Did NYC Ban Hot Dogs?
On 22 April 2019, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced the city's "Green New Deal," an "audacious plan to attack global warming on all fronts." While this package of investments and new legislation covered several approaches to reduce emissions by nearly 30 percent by the year 2030, a number of outlets focused their headlines on one specific fast-food item: hot dogs.  announced An article published on iHeartRadio's platform, for instance, was misleadingly entitled "NYC To Ban Hot Dogs and Processed Meats To Improve Climate." As this article and others like it circulated on social media, many viewers apparently stopped reading after the headline and came away with the belief that hot dogs had been banned city-wide: published circulated social media stopped   One Twitter user wrote: "NYC Mayor - you just made enemies of a lot of NYC vendors who sell great hot dogs, the citizens & visitors who love them! Repeat: You will make NYC a ghost town by 2030 if you continue this ridiculous green deal! New Yorkers, speak up!" wrote Hot dogs are not being banned in New York City. Headlines such as "NYC To Ban Hot Dogs and Processed Meats To Improve Climate" are misleading for two reasons. First, hot dogs are not being banned throughout the city. The city government plans to reduce the purchase of processed meats consumed at city-run facilities, such as hospitals, public schools, and correctional facilities, but this policy will have no effect on vendors, restaurants, grocery stores, or any other privately owned businesses that sell hot dogs, or on their customers who eat them.  Second, the city's plan to reduce the consumption of hot dogs is only partly based on an effort to "improve climate." NYC's "Green New Deal" policies are part of the city's "OneNYC 2050: Building a Strong and Fair City" strategy. While these policies address climate-change issues, they also deal with community well-being and the general health of the city's population. The section of OneNYC 2050 dealing with processed meats can actually be found in the "Healthy Living" portion of this strategy. More specifically, the section dealing with processed meats explains that reducing the consumption of hot dogs will lower the risk of heart disease and cancer. OneNYC 2050 Here's the relevant section of OneNYC 2050 (emphasis ours): section ADOPT MORE SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION PRACTICES IN CITY GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS The City will shift away from goods that have an outsized impact on the environment and identify opportunities to reduce waste and cut GHG emissions throughout City government. Through updates to our Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) and executive action, we are ending the purchasing of unnecessary single-use plastic foodware, reducing the purchasing of beef, and phasing out the purchasing of processed meat. Single-use plastic foodware  including straws, cutlery, cups, plates, bowls, and trays  are designed to be used once and then thrown away. These petroleum-based products are a threat to our neighborhoods, waterways, and climate. The City is ending the purchasing of unnecessary single-use plastic foodware, switching to compostable, reusable, or recyclable alternatives while maintaining a sufficient supply of single-use plastic foodware for those who need it. And we will work with City Council to expand these requirements to private businesses. Building on the success of implementing Meatless Mondays at all New York City public schools, the City will reduce the purchasing of beef by 50 percent. Beef has a relatively high environmental footprint compared to poultry, pork, and plant-based foods. Beef cattle, managing manure, and manufacturing fertilizer produces nitrous oxide and methane, two climate-warming pollutants 298 and 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, respectively. Processed meat consumption is linked with increased risk of cancer and is often high in saturated fat and sodium which is linked with heart disease. This policy would offer health benefits to the most vulnerable New Yorkers. So New York City plans to reduce the consumption of processed meats at city-run facilities such as hospitals, public schools, and correctional facilities. But this plan will not "ban" hot dogs in the city. Restaurants, hot dog stands, grocery stores, and other privately owned businesses will still be able to sell hot dogs in the city.  Moore, Deanna.  "NYC To Ban Hot Dogs and Processed Meats To Improve Climate."
  v1017.iheart.com.  23 April 2019. NYC.Gov.  "Action on Global Warming: NYC's Green New Deal."
  22 April 2019.
Location is commonly cited as the most important consideration in buying real estate, and geographic location was the reason that Cleveland once was tagged as being -- or occupying -- the best location in the nation.The slogan was coined in 1944 by the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., now part of FirstEnergy Corp., to help build post-war business.The claim was based on the fact that within 500 miles of the city lived half the people of the United States and Canada; that Cleveland was the natural meeting place of iron ore, coal, copper, gypsum, stone, sand and other vital raw materials; and that efficient water, rail, highway and air transportation facilitated delivery and reduced costs, wrote historians Carol Poh Miller and Robert Anthony Wheeler.The slogan has fallen into disuse, but geography hasn't changed.Gov. John Kasich touted the concept this month when he spoke to the Ohio Chamber of Commerce about making Ohio more competitive for business growth:We're to the point now where location matters because logistics matters again, he said. Cost of shipping things matters again. We're within 600 miles of 60 percent of America. We're in a perfect location.Given our Buckeye bias, PolitiFact Ohio wanted to believe it. But we have examined similar claims before and found them wanting. We knew that population has shifted since the 1940s, when the population center point of the entire nation (now in Missouri) was still in Ohio. But we also noted that Kasich moved the measuring stick from 500 miles cited in those previous claims to 600 miles.Using the tools we employed before,we built a map including all U.S. counties whose seats are located within 600 miles of Ohio's borders. We used U.S. Census Bureau data to calculate the aggregate population.We found that 184,900,000 people live within 600 miles of Ohio, or 59.9 percent of the U.S. population of 308.7 million.That's 60 percent, whether you round off by a number that is not statistically significant or factor a margin of error.The 600-mile reach would include nearly all of the Eastern Seaboard, the upper Midwest, much of the Deep South and some states west of the Mississippi River.One additional note: In addition to 60 percent of the U.S. population, Kasichs claim also would encompass the most populous parts of Ontario and Quebec.We rate Kasich's statement as True. Is this a mosquito? No. It's an insect spy drone for urban areas, already in production, funded by the US Government. It can be remotely controlled and is equipped with a camera and a microphone. It can land on you, and it may have the potential to take a DNA sample or leave RFID tracking nanotechnology on your skin. It can fly through an open window, or it can attach to your clothing until you take it in your home.  One of the current areas of research reportedly being undertaken in the scientific/military field is the development of micro air vehicles (MAVs), tiny flying objects intended to go places that cannot be (safely) reached by humans or other types of equipment. One of the primary military applications envisioned for MAVs is the gathering of intelligence (through the surreptitious use of cameras, microphones, or other types of sensors); among the more extreme applications posited for such devices is that they may eventually be used as "swarm weapons" which could be launched en masse against enemy forces. Some efforts in MAV research have involved trying to mimic birds or flying insects to achieve flight capabilities not attainable through other means of aerial propulsion. In 2007 a bug-like MAV model with a 3-cm wingspan was displayed at a robotics conference, in 2008 the U.S. Air Force released a simulated video showing MAVs about the size of bumblebees, and in 2012 engineers at Johns Hopkins University were studying the flight of butterflies to "help small airborne robots mimic these maneuvers." birds displayed video butterflies The specific mosquito-like object pictured above is, however, just a conceptual mock-up of a design for a MAV, not a photograph of an actual working device "already in production." And although taking DNA samples or inserting micro-RFID tracking devices under the skin of people are MAV applications that may some day be possible, such possibilities currently appear to be speculative fiction rather than reality. Some have claimed the U.S. government has not only researched and developed insect-like MAVs, but for several years has been furtively employing them for domestic surveillance purposes: The US government has been accused of secretly developing robotic insect spies amid reports of bizarre flying objects hovering in the air above anti-war protests. No government agency has admitted to developing insect-size spy drones but various official and private organisations have admitted that they are trying. But official protestations of innocence have failed to kill speculation of government involvement after a handful of sightings of the objects at political events in New York and Washington. Vanessa Alarcon, a university student who was working at an anti-war rally in the American capital [in September 2007], told the Washington Post: "I heard someone say, 'Oh my God, look at those.' "I look up and I'm like, 'What the hell is that?'. They looked like dragonflies or little helicopters. But I mean, those are not insects." Bernard Crane, a lawyer who was at the same event, said he had "never seen anything like it in my life". He added: "They were large for dragonflies. I thought, 'Is that mechanical or is that alive?'" The incident has similarities with an alleged sighting at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York when one peace march participant described on the internet seeing "a jet-black dragonfly hovering about 10 feet off the ground, precisely in the middle of 7th Avenue". Entomologists suggest that the objects are indeed dragonflies. Jerry Louton, an expert at the National Museum of Natural History, said Washington was home to large, impressively-decorated dragonflies that "can knock your socks off". Others maintain the technical obstacles involved in creating flying insect-sized robots have yet to be overcome: The technical challenges of creating robotic insects are daunting, and most experts doubt that fully working models exist yet. "If you find something, let me know," said Gary Anderson of the Defense Department's Rapid Reaction Technology Office. Getting from bird size to insect size is not a simple matter of making everything smaller. "You can't make a conventional robot of metal and ball bearings and just shrink the design down," said Ronald Fearing, a roboticist at the University of California at Berkeley. For one thing, the rules of aerodynamics change at very tiny scales and require wings that flap in precise ways  a huge engineering challenge. Scientists have only recently come to understand how insects fly. Even if the technical hurdles are overcome, insect-size fliers will always be risky investments. "They can get eaten by a bird, they can get caught in a spider web," Professor Fearing said. Leonard, Tom.  "US Accused of Making Insect Spy Robots."   The Telegraph.  10 October 2007. Weiss, Rick.  "Washington Abuzz with Talk of Dragonfly Spies."   The Sydney Morning Herald.  12 October 2007. In October 2016 Republican candidate Donald Trump came under fire after the release of a decade-old tape capturing him making lewd comments, followed by multiple women coming forward to claim that Trump had groped them.  Shortly afterwards, an image containing allegations about incidents of Trump's having sexually abused women circulated via social media: image   The first claim held that in 1989 Donald Trump's first ex-wife, Ivana, swore under oath in a deposition that he had violently raped her and that somehow that information wasn't brought to light during the comprehensive mudslinging that engulfed the extremely heated 2016 election. But a simple online search shows quite clearly that numerous articles published from the summer of 2015 onwards made frequent reference to Ivana Trump's purported statement:     The allegation largely stemmed from a 1993 book about Trump titled Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump by Harry Hurt III, as detailed by the New Yorker: detailed The part of the book that caused the most controversy concerns Trumps divorce from his first wife, Ivana. Hurt obtained a copy of her sworn divorce deposition, from 1990, in which she stated that, the previous year, her husband had raped her in a fit of rage. In Hurts account, Trump was furious that a scalp reduction operation hed undergone to eliminate a bald spot had been unexpectedly painful. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. In retaliation, Hurt wrote, Trump yanked out a handful of his wifes hair, and then forced himself on her sexually. Afterward, according to the book, she spent the night locked in a bedroom, crying; in the morning, Trump asked her, with menacing casualness, Does it hurt? Trump has denied both the rape allegation and the suggestion that he had a scalp-reduction procedure. Hurt said that the incident, which is detailed in Ivanas deposition, was confirmed by two of her friends. Hurt held on to his copy of Ivanas sealed deposition for years. It was sworn testimony, he said. But eventually, when he was cleaning house during his own divorce, he said, I threw it all out. He went on, The larger tragedy is that Trump might be elected President of the United States. I never imagined in my wildest nightmares that it would come to this. Before Hurts book came out, Trumps lawyers pressured the publisher, W. W. Norton, to paste a clarifying statement from Ivana into the flyleaf of every copy. In it, she confirmed that she had said in a deposition that her husband had raped her, but added that she did not want those words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense. She also said, As a woman, I felt violated. Hurt said that he considers the note a non-denial denial, and believes that Ivana agreed to amend her words in order to secure the divorce settlement, in which she reportedly received fourteen million dollars in cash. When the rape story resurfaced [in 2015], Ivana issued a statement saying that it was without merit. She and Donald have raised three kids together. Theyre picking their bedrooms in the White House, Hurt said. But shes not saying its untrue, or that she didnt swear to it under oath.  As described, the book was appended with a statement from Ivana Trump disavowing that she intended to use the word "rape" in its commonly understood manner (i.e., forcible sex without consent): statement During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me. I wish to say that on one occasion during 1989, Mr Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness which he normally exhibited toward me, was absent. I referred to this as a 'rape,' but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense. Any contrary conclusion would be an incorrect and most unfortunate interpretation of my statement which I do not want to be interpreted in a speculative fashion and I do not want the press or media to misconstrue any of the facts set forth above. All I wish is for this matter to be put to rest. Ivana's statement, according to a Notice to the Reader in the book, does not contradict or invalidate any information contained in this book. The second allegation in the image was less well known and likely new to many social media users, holding that Trump Model Management (New York City modeling agency) was "caught trafficking young girls and hiding them in basements"  something that likely would have been quite newsworthy, given that human trafficking is an extremely serious crime. This claim originated with a 30 August 2016 Mother Jones article that notably had nothing to do with any allegations that Donald Trump or his modeling agency had engaged in human trafficking. article Instead, the Mother Jones article presented a case that Trump's anti-immigration position was hypocritical due to Trump Model Management's purported illegal employment of non-American models. Many of the article's details involved uncompensated work, a grayer legal area and a circumstance not uncommon among hopefuls trying to get a break in the highly competitive field of modeling. The article included comment from Canadian former model Rachel Blais and two unnamed women who claimed they worked for Trump Model Management around the mid-2000s and experienced illegal and/or unethical business practices. Although the details of the article were not flattering to Trump or his agency if accurate, asserting that the article accused Trump or his agents of "trafficking young women and hiding them in basements" is a gross exaggeration. The word "basement" appeared a single time in the article and was not mentioned as a place young female models were held against their will but simply as an example of cramped and pricey "model's quarters" (of a type not exclusive to Trump's modeling agency). The image reproduced above elided the article's description of the unpleasant living arrangements as an unfortunate but not uncommon aspect of the industry that is too often foisted upon aspiring models by agencies: [Along with one named woman, t]wo other former Trump models  who requested anonymity to speak freely about their experiences, and who we are giving the pseudonyms Anna and Kate  said the agency never obtained work visas on their behalf, even as they performed modeling assignments in the United States ... Each of the three former Trump models said she arrived in New York with dreams of making it big in one of the world's most competitive fashion markets. But without work visas, they lived in constant fear of getting caught ... According to three immigration lawyers consulted by Mother Jones, even unpaid employment is against the law for foreign nationals who do not have a work visa. "If the US company is benefiting from that person, that's work," explained Anastasia Tonello, global head of the US immigration team at Laura Devine Attorneys in New York. These rules for immigrants are in place to "protect them from being exploited," she said. "That US company shouldn't be making money off you." Two of the former Trump models said Trump's agency encouraged them to deceive customs officials about why they were visiting the United States and told them to lie on customs forms about where they intended to live. Anna said she received a specific instruction from a Trump agency representative: "If they ask you any questions, you're just here for meetings." Fashion industry sources say that skirting immigration law in the manner that the three former Trump models described was once commonplace in the modeling world ... Kate, who worked for Trump Model Management in 2004, marveled at how her former boss has recently branded himself as an anti-illegal-immigration crusader on the campaign trail. "He doesn't want to let anyone into the US anymore," she said. "Meanwhile, behind everyone's back, he's bringing in all of these girls from all over the world and they're working illegally." Models' apartments, as they're known in the industry, are dormitory-style quarters where agencies pack their talent into bunks, in some cases charging the models sky-high rent and pocketing a profit. According to the three former models, Trump Model Management housed its models in a two-floor, three-bedroom apartment in the East Village, near Tompkins Square Park. Mother Jones is withholding the address of the building, which is known in the neighborhood for its model tenants, to protect the privacy of the current residents. When Blais lived in the apartment, she recalled, a Trump agency representative who served as a chaperone had a bedroom to herself on the ground floor of the building. A narrow flight of stairs led down to the basement, where the models lived in two small bedrooms that were crammed with bunk beds  two in one room, three in the other. An additional mattress was located in a common area near the stairs. At times, the apartment could be occupied by 11 or more people. The third and final claim in the meme was perhaps the most widely-reported of all the three things that no one was supposedly talking about. It pertained to a twice-filed civil (not criminal) lawsuit against Donald Trump brought by a woman using the alias "Katie Johnson" who claimed that Trump "sexually and physically" abused her at parties hosted by billionaire Jeffrey Epstein when she was 13 years old and then threatened her to ensure her silence: abused I traveled by bus to New York City in June 1994 in the hope of starting a modeling career. I went to several modeling agencies but was told that I needed to put together a modeling portfolio before I would be considered. I then went to the Port Authority in New York City to start to make my way back home. There I met a woman who introduced herself to me as Tiffany. She told me about the parties and said that, if I would join her at the parties, I would be introduced to people who could get me into the modeling profession. Tiffany also told me I would be paid for attending. The parties were held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Each of the parties had other minor females and a number of guests of Mr. Epstein, including Defendant Donald Trump at four of the parties I attended. I understood that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein knew I was 13 years old. Defendant Trump had sexual contact with me at four different parties in the summer of 1994. On the fourth and fnial sexual encounter with Defendant Trump, Defendant Trump tied me to a bed, exposed himself to me, and then proceeded to forcibly rape me. During the course of this savage sexual attack, I loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but he did not. Defendant Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted, Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump's sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I wold be physically harmed if not killed. As our article on the lawsuit notes, "Katie Johnson" has not been identified or interviewed, and she has not provided any information or evidence outside of her court filing.  Donald Trump hasn't been afforded any opportunity to confront his accuser or the evidence against him in court, and the case may never get that far.    article The original poster of the image stated that after "the 2005 video of Donald Trump was released" she wished just to "add fuel to the fire on how disgusting he is" by highlighting things the public allegedly had ignored about the candidate's history. But two of the three claims about Trump that the public or the news media "are not going to talk about" have in fact received widespread media attention, and the third was contorted to the point of being unrecognizable when compared to the source material from which it was derived. stated Biddle, Sam.  "The Time Donald Trump's Ex-Wife Accused Him of Brutally Raping Her."
  Gawker.   30 July 2015. Ericksen, Brittany and Ilse Knecht.  "Statutes of Limitations for Sexual Assault: A State-by-State Comparison."
  The National Center for Victims of Crime.  21 August 2013. Osborne, Samuel.  "Donald Trump's Ex-Wife's Claim He 'Raped' Her Resurfaces in New Documentary."
  The Independent.  27 January 2016. West, James.  "Former Models for Donald Trump's Agency Say They Violated Immigration Rules and Worked Illegally."
  Mother Jones.  30 August 2016. Mayer, Jane.  "Documenting Trump's Abuse of Women."
  The New Yorker.  24 October 2016. The idea that United States citizens can gain access to secret funds because of a government-created "strawman" is a persistent myth  and one was debunked long ago as a get-rich-quick scheme promulgated by shysters with links to far-right groups: When your birth certificate was monetized and converted into a UNITED STATES Government Bond shortly after your birth by your Mother, your net worth became unlimited, into Billions of Dollars, without your, nor your Mothers, and Fathers, knowledge. When the UNITED STATES declared bankruptcy in 1933 under the bankruptcy (Straw man) law known as HJR 192, pledged all Americans as collateral (debt slaves) against the national debt to the International Bankers; gave all the land to the international bankers (Federal Reserve Corporation); and confiscated and outlawed all the gold except for one ounce for each person; thus, eliminating the lawful means (Gold and Silver Coins) by which you could legally pay your debt, the UNITED STATES also assumed legal responsibility for providing a new way for you to pay. In 1933, the UNITED STATES Government declared that they would pay all of YOUR debts with the money they receive from your labor, birth certificate, and Social Security registered number by what is known as your Reserve Account worth Billions! The UNITED STATES Corporation Government did that by providing what is known as the Exemption Account. The bankers loan credit and not money, because there has not been any lawful money since 5 June 1933. The Exemption Account is your exemption from having to pay for anything. In practical terms, though, this meant giving each American something to pay with, and that something is your credit. This secret has been hidden for over 79 years. Your value to society was then and is still calculated using actuarial tables. At birth, average value bonds were created from your birth certificate. I understand that this is currently between one and two million dollars at your birth when your mother unknowingly gave her baby, you, away to the UNITED STATES Government. These birth certificate bonds were collateralized by your birth certificate and your mothers maiden name under an Act of Congress in 1921. Then your birth certificate bond became a negotiable instrument just like any security instrument under UCC Article 3, code of commercial law in which the world trade falls under. The bonds are hypothecated and traded on the stock market until their value is unlimited for all intents and purposes. People all over the world buy and sell your bond every day over the stock markets as investments. All that credit created is technically, and rightfully, yours. In point of fact, you should be able to go into any store in America and buy anything and everything in sight, telling the clerk to charge it to your Exemption Account, which is identified by a nine-digit number that you will recognize as your Social Security number, without the dashes. It is your EIN, which stands for Exemption Identification Number from the UNITED STATES CORPORATION of America."  The "strawman," the theory states, is an entity created by an alleged 1933 "House Joint Resolution" marking U.S. residents as collateral for the country's loans. Though it is unclear how prevalent it is today, the FBI has classified the idea of birth certificate "redemption" as a common form of bond fraud: classified Proponents of this scheme claim that the U.S. government or the Treasury Department control bank accountsoften referred to as U.S. Treasury Direct Accountsfor all U.S. citizens that can be accessed by submitting paperwork with state and federal authorities. Trainers and websites will often charge large fees for kits that teach individuals how to perpetrate this scheme. They will often imply that others have had great success in discharging debt and purchasing merchandise such as cars and homes. Failures to implement the scheme successfully are attributed to individuals not following instructions in a specific order or not filing paperwork at correct times. This scheme predominately uses fraudulent financial documents that appear to be legitimate. These documents are frequently referred to as bills of exchange, promissory bonds, indemnity bonds, offset bonds, sight drafts, or comptrollers warrants. In addition, other official documents are used outside of their intended purpose, like IRS forms 1099, 1099-OID, and 8300. This scheme frequently intermingles legal and pseudo legal terminology in order to appear lawful. Notaries may be used in an attempt to make the fraud appear legitimate. Often, victims of the scheme are instructed to address their paperwork to the Secretary of the Treasury. Filing these types of "frivolous tax submissions" can incur a $5,000 fine, though authorities give offenders 30 days to retract the documents. The Treasury Department's office of the Inspector General published an example of a "sight draft" while warning that they were being used "in an attempt to pay for everything from cars to child support": incur warning  The Treasury also provided us with an April 2009 guidance they sent to financial institutions advising them how to report loan modification scams, which included a description of a hidden "account" being used as a bogus payment: guidance A homeowner maintains that he/she does not need to pay a mortgage because the loan contract is invalid, or the customer attempts to pay with a bogus sight draft, Federal Reserve Bank/Treasury letter, or check that accesses a Treasury Direct Account. Such homeowners may be committing fraud or may have been duped by individuals who claim government-related contracts are illegitimate. Other homeowners may have unsuspectingly paid for illegitimate or bogus pay-off documents. A spokesperson for the Treasury told us on 17 January 2017 that these types of scams have not been a "recent issue of concern" for the department's investigators. However, they are still reported to its financial crimes enforcement division. reported The Southern Poverty Law Center stated in a 2002 report that the redemption "movement" can be traced back to a South Dakota man, Roger Elvick, who has ties to the Aryan Nations and other white supremacist organizations: traced Elvick first started spreading his crackpot vision in the 1980s, when he was the national spokesperson for Committee of the States, a white supremacist group Elvick started with William Potter Gale, who had previously founded the Posse Comitatus, a violent anti-Semitic organization. By 1990, Redemption groups advised by Elvick were active in 30 states and several provinces of Canada, and had tried to pass more than $15 million in bad checks. Elvick was eventually convicted of personally passing more than $1 million in sight drafts, and, in a separate case, of filing fraudulent IRS forms. He spent most of the 1990s in federal prison. Elvick was indicted again in Ohio in 2003 and charged with corruption, extortion, and forgery, but his courtroom behavior derailed his trial: During preliminary hearings, Elvick frustrated court officials by denying his identity, claiming the court had no jurisdiction over him or his straw man, and constantly interrupting with unfathomable questions about procedure. A judge ruled Elvick mentally unfit to stand trial and committed him to a correctional psychiatric facility, where he was diagnosed with an "unclassified mental disorder" and underwent nine months of treatment before facing trial. Elvick then surprised prosecutors by changing his plea to guilty. The inspector general's office for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, noted the use of "UCC" (Uniform Commercial Code) in a 2015 bulletin concerning right-wing sovereign citizen groups, pointing out members commonly use the term in fraudulent documents: bulletin sovereign citizen  FBI.  "Common Fraud Schemes  Redemption/Strawman/Bond Fraud."   Accessed 12 January 2017. Legal Information Institute.  "26 U.S. Code  6702  Frivolous Tax Submissions."   Accessed 12 January 2017. Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Treasury.  "Bogus Sight Drafts/Bills of Exchange Drawn on the Treasury."   Accessed 12 January 2017. Southern Poverty Law Center.  "His 'Straw Man' Free, A Scammer Finds the Rest of Him Isn't."   27 July 2005. Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.  "Integrity Bulletin."   Summer 2015. Alexander, Dean C.  "The Sovereign Citizen Movement: Threats and Responses."   Security Magazine.  1 June 2016. A set of gruesome photographs supposedly showing the aftermath of a "pico jackfruit snake" bite is frequently shared online. We'll be posting these photographs below. As they show a severe hand injury, this article may not suitable for all viewers. The photographs first went viral in August 2017 after they were posted to the Facebook group Faculty of Veterinary Medicine in New York. The first photograph in the set shows what appears to be a small cut on a person's thumb. Subsequent photographs show the injury worsening, due to the snake's venomous bite, until eventually the thumb is amputated. Again, the following photographs may not be suitable for all viewers:   We haven't been able to uncover too many specifics about these photographs, such as where they were taken or the identity of the snake-bit victim. When these images first started circulating on Facebook in 2017 (the original post has since been deleted), the snake was identified as a "sharp-nosed viper," not a "pico jackfruit snake."  In fact, we found no snake by the latter's name. It likely refers to a bushmaster snake, another genus of venomous pit-vipers, which is known by a variety of names across South America, such as the pineapple snake, the silent rattlesnake, and the stinging jackfruit.  Regardless of the specific species of snake, these photographs appear to provide a genuine look at the painful aftermath of a venomous snakebite. News.com.au talked to Brian Fry, an associate professor in the school of biological sciences at the University of Queensland, when these images first went viral:  News.com.au That type of snake [Sharp-nosed viper] has a venom that is extremely tissue destroying, Dr Fry told news.com.au. The reason for this is that they kill their prey by haemorrhagic shock, where some parts of the venom damage the blood vessel walls, while other parts destroy the ability of the blood to clot, leading to a state of massive internal bleeding in a prey animal. As Associate Professor in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Queensland, Dr Fry said because it is a Chinese snake; antivenom for a bite like this might be hard to come by in remote areas. If it was in a private collection somewhere, they probably didnt have it and likely none of the nearby zoos would either, he explained. Thus, theyd have to suffer through the full effects. While we haven't been able to find much information about this specific set of photographs, we have found other snake-bite cases that resulted in similar injuries. A 2015 article from the BBC explained some of the science behind deadly venomous snake bites: cases resulted similar injuries BBC Snake venom is made up of several hundred proteins which all have a slightly different toxic effect on the human body. One snake's poison may not be like another's, even if they are from the same species. But, on the whole, there are two main ways snakes make us suffer  by attacking the circulatory system (ie. the blood) and/or the nervous system. Haemotoxic venom goes for the bloodstream. It can trigger lots of tiny blood clots and then when the venom punches holes in blood vessels causing them to leak, there is nothing left to stem the flow and the patient bleeds to death. Other venoms can increase blood pressure, decrease blood pressure, prevent bleeding or create it. They are all bad news. Neurotoxic venom tends to act more quickly, attacking the nervous system and stopping nerve signals getting through to the muscles. This means paralysis, starting at the head, moving down the body until, if untreated, the diaphragm is paralysed and the patient can't breathe. A classic sign of this is ptosis, when people can't keep their eyes open. Around the area of the bite, necrosis can set in. That happens when the venom destroys nearby muscles, tissues and cells. Long-term, this can lead to amputations, the loss of the use of a limb or the need for multiple skin grafts. In sum, the above photographs most likely show the gruesome aftermath of a snake bite, but because we were unable to uncover specific details about the pictures, we've rated this claim "Unproven." Brown, Vanessa.  "Horror Snake Bite Causes Victims Thumb to Turn Black Before Being Amputated"
  News.com.au.  15 August 2017. Weisberger, Mindy.  "What Should You Do If You're Bitten by a Venomous Snake?"
  Live Science.  2 June 2019. BBC.  "The amazing science behind fatal snake bites."
  13 September 2015. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here As the 2020 U.S. presidential election inched closer, the internet was flooded with misleading memes about both candidates, including the allegation that extremist organizations like the Taliban and Ku Klux Klan supported U.S. President Donald Trump, while the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and other bipartisan groups openly endorsed Democratic candidate Joe Biden. The claims were first put forth by screenwriter and author Bess Kalb, whose work has been featured on "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" and The New Yorker. In a Twitter post shared on Oct. 11, she suggested that extremist groups supported Trump while implying that more even-keeled organizations backed Biden. At the time of publication, the tweet had received more than 370,000 likes.  post   Although Kalb didn't specify in the tweet which candidate received endorsements from whom, it was perfectly clear to anyone following news about the presidential campaigns at the time which was which: Biden's endorsers included the magazine Scientific American, and the Trump campaign had publicly rejected an alleged endorsement from the Taliban. To verify Kalb's claim, we broke it down into four sections to address each of her assertions. Like much viral content, her statement contained kernels of truth that had been taken out of context or were inaccurately represented. In October 2020, CBS News claimed to have spoken with Zubihullah Mujahid, a spokesperson of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, or Taliban, who allegedly told the publication that the extremist group believed that Trump would win the November 2020 election. In an exclusive telephone interview, Mujahid reportedly said that Trump had "proved himself a politician who accomplished all the major promises he had made to American people."  claimed Another senior Taliban leader said that the organization hoped Trump will win the election and wind up U.S. military presence in Afghanistan." CBS News added that the Talibans enthusiasm for Trump is grounded in the goal they share of getting U.S. troops out of Afghanistan after 19 years of war  a longtime promise of the president. However, Mujahid denied the claims made by CBS News and wrote in an Oct. 10 tweet that the publication had misinterpreted his remarks. A subsequently translated tweet shared as a comment added that nothing like what they published has happened. wrote Oct. 10 translated tweet   Tim Murtaugh, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, told Axios in an emailed statement, We reject their support and the Taliban should know that the President will always protect American interests by any means necessary, unlike Joe Biden who opposed taking out Osama bin Laden and Qasem Soleimani." In an Oct. 10 tweet, Murtaugh added that he had told CBS News that the Trump campaign rejected the endorsement. Axios tweet   Snopes attempted to contact Murtaugh on Twitter but did not receive a response in time for publication. Our message to the Trump campaign also went unanswered. At the announcement of Trumps 2016 bid, the KKK published a full-page spread supporting Trump in its official quarterly newspaper, The Crusader. In an interview with MSNBC, Trump said that that he disavowed former KKK leader David Duke and that his campaign rejected the endorsement, issuing the following statement to news outlets in 2016: full-page spread disavowed statement Mr. Trump and the campaign denounces hate in any form. This publication is repulsive and their views do not represent the tens of millions of Americans who are uniting behind our campaign.   The KKK endorsement followed the Trump presidency for years. It resurfaced again in January 2020 when a manipulated photo claimed to show a group of KKK members marching behind a campaign sign for Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. A message accompanying the meme at the time claimed, This is all you need to know about why you should vote Blue in 2020. As our previous fact check concluded, the photograph in question was not genuine  it was taken during a march in Pulaski, Tennessee, in July 2009. The banner actually read, Fraternal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. manipulated photo  Spencer Platt / Staff  White supremacist and former Grand Wizard David Duke, whose Twitter account was suspended in October 2020, has expressed support for Trump on more than one occasion. In a video shared to Twitter by verified photojournalist Mykal McEldowney of the Indy Star (which has been archived here) from the Aug. 12, 2017, Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, the former KKK leader offered support to the president.  Twitter account suspended expressed support more than one occasion shared here Were going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. Thats what we believed in. Thats why we voted for Donald Trump  because he said hes going to take our country back. And thats what we had to do.  Trump expressed disapproval of Duke and disavowed white supremacy on "Good Morning America" in 2016. During a televised debate on Sept. 29, 2020, the president was asked to clearly and explicitly condemn white supremacy, which he failed to do on that occasion, though he did condemn "all white supremacists," mentioning the KKK specifically, during a Fox News interview two days later. expressed "Good Morning America" asked condemn NEJM, an esteemed medical journal that publishes research and reviews articles, took an unprecedented step when it published an Oct. 8 editorial urging voters to render judgment on the current political leaders, adding that they were dangerously incompetent in their ignorance and handling of the pandemic. Oct. 8 editorial The column, titled Dying in a Leadership Vacuum, did not explicitly name Trump, nor did it acknowledge Biden. Rather, it laid blame on a failing leadership and administration that inadequately responded to the COVID-19 pandemic, further polarizing and politicizing Americans while disenfranchising vulnerable communities and leaving behind health care professionals who have put their lives on the line. By making masks political tools rather than effective infection control measures, continuing to push inaccurate guidelines, and deferring to pandemic responses at the state level  many of which did not have adequate resources to fight such a public health crisis without the support of the federal government  the publication argued that U.S. leaders ignored and even denigrate[d] experts, furthering that the COVID-19 response a was a failure that had taken a crisis and turned it into a tragedy. The editorial went on to say the following: The response of our nations leaders has been consistently inadequate. The federal government has largely abandoned disease control to the states. Governors have varied in their responses, not so much by party as by competence. But whatever their competence, governors do not have the tools that Washington controls. Instead of using those tools, the federal government has undermined them. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was the worlds leading disease response organization, has been eviscerated and has suffered dramatic testing and policy failures. The National Institutes of Health have played a key role in vaccine development but have been excluded from much crucial government decision making. And the Food and Drug Administration has been shamefully politicized, appearing to respond to pressure from the administration rather than scientific evidence. Our current leaders have undercut trust in science and in government, causing damage that will certainly outlast them. Instead of relying on expertise, the administration has turned to uninformed opinion leaders and charlatans who obscure the truth and facilitate the promulgation of outright lies. [] Anyone else who recklessly squandered lives and money in this way would be suffering legal consequences. Our leaders have largely claimed immunity for their actions. But this election gives us the power to render judgment. Reasonable people will certainly disagree about the many political positions taken by candidates. But truth is neither liberal nor conservative. When it comes to the response to the largest public health crisis of our time, our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent. We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs. It is unclear what broad bipartisan coalition Kalb refers to in her tweet; however, both candidates indeed have a long list of endorsements from both sides of the political aisle. Most notably, in mid-September Scientific American backed Biden, marking it the second publication to break stride in endorsing a presidential candidate for the first time in its history. Again, the editorial board cited Trumps rejection of science and pandemic response as a catalyst. Scientific American "The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people  because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September," wrote the publication. 190,000 Americans their lives "He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more equitable future." A list of endorsements from political leaders and labor unions can be found on Bidens official campaign website, but as with most political candidates, the majority of his endorsers are partisan. Those include activist groups built around the platforms of LGBTQ, environmental, animal, womens reproductive rights, and labor unions representing dozens of industries from across the nation. That being said, a number of established newspapers have also endorsed the former vice president, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Boston Globe. By comparison, Trump is backed by activist groups that include religious organizations, law enforcement, and pro-life organizations. Trump has been endorsed by a handful of publications, including The Boston Herald and The Tulsa Beacon. (You can view a full list of Trump endorsements here.) list The Washington Post The New York Times The Boston Globe The Boston Herald The Tulsa Beacon here In the weeks that led up to the general election in 2020, discord and contention dominated U.S. political discourse. As with many viral and political posts, memes, videos, or content, elements of truth are not fully represented in a short character count. Generally speaking, this claim was based in truth but lacked the context needed to characterize both the Trump and Biden campaigns accurately. Goddard, Emily.  "Taliban Denise Endorsing Trump."
  Independent.  11 Oct. 2020.  Yousafzai, Sami.  "The Taliban on Trump: We Hope He Will Win the Election and Withdraw U.S. Troops."
  CBS News.  11 Oct. 2020.  Falconer, Rebecca.  "Trump Campaign Rejects Talibans Endorsement for U.S. President."
  Axios.  11 Oct. 2020.  Levine, Jon.  Osama bin Ladens Niece Says Only Trump Can Prevent Another 9/11."
  New York Post.  5 Sept. 2020.  Furr, Amy.  "Osama bin Ladens Niece: Only President Trump Can Stop Second 9/11-Style Attack."
  Breitbart.  5 Sept. 2020.  Begly, Sarah.  "The KKKs Newspapers Has Endorsed Donald Trump."
  Time.  2 Nov. 2020.  Evon, Dan.  "Did the KKK March With a Trump-Pence Sign?"
  Snopes.  13 Jan. 2020.  Sherman, Amy.  "Joe Biden Says President Trump Hasnt Condemned David Duke and Richard Spencer."
  PolitiFact.  Publication date.   "Donald Trump Speaks Out on the KKK, Super Tuesday."
  ABC News.  MacGuill, Dan.  "Did Trump Refuse to Condemn White Supremacists at Debate?"
  Snopes.  30 Sept. 2020.  Shepherd, Katie.  "The New England Journal of Medicine Avoided Politics for 208 Years. Now Its Urging Voters to Oust Trump."
  The Washington Post.  8 Oct. 2020.   "Dying in a Leadership Vacuum."
  New England Journal of Medicine.  8 Oct. 2020.  Scientific American.  "Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden."
  October 2020.  Washington Post Editorial Board.  "Joe Biden for President."
  The Washington Post.  28 Sept. 2020.  The Boston Globe.  "The Globe Endorses Joe Biden for President."
  6 Oct. 2020.  Nelson, Libby.  "'Why We Voted for Donald Trump': David Duke Explains the White Supremacist Charlottesville Protests."
  Vox.  12 Aug. 2020.  Sakuma, Amanda.  "KKK Paper The Crusader Backs Trump; Campaign Rejects It."
  NBC News.  2 Nov. 2020.  Naughtie, Andrew.  "Former KKK Leader Endorses Trump for President Again  and Tucker Carlson for VP."
  Independent.  9 July 2020.  Diaz, Daniella.  "Trump Campaign Denounces KKKs Official Newspapers Support."
  CNN.  2 Nov. 2020.  Timm, Jane.  "Donald Trumps Oral History of David Duke and White Supremacists."
  NBC News.  29 Nov. 2016.  Detrow, Scott.  "KKK Paper Endorses Trump; Campaign Calls Outlet Repulsive.
  NPR.  2 Nov. 2016. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Nov. 23, 2020, U.S. General Services Administrator Emily Murphy  an appointee of President Donald Trump  wrote a letter to President-elect Joe Biden that allowed him to start a formal transition of power. The paperwork, obtained by Snopes and displayed below, was the first formal recognition by Trump's government of a Biden presidency. letter formal transition of power The document from the head of the General Services Administration (GSA), an executive branch agency that oversees presidential transitions, raised questions about whether it meant that Trump himself acknowledged defeat to Biden. Concession statements to Americans or phone calls to winning candidates represent an informal step in the country's election process that typically occurs when one candidate secures the majority of electoral votes. Biden reached that milestone  winning key battleground states, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, by comfortable margins  weeks before Murphy's letter. However, Trump broke democratic norms by refusing to concede publicly. electoral votes.   Instead, the president's campaign filed a barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions across the country and accelerated a misinformation campaign online that denied or falsely presented the election results. While legal experts said the litigation did not contain enough evidence to reverse Biden's win, Trump's supporters viewed the effort as a commendable, tough, not-going-to-back-down approach to electoral politics. barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions misinformation campaign "It is not a stain on our national honor for a candidate to refuse to concede when there are open and compelling disputes about an electoral outcome," read a Nov. 23 statement by supporters of the Conservative Action Project, an initiative founded by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III. statement Despite not receiving Trump's concession, Biden filled his Cabinet for the White House, addressing the country under the "Office of the President Elect," and states certified results of the popular vote in order to begin the process of voting for president through the Electoral College. Office of the President Elect states certified results Cue Murphy's letter on Nov. 23. The document carried out the government's obligation under the 1963 Presidential Transition Act to allow presidents-elect and their appointees, aids, and other staff  otherwise known as a transition team  to access millions of federal dollars and set up White House operations before swearing-in ceremonies that would take place the January after general elections. 1963 Presidential Transition Act       Murphy submitted the paperwork after election officials in Michigan certified Biden's win there, and a conservative Republican judge in Pennsylvania shot down a Trump campaign lawsuit, The Associated Press reported. Pennsylvania Murphy's letter said: [Because] of recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results, I have determined that you may access the post-election resources and services described in Section 3 of the Act upon request. The actual winner of the presidential election will be determined by the electoral process detailed in the Constitution. So, in short, a member of the Trump administration, Murphy, filed paperwork to change Biden's official title in government systems to "apparent president-elect" and, as a result, granted him new privileges that only someone with that job title in federal government gets. But it was a wrong interpretation of that procedural step to claim Trump had therefore conceded the 2020 presidential race. Let us note here: No constitutional mandate or federal law requires losing presidential candidates to acknowledge defeat in order for the election's processes to continue. Rather, concession speeches have been an informal tradition that often symbolized a losing candidate's willingness to help with a peaceful transition between presidencies.  transition between presidencies The Associated Press reported: reported In recent days, senior Trump aides including chief of staff Mark Meadows and White House counsel Pat Cipollone had also encouraged him to allow the transition to begin, telling the president he didnt need to concede but could no longer justify withholding support to the Biden transition. [...] Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the GSA action is probably the closest thing to a concession that President Trump could issue. Even after Murphy's letter, the Trump campaign sent supporters emails promoting false claims about the election outcome to solicit donations, including messages to sell "COUNT ALL LEGAL VOTES" T-shirts.   Additionally, on Twitter the president said: "Remember the GSA has been terrific, and Emily Murphy has done a great job, but the GSA does not determine who the next President of the United States will be."   The tweet accurately suggested that presidential elections are technically unfinished until the Electoral College casts its votes and Congress certifies that count, no matter what the administrator does or says. However, it was a misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes to regard those post-Election Day procedures  steps that officially cement Americans' pick for president  as an opportunity to defy the will of the voters without providing compelling evidence of error or fraud. Hours after that tweet, Trump called reporters to a White House briefing room. He gave one-minute remarks about the economy and exited the room without taking questions from reporters. As he walked out, journalists shouted questions about his lack of a concession, and the president did not acknowledge them, White House footage of the event showed. White House footage In short, while a government agency under Trump's administration for the first time officially acknowledged Biden the "apparent president-elect" in a letter that grants him access to federal assets before his swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20, 2021, it is false to claim that Trump had conceded defeat to the president-elect. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In September 2020, social media users began circulating a text meme charting the decrease in abortion rates in the U.S. during previous presidential administrations, attributing the greater drop in those rates during Democratic administrations to a difference in approach (i.e., making it illegal vs. making it unnecessary):     As we noted in an earlier article on a similar topic, following the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that protected a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction, the abortion rate rose immediately afterward until it peaked in the 1980s, and it has fairly consistently declined since that peak through presidential administrations of both parties: article Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace.     Although it is true that the abortion rate has experienced greater declines during Democratic administrations than Republican ones, we can't draw any definitive conclusion that, as the meme tries to suggest, this difference is primarily due to varying approaches by the two main political parties. The simple idea presented by the meme has a number of flaws, chief among them that political factors that might influence the abortion rate (e.g., policies, legislation, judicial appointments and rulings) do not neatly conform to presidential terms of office -- what takes place during one administration generally continues to have an effect throughout subsequent administrations. As well, events occurring at state and local levels (not necessarily directly tied to federal actions) can have a substantial impact on the availability and prevalence of abortions. More important, though, is that we cannot definitively determine to what extent political factors influence the abortion rate. As the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion-rights research organization) observed, recent declines in the abortion rate appear to have been driven not primarily by abortion restrictions but by a broader decline in pregnancies: observed Abortion restrictions target either individuals ability to access the procedure (such as by imposing coercive waiting periods and counseling requirements) or providers ability to offer it (such as through unnecessary and intentionally burdensome regulations). Any one of these restrictions could result in some people being forced to continue pregnancies they were seeking to end; this could, in theory, lower the abortion rate. With the available evidence, it is impossible to pinpoint exactly which factors drove recent declines, and to what degree. However, previous Guttmacher analyses have documented that abortion restrictions, while incredibly harmful at an individual level, were not the main driver of national declines in the abortion rate ... Rather, the decline in abortions appears to be part of a broader decline in pregnancies, as evidenced by fewer births over the same period. What's driving that decline in pregnancies, then? We don't know that for sure, either, but likely a combination of social, cultural, economic, medical, and political factors: combination Experts say the decline isnt due to a single cause, but rather a combination of several factors, including changing economics, delays in childbirth by women pursuing jobs and education, the greater availability of contraception, and a decline in teen pregnancies. The trend seen in the United States is also seen in much of the developed world, including Western Europe, said Dr. John Rowe, a professor at Columbia Universitys Mailman School of Public Health. One important factor driving this is the changing roles of women in society, Rowe said. In general women are getting married later in life, he explained. They are leaving the home and launching their families later. [Dr. Helen Kim, an associate professor at Northwestern Universitys Feinberg School of Medicine] said the concept of the ideal family size may be changing. There are shifts where having smaller families is a trend, she added. I cant speak on this as a sociologist, but this is what Ive seen among my peers and colleagues. One of the biggest factors is the decline in teen pregnancies, Rowe said. Thats good news ... And that makes a huge difference to their lives. The Guttmacher Institute posited a similar mix of factors to explain the decline in the abortion rate: Because both abortions and births [have] declined, it is clear that there were fewer pregnancies overall in the United States ... The big question is why. One possible contributing factor is contraceptive access and use. Since 2011, contraception has become more accessible, as most private health insurance plans are now required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket costs. In addition, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and private insurance coverage under the ACA, the proportion of women aged 1544 nationwide who were uninsured dropped more than 40% between 2013 and 2017. There is evidence that use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods -- specifically IUDs and implants -- increased through at least 2014, especially among women in their early 20s, a population that accounts for a significant proportion of all abortions Another possible contributing factor might be a decline in sexual activity. Findings from one national survey suggest a long-term increase in the number of people in the United States -- mostly younger men -- reporting not having sex in the past year. Yet another possibility is that infertility is increasing in the United States, thereby reducing the chances of getting pregnant and subsequently seeking to obtain an abortion. More generally, there are a host of other potential factors that could be driving declines in pregnancy rates, from individuals evolving desires about whether and when to become parents to peoples changing economic and social circumstances. Finally, it is possible that ... there could have been an increase in self-managed abortions happening outside of medical facilities, which the census would be unable to capture. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also offered a combination of potential explanations for lower abortion rates: combination Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. As we stated four years ago, "causation between the presidency and abortion rates [is] difficult to demonstrate in any case, because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement." That observation remains true today. Carroll, Linda and Shamard Charles, M.D.  "Americans Aren't Making Enough Babies to Replace Ourselves."
  NBC News.  13 January 2019. Nash, Elizabeth and Joerg Dreweke.  "The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver."
  Guttmacher Institute.  18 September 2019. Kasprak, Alex.  "Abortion Rates Fall During Democratic Administrations and Rise During Republican Ones."
  Snopes.com.  11 November 2016. On Jan. 7, 2021, a day after a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., a picture started circulating on social media that supposedly showed damage done to the Oval Office:   This is not a genuine photograph of a desecrated Oval Office, and the picture predates the riot. It should also be noted that the Oval Office is located in the White House, not the Capitol. While the Capitol was vandalized during the riot, no damage was done to the White House.  The above-displayed picture has been circulating online since at least November 2020 when it was shared on social media along with messages mocking U.S. President Donald Trump in the wake of his election loss to President-elect Joe Biden.  This image was created by Nick den Boer, an animator, director, and digital artist who posts on social media under the handle @smearballz. This image, along with three others depicting a tarnished Oval Office, was originally posted on Twitter on Nov. 8, 2020, (the day after Biden was declared the winner of the presidential election) along with the caption: "Aftermath." Nick den Boer declared the winner  Another set of similar images depicting a trashed Oval Office was posted to @Smearballs Instagram page in November 2019. Den Boer explained to us that the above-displayed images are all 3D models of the Oval Office.  Instagram page While this is a digital creation that does not depict any actual damage done to the Oval Office, the Capitol was truly vandalized during a mob riot that included the deaths of five people. deaths of five people NBC News reported: reported Hundreds of President Donald Trump's supporters swarmed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, leaving the halls of Congress with broken windows, vandalized walls and ransacked offices. Among the wreckage were pieces of broken furniture, battered doors and heaps of trash littering the hallway floors. A thick film of dust and tear gas residue remained throughout the building that contains the Senate and the House of Representatives. Stolen and damaged items were reported in elected officials' offices, including the wood and gold placard above House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office. Updated [8 January 2021]: Article updated to credit the original artist. A fake tweet mocked up to look like it was written by former U.S. President Barack Obama went viral, likely because if it were real, it would have represented quite a clap back. The image, posted on March 31, 2022, is a screenshot of what looks like Obama's verified Twitter account and a tweet that states, "I think most Americans would agree that I'm a level-headed individual, not a man who's prone to indulging in conspiracy theories. I've certainly had a fair number directed at me. But has anyone checked to make sure Donald Trump doesn't have a Russian birth certificate?" posted   birther The tweet also plays on news stories that took off after Trump took office, reporting the latter's campaign had received help from the Russian government. When Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, Trump referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin's military strategy as "genius." stories referred The Obama tweet doesn't appear on his Twitter timeline, nor does it appear on PolitiWoops, a database of deleted tweets by political figures operated by the non-profit news organization ProPublica.