006, and the increase in premiums has nothing to do with the new drug coverage. Beneficiaries will have to pay an additional premium, expected to average $35 a month in 2006, for drug benefits. The Bush campaign advertisement, titled "Medicare Hypocrisy," says, "It was Mr. Kerry who voted five times to raise Medicare premiums." The votes, from 1985 to 1997, were not on premiums alone, but on comprehensive budget bills that included hundreds of provisions affecting Medicare and scores of other federal programs. Like most political issues, health care is a complex subject that has been shaped and affected by many different pieces of legislation, and no one person or political party is solely responsible for the rise in Medicare premiums.  Those interested in trying to follow the bouncing ball and track the origins of the 17% increase in Medicare premiums may find this article helpful. article Last updated:  12 October 2004    Sources:    Pear, Robert and Carl Hulse.  "Medicare Costs Are New Focus for Candidates."   The New York Times.  12 September 2004  (p. 1).     The [Pottstown] Mercury.  "Health Care a Passionate Issue for Candidates."   1 October 2004. On Dec. 10, 2023, Instagram account @hamidreza.edalatnia posted a series of eight images. Each image contained a spiral pattern, taking shape in either the architecture, greenery, or surrounding landscapes. The images, particularly the first one, went viral with multiple accounts across Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook picking up the images, with or without credit to the original account. @hamidreza.edalatnia Instagram Twitter Facebook One such viral post (with 110,836 likes, as of this writing) published by Instagram account @national_archeology, was flooded with comments from users who claimed the images were AI-generated. "Please stop posting AI images, we want to learn about history here," one wrote. One such viral post @national_archeology  View this post on Instagram A post shared by national archaeology (@national_archaeology) A post shared by national archaeology (@national_archaeology)  The images were, in fact, AI-generated. The original account that posted the images captioned them: "'Re-envisioning Iranian urban landscape through spiral pattern' | AI, Stable diffusion, Controlnet." When we reached out to the account for comment, the owner of the account responded: "Yes the series of the images called: re-envisioning Iranian urban landscape through spiral pattern originally generated by me using AI stable diffusion."  View this post on Instagram A post shared by Hamidreza Edalatnia (@hamidreza.edalatnia) A post shared by Hamidreza Edalatnia (@hamidreza.edalatnia)  According to the biography section of this account, its owner graduated from Danish university Det Kongelige Akademi and is currently based in Hamburg, Germany. The account features many such AI-generated images, some depicting the geographic shape of Iran in different forms, as well as Iran's famous Azadi Tower in various renderings. Lastly, when the first image was run through AI-detection software Hive, the result was 99.6% likely to be AI-generated, as seen below.  (Image via Hive) We've previously reported on other AI-generated imagery, such as R. Kelly doing shows in prison and U.S. President Joe Biden wrapped in a bubble suit. R. Kelly doing shows in prison U.S. President Joe Biden wrapped in a bubble suit. ControlNet. https://huggingface.co/docs/diffusers/using-diffusers/controlnet. Accessed 29 Jan. 2024. Det Kongelige Akademi.Royal Danish Academy, 5 Aug. 2014, https://kglakademi.dk/det-kongelige-akademi. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/C2ZMXARrO7T/?img_index=1. Accessed 29 Jan. 2024. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.instagram.com%2Fhamidreza.edalatnia%2F%3Fimg_index%3D1. Accessed 29 Jan. 2024. On July 14, 2021, former U.S. President Donald Trump released a statement via email praising a new book by Fox News host Jesse Watters. As screenshots of Trump's statement started making their way around social media, some people noticed that the text of this statement was, in part, a direct copy of the book's description on Amazon.com.  noticed This is a genuine statement released by Trump and this is the genuine description of Watters' book from Amazon.com and other booksellers' websites.  description of Watters' book from Amazon.com Here's the text of Trump's full statement. We highlighted the portion that was lifted directly from the book's description: Great new book out by Jesse Watters, How I Saved the World. Interspersed are his thoughtful suggestions for overcoming left-wing radicalism, maintaining American democracy, moving beyond aging hippies (like his long-suffering, loving parents), saving the world from social justice warriors and the deep stateall while smirking his way through life in only the nicest way. Get your copy today, congratulations Jesse! Trump's statement did not contain any punctuation to indicate that this was a quote, nor was this plagiarized portion of his statement preceded by any indications that this was a quote from the book's promotional copy. As written, it appeared that Trump was giving a personal testimony about Watters' book, but that is not the case.  Trump was banned from social media in the days following the attempted insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, as the companies feared that the former president might incite more violence by pushing falsehoods about his election loss on their platforms. Without social media, Trump has started to issue statements via email which are then reposted to social media by his supporters and journalists. As social media users can't see these statements posted on Trump's own timeline for themselves, they are often left wondering if they are authentic.  We've been asked about a few of these statements in the past. For example: Yes, Trump wished a happy Father's Day to the "the losers of the world," and yes, he wished a Happy Easter to the "radical left crazies." the losers of the world, radical left crazies Claim:  Chart shows top 20 raises given to White House staffers in 2010. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2011] Well here you go folks - outrageous salary increases at the WH.  Go Google and set your search parm to white house top 20 raises and you'll get everything you want to know about this article. What the heck does a Director of African-American Media do to get an 86% increase? Hang out over at Black Entertainment TV or maybe sit around and read Ebony? Remember in November Remember: no Cost of Living Adjustment for seniors for two years.  HMMM...17% to 86% RAISES IN SALARY FOR HIS WHITE HOUSE STAFF MEMBERS!!. NO WONDER WE CAN'T HAVE A COST OF LIVING INCREASE & HE WANTS TO NOW RAISE OUR TAXES ALSO. SOUNDS LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION IS REALLY LOOKING OUT FOR THE VOTERS, DOESN'T IT ????    Origins:  This graphic detailing the "White House's Top 20 Raises" (which actually includes 21 entries) originated as an accompaniment to a 6 July 2011 Gawker article entitled "White House Staffers Got a Raise Last Year, And You Did Not."   graphic article The chart is accurate as far as it goes, but by itself it does not include the context that 19 of the 21 staffers listed also received new job titles, so the pay increases were not straight raises but came in tandem with promotions and/or increased job responsibilities.  The Gawker article also noted that, because the number of paid staffers decreased from 466 in 2010 to 451 in 2011, the White House's salary budget actually dropped from $38.8 million to $37.1 million, and the average salary for staffers also dropped from $82,721 to $81,765 (about 65% above the median household income). Last updated:  11 August 2011    Fader, Carole.  "White House Staff Got Pay Raises, But There's More to the Story."   Jacksonville.com.  7 August 2011. Claim:  Former football coach Lou Holtz penned an essay about 'Two Americas." INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2014]  Did Lou Holtz really say this or is it yet another hoax? See the text below. I tried to search for it on your site and can not find it.  The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works and the America that doesn't. The America that contributes and the America that doesn't. It's not the haves and the have nots, it's the dos and the dont's. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society and others don't. That's the divide in America. It's not about income inequality, it's about civic irresponsibility. It's about a political party that preaches hatred, greed, and victimization in order to win elective office. It's about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That's not invective, that's truth, and it's about time someone said it. The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting "income inequality." He noted that some people make more than other people, and that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that's not just. That is the rationale of thievery.  It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal. The Democrats have not empowered their followers; they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president's premise  that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful  seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices, because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college  and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education. You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take. My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes. It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away; it is freedom, the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime's worth of asinine and short sighted decisions. Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort. The simple Law of the Harvest  as ye sow, so shall ye reap  is sometimes applied as, "The harder you work, the more you get." Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes; it is divided by the differences in our efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man's success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man's victimization. What Obama offered was not a solution, but separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That's what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln's maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand. [Click here to expand text]. [Click here to expand text] Origins:  Shortly after President Obama gave a speech about income inequality in December 2013, writer Bob Lonsberry published an  speech essay on his web site titled "Two Americas" about the "The America that works, and the America that doesnt." essay The article didn't initially gain too much attention, but that situation changed when the text of Lonsberry's essay started circulating via e-mail with former football coach Lou Holtz's name featured prominently at the top in ways that inaccurately suggested he was the article's author, such as "Lou Holtz Nails It!", "Told As Only a Coach, An Old Coach Can," "Lou Holtz on America Today," and "Lou Holtz's Viewpoint."  As Bob Lonsberry has confirmed, however, the "Two Americas" essay was not penned by a famous former football coach. It was written and originally published by Lonsberry on his own web site on 9 December 2013.   Last updated:  30 December 2014 Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In May 2021, many English-language social media users encountered a quote ostensibly written by Jacques Attali, a French economist who served as a counselor to President Franois Mitterrand from 1981 to 1991, in which he supported the mass killings of the "old" and "stupid" via a global pandemic: encountered      This quote, which seems to suggest that a human-made pandemic would kill old people while a nefarious vaccination would kill stupid people, was not written by Attali.  This quote (reproduced below) does not appear anywhere in Attali's memoir "Verbatim," which reproduces various conversations between Mitterrand and other world leaders. In fact, we found no mention of a pandemic in this book.  The future will be about finding a way to reduce the population ... of course, we will not be able to execute people or build camps. We get rid of them by making them believe it is for their own good... we will find or cause something, a pandemic targeting certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus affecting the old or the elderly, it doesn't matter, the weak and the fearful will succumb to it. The stupid will believe in it and ask to be treated. We will have taken care of having panned the treatment, a treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots will therefore be done by itself. They will go to the slaughterhouse alone. This is not the first time Attali has been accused of supporting euthanasia, and it is not the first time that a false, misleading, or misattributed quote has been offered as evidence for this accusation.  CheckNews, the fact-checking arm of the French newspaper Liberation, wrote about a similar fake quote that was circulated in 2017. That fake quote supposedly came from an interview published by journalist Michel Salomon in his 1981 book "l'Avenir de La Vie" or "The Future of Life."  In that case, the viral Facebook text included a few brief sentences from Attali's interview, but the majority of the passage (including the parts about a pandemic) were fabricated. Check News wrote: Facebook text wrote This call for the reduction of the world population is apocryphal. Only two sentences are authentic and indeed emanate from Jacques Attali: the one on the cost of the sixty-year-olds to the society cited above ["But as soon as we pass 60/65 years, man lives longer than he produces and then costs society more"], and another according to which "it is much better that the human machine stops suddenly rather than deteriorating. gradually". They appear in a 1981 interview book, l'Avenir de la vie (Seghers editions) in which Jacques Attali is interviewed by journalist Michel Salomon. However, the economist does not plead for generalized euthanasia. Rather, he speaks out against an infinite lengthening of the life, after having exposed some thoughts on the interest of the leaders and the companies in that people live long, according to their state of health. The AFP also examined this quote in an article published in May 2021. The AFP noted that Attali was asked during his interview with Salomon about whether it would be "possible and desirable to live 120 years." Attali gave a lengthy answer to the question and while he concluded that euthanasia may be a tool of future societies, he does not advocate for the killing of the elderly. In fact, in 1984 Attali won a defamation case against a medical journal that accused him of supporting euthanasia for the elderly.  AFP also examined AFP defamation case against a medical journal Attali told the AFP that the viral FB posts are "totally made up" and "nowhere close to the initial text." In summation: Attali has spoken about the possibility of euthanasia becoming a tool for future societies, but he has not advocated the mass killing of elderly people. Misleading, out-of-context, and fabricated quotes related to this issue have been misattributed to Attali since the 1980s. In 2021, a modern twist was added to these misleading euthanasia quotes as social media users inserted language related to a pandemic. After the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost a historic 1,175 points in a single day in February 2018, the left-wing Facebook page Occupy Democrats was keen to point out a trend. In a 6 February meme, the page listed what it called the "Biggest One-Day Drops in Dow Jones History," along with the name of the U.S. president in office at the time of each point drop. meme According to the meme, each of the largest drops occurred during the presidencies of Donald Trump and George W. Bush -- both Republicans. The meme concluded: "Share this for your friends who STILL think Republicans are GOOD for the economy!"    The meme correctly lists the seven biggest one-day points drops in Dow Jones history, which all took place during the tenure of two Republican presidents, though it leaves out the eighth, ninth and 10th, which occurred with Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in the White House. The main problem with the meme, however, is that its conclusion (that the numbers show which president is good for the economy) overstates the influence of a president -- as opposed to macro-economic and geopolitical forces -- on stock market trends. In fact, one-day losses and gains can sometimes happen despite the policies and efforts of the person in the Oval Office. For example, many commentators attributed the 29 September 2008 points drop -- the second-biggest ever -- to the U.S. House of Representatives' failure to pass a $700 billion bank bailout bill, which President George W. Bush had pushed for.  many commentators attributed Even if one simply wanted to examine during which presidencies the Dow suffered largest single-day losses, looking at the largest point drops wouldn't be the way to do it. As the stock market has grown in value over the last century, large point drops have become more common, even if their impact on the overall market value isn't particularly great. To get a clearer picture of the impact of these drops, one would have to measure the drop in percentage terms, rather than points.  Biggest one-day percentage losses (Sources: Wall Street Journal's Market Data and Yahoo! Finance's downloadable Dow Jones data) Market Data data Five of these 10 events took place during the era of the Great Depression, and all but one occurred during the tenure of Republican presidents.  However, if one were to insist on linking the occupant of the White House to the performance of the stock market, a better way to do it would be to track the average performance of the Dow Jones over the entire course of a presidency, rather than looking at one-day outliers in isolation.  To illustrate this, we looked at the average performance of the Dow over the course of the last nine presidential terms. We used Yahoo! Finance data for this, which only goes back as far as 29 January 1985, so we're missing figures for the first week or so of Ronald Reagan's second administration.  Average one-day percentage change in Dow Jones Average Industrial Index, Last Nine Terms   So while Donald Trump's presidency did see the largest one-day points drop in Dow Jones history, it has also seen the biggest average one-day percentage growth since 1985. However, this is based on only 12 months of data, and the next three years could see that 0.09 percent growth rate drop.  The biggest average daily percentage growth over the course of a four-year presidency was 0.08 percent, during Bill Clinton's first administration between 1993 and 1997. Market Data Center. "U.S. Stocks -- Historical Index Data."
 Wall Street Journal. 30 December 2011. Yahoo! Finance. "Dow Jones Industrial Average -- Historical Data."
 Yahoo! Finance. 6 February 2018. CBS News/Associated Press. "Stocks Take Record Tumble, Down 777 Points."
 CBS News/Associated Press. 29 September 2008. Twin, Alexandra. "Stocks Crushed."
 CNN Money. 29 September 2008. Bajaj, Vikas; Grynbaum, Michael M. "For Stocks, Worst Single-Day Drop in Two Decades."
 New York Times. 29 September 2008. Romans, Christine. "Remembering the Worst Day in Wall Street History."
 CNN Money. 19 October 2017.