"Did Someone Send a Uterus to the Supreme Court? Trending TikTok Story Takes Off"
In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and ended 50 years of constitutionally protected abortion rights. While many people took to the streets to protest the ruling, others used social media to share fantasy scenarios of protesting by other means. On TikTok, for example, some people fantasized about someone mailing their uterus to the Supreme Court as an act of protest: overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision   While the above-displayed video described a potential future action ("I need to mail" vs. "I mailed"), other TikTok users shared videos claiming that someone had indeed followed through with this action.   While a number of TikTok users claimed that someone literally sent their uterus to the Supreme Court, there's no actual evidence that this happened.  Protests against the Supreme Court in the wake of the Roe v. Wade ruling garnered plenty of coverage by mainstream media outlets. If someone truly had one if their organs removed, put it in a box, sent their innards to the Supreme Court, and there were actual evidence of this, there would certainly be news coverage of the incident. However, no credible news outlets have filed any such reports.  Roe v. Wade While there are plenty of videos on TikTok of people making this claim, none of them contain images of the alleged package or the identity of the alleged sender. In fact, most of the TikTok videos that we viewed involve imagining what it would be like for an employee of the Supreme Court to open such a package.     The claim that someone mailed their uterus to the Supreme Court is part of a larger trend on TikTok involving users claiming that some extreme action was taken by someone to protest the abortion ruling. For example, another string of videos claimed (without evidence) that the several Supreme Court justices had had their credit card numbers leaked. Social media users also claimed (without evidence) that the IP addresses of the justices had been leaked.  another string of videos claimed also claimed (without evidence) that the IP addresses Sources: Fact Check: Posted IP Addresses NOT Linked To 5 Supreme Court Judges -- They Belong To Unrelated Entities | Lead Stories. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/06/fact-check-ip-addresses-not-linked-to-five-supreme-court-justices.html. Accessed 30 June 2022. Sullivan, Becky. With Roe Overturned, State Constitutions Are Now at the Center of the Abortion Fight. NPR, 29 June 2022. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1108251712/roe-v-wade-abortion-ruling-state-constitutions.
In a debate where he appeared alongside an empty lectern, Democrat Jon Ossoff attacked his absent Republican opponent, saying Georgia Sen. David Perdue hasnt been accessible to his constituents and has sold his time for donations from political action committees. Perdue hasn't held a single public town hall meeting in six years, OssoffdeclaredDec. 6. He openly sells access for corporate PAC checks. He sells four meetings a year and a retreat on a private island for a $7,500 corporate PAC check. Perdues campaign manager hasindicatedthe first-term senator wont do any debates with Ossoff ahead of their Jan. 5 runoff election. Along with another Georgia runoff the same day, which pits Democrat Raphael Warnock against GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler, the race will determine which party controls the Senate. As for town halls, Perdues Senate office did not cite any that Perdue has held. Ossoffs claim about donor access refers to asolicitationfor a Perdue campaign fundraising event. That invitation shows political action committees that contributed $7,500 annually (not a single contribution) would qualify to attend quarterly events and an annual sea island retreat. A town hall, as its typically understood, is a meeting that is publicized in advance and open to the public, in which the elected representative answers questions from members of the public that are not screened. Traditionally, these have been in-person events, but particularly since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, more have been held online. We found no evidence that Perdue has held such a meeting, and his office didnt offer any. Ossoff has been making the town halls claim about Perdue since at least August, and we found several media reports about Perdue not holding public forums. In May, the student-run Harvard Political Reviewreportedthat Perdue had not held any town halls since he took office in January 2015. Atlanta TV station WGCLreportedin August about Perdues lack of accessibility to the public, and noted the Harvard story. In September, Atlanta TV station WXIA referred in a newsreportto a 2017 Perdue event that drew protesters. It didnt describe the event, but said Perdue hasnt held a town hall since then. Perdues staff did not respond to those reporters for those stories. But in 2017, Perduetoldreportershe had held impromptu town hall meetings while making an unannounced visit to the state Capitol, and that he prefers holding meetings with individuals or small groups. The nonprofit Town Hall Project told PolitiFact that Perdue has not held a public town hall since it began tracking town halls held by members of Congress in January 2017. The project uses staff and volunteer researchers to track lawmakers public schedules, subscribe to their newsletters, follow them on social media and visit their websites, said executive director Nathan Williams. Accordingto the Town Hall Project, a meeting is a town hall if it is open to the public and the press; announced with at least 24 hours notice; and has at least 30 minutes of open questions and answers; that is, the questions are not screened. Perdue's Senate office told PolitiFact that he regularly participates in public events and local visits to hear directly from constituents. The office did not cite any town hall event, either in person or online, but said Perdue has held constituent conference calls since taking office, includingweeklycalls during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its not clear whether those calls were publicized in advance or whether constituents were allowed to ask Perdue questions that werent screened by staff. His office didnt comment on those issues. To back the second part of Ossoffs claim, his campaign cited atwo-parttweet from Dave Levinthal, who was then an editor-at-large for the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics and is now a Washington correspondent for Business Insider. The June 5, 2019, tweet showed images of an invitation to a Perdue fundraising event the same day that was hosted byPerdueVictory, a joint fundraising committee of Perdues campaign and One GeorgiaPAC, which is affiliated with Perdue. The invitation solicited annual donations at three levels from individuals and political action committees for the Boardroom, an effort helping Perdues 2020 re-election run. At the top level, called Chairman, a PAC donating $7,500 per year or an individual donating $5,400 per year would be invited to an annual retreat at Sea Island, aprivatecommunity on St. Simons Island in Georgia, including a reception at Perduesresidence; invitations to special events throughout the year; quarterly events; and an end-of-year thank you. Images of a fund-raising solicitation to support Sen. David Perdue's reelection campaign were posted on Twitter by journalist Dave Levinthal:  The invitation did not say whether Perdue would be at all the events. Perdues office did not comment on the fundraising solicitation, and his campaign did not respond to requests for comment. WXIA-TVreportedin February 2020 that on Feb. 13, 2019, Perdue attended a meeting of his Boardroom donors, and did not attend a Senatehearingheld at the same time by two Armed Services subcommittees on substandard military housing at Georgias Fort Benning and other facilities nationwide. Perdue is a member of one of the subcommittees. Perdues office released a statement saying the senator has taken strong action to improve military housing at bases in Georgia, but didnt address his scheduling on Feb. 13, 2019, according to the news report. Ossoff said Perdue hasn't held a single public town hall meeting in six years and sells four meetings a year and a retreat on a private island for a $7,500 corporate PAC check. Perdues office said the senator has held weekly conference calls with constituents. But we found no evidence that Perdue has held a town hall  a meeting publicized in advance, open to the public and allowing the public to ask him unscreened questions  since he took office in January 2015. An invitation to a 2019 campaign fundraising event for Perdue offered political action committees that made an annual donation of $7,500 access to an annual retreat at Perdues residence in a private community on St. Simons Island, Ga., as well as access to  quarterly meetings and other events, though it was not clear whether Perdue himself would attend each event. We rate the statement Mostly True. This fact check is available at IFCNs 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Clickhere, for more. In February 2023, we looked into a new Target PS5 scam email that claimed recipients had won a brand new Sony PlayStation 5 gaming console. However, this was a scam, and a potentially dangerous one, at that. The subject line in the emails read, "You have won a PlayStation 5." The messages came from an email address with the display name "Target PS5."Target and Sony had no involvement in the scam. Their company names and logos were being used without authorization. [See also:Did Walmart Employees Hide a PS5 Stash for Themselves?] Did Walmart Employees Hide a PS5 Stash for Themselves? The body of the email misleadingly said that all users needed to do was answer some survey questions to "win a brand new PlayStation 5." It will take you only a minute to receive this fantastic prize. PlayStation 5. Target. Answer & Win: A Brand New PlayStation 5. Get Started Now. Congratulations! You have been chosen to participate in our Loyalty Program for FREE! It will take you only a minute to receive this fantastic prize. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you may unsubscribe by clicking here. The link in the email led to a 15-question survey on orientgrounds.info, a brand new website that was registered on Feb. 14, according to GoDaddy.com. After those 15 questions, the scam led to win.myluckyprizes.com/ps5/checkout.php. This website, myluckyprizes.com, was also fairly new and had been created in January 2023. Records showed that it was registered on a Vietnamese domain registrar. We had already seen plenty of signs that this Target PS5 email was a scam, and the Vietnamese registration was yet another red flag that none of this was legitimate. On myluckyprizes.com, the website asked for the user's name, mailing address, phone number, and email address. It then asked for a credit card number and claimed the financial information was needed to charge $7.95 to be entered to win the PS5. asked for a credit card number We found no pages for a terms of service or privacy policy on myluckyprizes.com. We also didn't see a parent company name or any other identifying details. Further, attempts to load the homepage of myluckyprizes.com failed with a "403 Forbidden" error. If any readers fell for this scam and gave away a credit card number, we recommend that they immediately contact their credit card company to let them know what happened. The credit card company can best advise on what to do next. A new credit card number may need to be issued through the mail. The reason for this precaution is that scammers sometimes try to use credit card information days, weeks, or even months after they get their hands on it. "WHOIS Domain Lookup." GoDaddy.com, https://www.godaddy.com/whois. On 24 December 2015, the following meme was published to the Facebook group "MCM [Movie Comic Media] EXPO GROUP." It held that two police officers from Georgia were responsible for a multitude of crimes, including the deaths of more than 250 civilians:  THIS IS HUGE!!!! Why isn't the mainstream media covering this? These two officers in Georgia have killed over 250 people in the line of duty. The officer on the left, Shane Walsh, has killed 41 people in the line of duty, before being killed in cold blood on a cold fall night by his very own partner and best friend on the right, Rick Grimes, back in late 2011. This was due to a custody dispute and argument over who was the better father and lover to Rick's wife, Lori Grimes, who slept with Deputy Walsh several times and was believed to be pregnant with Deputy Walsh's child as well. If that's not bad enough, Deputy Grimes is still allowed to keep his position as a Georgia full-time deputy sheriff and holds custody over his son Carl and his recently deceased wife Lori and Shane Walsh's child Judith. Rick is an unstable father and has killed over 200 people in the line of duty. It's time to speak up and against people like this. While the post, and its accompanying image, were recognizable to many social media users in the United States as a description of the zombie-themed television and graphic novel seriesThe Walking Dead, its appearance in a European group led to some confusion among users unfamiliar with the show. The post was shared tens of thousands of times, and comments included the following: Demented and evil America. Where murderers in the police and other forces are decorated. And celebrated by US government and politicians. I swear the guy on the right is from love actually x As a matter of fact, Andrew Lincoln, the British actor who plays one ofmain characters in The Walking Dead, did indeed have a role in the movieLove Actually. role While most viewers appeared to have shared the post as a joke,manywere genuinely concerned about the two murderous cops and their increasing body count in a fictional, post-apocalyptic Georgia. In mid-November 2015, many Internet users became aware that Google returned an interesting search result to those who asked the search engine if farting burned calories: aware    Although Google may return the results shown above to such a query, the source the search engine cited for this information, a Facebook page called "F A C T," does not offer any evidence proving this claim. In fact, the only source provided by "F A C T" was Google itself: "Google is your friend if you think these facts are false." page The Facebook page "F A C T," however, didn't pull this number out of thin air. The claim that a single fart burns approximately 67 calories has been floating around the internet since at least 2009, when an Internet troll responded to a question on ChaCha thusly:  question How many calories does farting burn? The amount of calories burned by farting would depend on how long the fart lasts and how much energy you use to do it. Some people believe you can burn up to 67 calories by releasing gas. It should be noted that similar inquiries posed via ChaCha also prompted answers of less than one calorie, not very many calories, and no calories. less not very many no So how many calories do you burn during a single fart? Unsurprisingly, we weren't able to uncover much scientific research on the subject. But according to a post on the web site Fat Loss School, the number is much lower than 67: number Some people get a bit desperate when it comes to weight loss. They start wondering which of their daily activities burns enough calories to warrant increasing the frequency. We get questions about calorie consumption in a host of different scenarios. But perhaps the strangest question posed to date is: how many calories do you burn by farting? If you take a moment to think about this, the answer is rather obvious: none! When you fart, your muscles relax and the gas pressure in your bowels do all the work in expelling the gas. The only way you would achieve a measureable figure in the calories burned farting is if you really strained yourself to the limit. Sitting in front of a mock pharmacy and flanked by people in white lab coats, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders on July 24, 2020, that he framed as end-all solutions for Americans who struggle to pay high premium prices for prescription drugs. Of one of the directives, specifically, Trump told a crowd of supporters and reporters at the ceremony: told Under this order, the price of insulin for affected patients will come down to just pennies a day  pennies a day from numbers that you werent even able to think about. Its a massive cost savings. News outlets such as The New York Times and Washington Post described the signing event like it was largely symbolic, since the executive orders are unlikely to take effect this year, if at all (we explain more below). The New York Times Washington Post Meanwhile, at least two conservative media sources, Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire and CNSNews  which claims to balance "liberal bias" in mainstream news with its coverage  reported on the president's pledge to slash prescription prices at face value, and highlighted the above-mentioned quote by Trump regarding insulin. Daily Wire CNSNews published the story, "Trump Says Executive Order Will Drop the Price of Insulin Down to Pennies a Day," which mainly quoted the president verbatim, and numerous Snopes readers reached out to us to investigate the claim's accuracy. Namely, diabetic patients wondered whether they would indeed pay less for insulin syringes or insulin cartridges for their pens or pumps because of the president. story pens   According to a Congressional analysis in September 2019, insulin averaged $34.75 per dose in the U.S.  a total that's almost 2.5 times higher than the average price in other countries. First, we'll lay out what was unequivocally true: Trump issued Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications during the July 24, 2020, signing event, and that directive authorized the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make certain changes regarding the cost of EpiPens for Americans with severe allergies and the cost of insulin for those who suffer from diabetes, specifically. It stated: Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications Department of Health and Human Services EpiPens The price of insulin in the United States has risen dramatically over the past decade. ... While Americans with diabetes and severe allergic reactions may have access to affordable insulin and injectable epinephrine through commercial insurance or Federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, many Americans still struggle to purchase these products. Medicare Medicaid Here's some more context: Medicare, the federal program that covers the majority of Americans over age 65 and those with disabilities, offers plans that help diabetic patients cover the cost of some insulin products. Meanwhile, policies for Medicaid, the government-run health insurance system for low-income people, vary state by state  variances that include whether or not the program covers the cost of diabetic enrollees' insulin, or to what extent. state by state Trump's directive pertained to "federally qualified health centers" (FQHC), which are about 1,400 community health care clinics nationwide that treat low-income patients on sliding fee scales and purchase discounted drugs from pharmaceutical companies under an existing federal program, known as 340B. The July 2020 executive order was worded like this: federally qualified health centers 1,400 340B   In other words, the president's order requires participants of the 340B Program to offer insulin at greatly reduced prices to patients with no or little insurance coverage, without providing specifics on how or when the change would take effect. Advisory Board, a news site for health care providers, said in a statement: "Only patients with low incomes; those with high cost-sharing requirements for insulin or epinephrine; those with high, unmet deductibles; and/or those without health insurance would be eligible for the discount." A news release from the HHS said: statement news release This will increase access to life-saving insulin and epinephrine for the patients who face especially high costs among the 28 million patients who visit FQHCs every year, over six million of whom are uninsured. For perspective, about 34.2 million Americans had diabetes as of 2018, which represented about 10.5 percent of the population, according to the American Diabetes Association. So, hypothetically, if the same proportion of people had diabetes within the FQHC population of 28 million patients (a total reported by the HHS), then Trump's executive order could help about 2.9 million people, depending on whether their insurance already covers the treatment. American Diabetes Association So to recap, in regard to the claim in question, it was true to state Trump signed an executive order in July 2020 that aimed to make it easier for low-income diabetic patients to pay for insulin. But nowhere in the federal document did the presidential administration explain its plan for implementing the change, nor the level to which insulin prices would drop. There was no proof that the order would allow any American to someday pay "pennies a day" on the protein hormone. We should note here: In addition to that previously explained executive order, a separate directive signed by Trump on July 24, 2020, touched on a yet-to-be-finalized initiative by the White House to relax international drug importation rules and added insulin to a list of prescription medications that can be imported from Canada. The president characterized that directive, too, as a positive step for people who want lower insulin costs. separate directive yet-to-be-finalized And that brings us to our final point: Much of what Trump celebrated in the July 2020 executive orders had been proposed by his administration prior to the signing ceremony but stalled amid opposition from pharmaceutical companies and political barriers. "[None] of these ideas put forth are new, or in fact any more implementable than before, especially without congressional action, an investor told FeircePharma, a trade publication for the pharmaceutical industry. FeircePharma For instance, in May 2020, Trump unveiled a plan to cap the cost of insulin for Medicare recipients at $35 per month beginning in 2021 (even that initiative would cost patients more than "pennies a day"). But as of this writing, it was unclear exactly how that directive would roll out, and when or if qualifying seniors with diabetes would notice a price difference. The Washington Post reported on July 24, 2020: May 2020 Washington Post The moves [by Trump] are largely symbolic because the orders are unlikely to take effect anytime soon, if they do so at all, because the power to implement drug pricing policy through executive order is limited. Voters will not see an impact before the November elections, and the drug industry is sure to challenge them in court. A couple days after the July signing ceremony, for example, Politico reported that representatives of major drug lobbies refused to meet with the president to discuss one of the four executive orders: a non-specific and controversial proposal to link Medicare payments for certain medicines to lower costs that people pay in other countries. After that refusal on industry leaders' part, investors told MarketWatch that the executive orders were "largely campaign fodder" and "come without the necessary force to meaningfully change prices in the U.S."  Politico reported meet controversial MarketWatch In sum, while it was truthful to claim Trump issued an executive order in July 2020 that was intended to lower the price of insulin for some Americans, it was misleading to claim that all diabetic patients would save money as a result of the directive  the directive only targeted low-income patients who are uninsured or underinsured and seek help from certain federal community health providers. Additionally, it was unclear as of this report when, if at all, that group would actually reap the benefit of the cost savings, and the estimated amount of such was unknown. It would be wrong to state based on available evidence that the executive order alone would drive down prices to "pennies a day." For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. White House. "Executive Order On Access To Affordable Life-saving Medications".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Lowering Prices For Patients by Eliminating Kickbacks To Middlemen".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Increasing Drug Importation To Lower Prices For American Patients".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Remarks By President Trump At Signing Of Executive Orders On Lowering Drug Prices".
 24 July 2020. Sanger-Katz, Margot. "As He Woos Drugmakers On Virus, Trump Demands Drug Price Controls".
 New York Times. 24 July 2020. Arter, Melanie. "Trump Says Executive Order Will Drop the Price of Insulin Down to Pennies a Day".
 CNSNews. 24 July 2020. National Conference of State Legislatures. "Diabetes Health Coverage: State Laws And Programs".
 10 January 2016. HHS.gov. "Trump Administration Announces Historic Action To Lower Drug Prices For Americans".
 24 July 2020. American Diabetes Association. "Statistics About Diabetes".
 Accessed 30 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Increasing Drug Importation To Lower Prices For American Patients".
 24 July 2020. Luhby, Tami. "Trump Administration Proposes Allowing Imports Of Certain Drugs From Canada".
 CNN. 18 December 2019. O'Donnell, Carl. "Explainer: Trump's Plan To Cut Drug Prices".
 Reuters. 27 July 2020. Abutaleb, Yasmeen and Josh Dawsey. "Trump Signs Executive Orders Aimed At Lowering Drug Prices In Largely Symbolic Move".
 Washington Post. 24 July 2020. Cohen, Joshua. "Trump's Executive Orders On Drug Pricing Contain Caveats And Limitations".
 Forbes. 25 July 2020. Ways And Means Committee Staff. "A Painful Pill To Swallow: U.S. Vs. International Prescription Drug Prices".
 September 2019. Reklaitis, Victor. "Trump's Meeting With Pharma Execs Called Off, As Analysts Say His Moves On Drug Prices Lack Bite". Prestigiacomo, Amanda. "Trump Issues Executive Orders To Slash Insulin, EpiPen Prices; End 'Global Freeloading'.
 The Daily Wire. 27 July 2020. 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 As hospitals continued to be overwhelmed in 2020 by a surge in COVID-19 cases across the United States, false information surrounding the management of the disease and patients continued to circulate. overwhelmed One post in particular, shared on our Facebook group, Snopes Tips, claimed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a statement alleging that "anyone who walks into the hospital is counted as a Covid case, no matter why they come to the hospital, as the government pays the hospital extra money. post  There are two parts to this claim: Firstly, that hospitals are inflating their COVID-19 numbers, and secondly, that the government is allocating more funds based on coronavirus cases. Snopes covered the second part of the claim back in April. We learned that it was possible that Medicare was paying hospital fees for some COVID-19 cases, but Medicare stated that it does not make standard, one-size-fits-all payments to hospitals for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and placed on ventilators. covered The CDC highlighted in a statement how the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES), the Paycheck Protection Program, and Health Care Enhancement Act provided $175 billion in relief funds to hospitals and healthcare providers on the front lines of the coronavirus response: highlighted In the first round of the High Impact Allocation, $12 billion was distributed to nearly 400 hospitals who provided inpatient care for 100 or more COVID-19 patients through April 10, 2020. $2 billion of these payments was distributed to these hospitals based on their Medicare disproportionate share and uncompensated care payments. In the second round of funding, $10 billion will be distributed to hospitals having over 161 COVID-19 admissions between January 1 and June 10, 2020. For the first part of the claim, we looked through CDC statements and reports about people admitted to hospitals around the country and were unable to find a case where the CDC said that the hospital was inflating its COVID-19 case numbers in order to get more money. We reached out to the CDC, and the agency referred us to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but did not confirm whether it had ever made such a statement about hospitals counting everyone who enters as a COVID-19 case. U.S. President Donald Trump promoted another version of this conspiracy theory at a rally in October, where he said hospitals were inflating the numbers of COVID-19 deaths, and was roundly debunked by news outlets and rejected in a statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians.  promoted debunked statement To imply that emergency physicians would inflate the number of deaths from this pandemic to gain financially is offensive, especially as many are actually under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19. These baseless claims not only do a disservice to our health care heroes but promulgate the dangerous wave of misinformation which continues to hinder our nations efforts to get the pandemic under control and allow our nation to return to normalcy. The dire situation in hospitals paints a very different picture, far-removed from claims that they are profiting financially from the pandemic. A New York Times report from Nov. 27, 2020, highlighted how surging coronavirus numbers were resulting in a crisis-level shortage of beds and staff around the country. In some cases, hospitals were facing shortages in protective equipment, forcing healthcare workers to buy their own. As of Dec. 3, 2020, hospitalizations from the virus topped 100,000  an all-time high since the pandemic began.  New York Times Dec. 3, 2020 An April Washington Post report described how hospitals were also suffering from financial losses on account of their deferring or cancelling non-urgent surgeries to free up bed space for the pandemic, cutting off income, and forcing them to lay off workers. At the time, relief packages for hospitals were widely described as insufficient. Washington Post financial losses insufficient Hospital-reported data on COVID-19 patients have addressed a range of issues around the country. A July 2020 ProPublica report detailed how the Trump administration had told hospitals to stop reporting data to the CDC and instead report it to HHS. The move resulted in widespread confusion. While the number of infected patients was soaring nationally, for a period of time it was unclear how many were being treated in hospitals for COVID-19. A few states like Idaho and South Carolina experienced temporary information blackouts, and the COVID Tracking Project reported issues with its figures. July 2020 A Nov. 29, 2020, investigation by the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) magazine found the federal system for tracking COVID-19 patients was continuing to carry questionable data. HHS collected hospital patient data in two ways  through HHS Protect, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Their two sources of data on the usage of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds for COVID patients conflicted sharply in at least six states. HHS data also diverged sharply from state-supplied data, and showed that over the last two months, COVID-19 in-patient tally in 14 states was consistently lower than HHS Protects. investigation consistently In at least 27 states, the tally was alternating between being lower and higher than HHS. And recently, in 16 states, the tallies grew closer. The over-arching conclusion for this analysis was that hospitals are going to be over-stressed in the upcoming months, with inaccurate information systems in place. We have reached out to the HHS to learn more, and will update this post with more information. Additionally, if the language of the claim is taken at face value, CDC guidance for hospitals references providing necessary in-person clinical services for conditions other than COVID-19 in the safest way possible, minimizing disease transmission to patients [...]. This leads to the conclusion that the CDC itself is not stating that hospitals are classifying everyone who walks in as a COVID-19 case. guidance While it is true that the government did provide relief funds in various forms for COVID-19 cases to hospitals in need of aid, little evidence exists that numbers were being inflated by hospitals for this reason. We thus rate this claim as false. Claim:  A college student bursts into his dorm room naked to play a crude prank on his roommate, not realizing that his girlfriend and her parents are waiting inside the room. LEGEND Example:  [Brunvand, 1986] Two roommates had taken to pulling crude pranks on each other in the dorm.  It happened that one lazy Sunday afternoon one of the roommates had gone down the hall from his room to take a shower. His fellow roommate was in the room studying when there was a knock on the door and the showering roommate's father, who had driven down for a visit, came in bringing with him the girlfriend of the showerer and his mother. The folks were quite naturally invited into the room and they commenced to chat. The other roommate was quite taken with the girlfriend, and he did not go and get his friend, likely assuming he would return soon  which he did. He was clad only in a towel, which he threw off as [he] opened the door and barged in; with his hand gripping his penis, he screamed, "Bang, bang; you're dead!"1  Variations:   Some versions (such as the example quoted above) suggest that the second roommate deliberately does not give the returning showerer any warning because he has designs on his roommate's girlfriend himself.  In another variation the showerer has two roommates and thus is not tipped off by the sounds of conversation issuing from the room when he returns.  Some variants involve the showerer wrapping his towel around his head and shouting with a foreign accent as he enters the room.  One variant describes a student who strips naked and hides inside the closet of his girlfriend's dormitory room.  He jumps out of the closet when he hears someone enter the room, only to discover that the new arrival is the fire inspectors and not his girlfriend. Origins:   A   quaint legend from an era when same-sex dormitories and chaperoned visits were the norm, and impressing your girl's parents was the most important part of the dating ritual (after impressing your girl, of course).  Embarrassing yourself in front of your girl's parents (and your girl to boot) was the ultimate in dating disasters, and what could be more humiliating than being caught acting goofy while naked? In the following years, when we began to admit that young, unmarried people actually engaged in sex (but we still didn't condone it), we developed a few answers to that "What could be more humiliating?" question.  We had the Blind Date legend, in which a young man's intentions of engaging in sex were inadvertently revealed to his date's father, then the Fete Worse Than Death legend, in which both boyfriend and girlfriend are caught participating in sexual foreplay in front of a host of friends and relatives. Blind Date Fete This legend is now a mostly moribund relic of a time when sexual attitudes were less liberal, superseded by tales of adults caught engaging in "unusual" (and formerly unmentionable) sexual practices which still have the power to shock or titillate some listeners. Last updated:  16 June 2011 The Mexican Pet    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Baby Train.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1993.   ISBN 0-393-31208-9   (pp. 305-307). The Baby Train    Zelkind, Andrew.  "Fun on Campus."   News-Chronicle.  12 April 1986  (p. B3). The Big Book of Urban Legends Recently, activists have shown up at Hillary Clintons campaign events to urge her to bring back Glass-Steagall. What is Glass-Steagall? Its the Depression-era bank regulation that kept different types of financial institutions separate; then-President Bill Clinton signed legislation reversing it in 1999. Some Glass-Steagall supporters argue that its demiseled to the 2007 financial crisis, and some Democrats have put a good amount of effort into restoring it -- such as presidential candidates Martin OMalley and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. But Hillary Clintonwon't pledge to reinstateGlass-Steagall if she becomes president. And Bill Clinton says criticism over the laws repeal is unfounded. Look at all the grief I got for signing the bill that ended Glass-Steagall, Bill Clinton said in an interview with Inc. magazinefor its September issue.There's not a single, solitary example that it had anything to do with the financial crash. Given the significant attention on Glass-Steagall among Democrats, we wondered if its true that it didnt have anything to do with the financial crash. Our research shows the laws demise was part of a broad deregulatory push that greatly contributed to the financial crisis. But Clinton has a point that a direct line from the 1999 repeal to the market crash in 2007-08 is hard to identify. Too big to fail Congress passed Glass-Steagall in 1933, in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash that led to the Great Depression. The law kept commercial banks (where customers deposit money and take out loans) separate from investment firms (which hold securities and make investments) -- more colloquially, the law separated Main Street from Wall Street. Some experts and lawmakers want to keep these kinds of activities separate, because theyre worried that merging them could put the publics money at risk. Heres a simple hypothetical: A bank merges with an investment firm to create a massive company. The investment side makes a huge bet on an investment that fails big time, so the commercial bank sides money -- money individuals have deposited for safe-keeping -- could be at risk. Because those deposits are federally insured, it might require a government bailout. (Think too-big-to-fail.) Supporters of the law say keeping these activities separate prevents this kind of domino effect. Is this what caused the most recent financial crisis? Theres plenty of room for debate here, given that thereisnt a single what-caused-the-crisis narrativethat every economist accepts. Its safe to say, though, that there is not a prominent group of economists who argue but for the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall, the crisis would not have happened. Lawrence White, an economist at New York University, doesnt see Glass-Steagall playing any role in the financial crisis whatsoever. He pointed to the crisis biggest culprits: firms such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs and AIG, to name a few. He added that much of the crisis hinged on activity by these institutions that would have been possible with or without Glass-Steagall, such as mass investment in notoriously bad mortgage loans. (Clintons staff linked us to commentary by several other experts who share Whites view.) We also contacted Barry Ritholtz, a wealth management expert and commentator, whosaidGlass-Steagall would have done nothing to stop the financial crisis, but not having it made the crisis worse. It encouraged banks to get bigger and to take on riskier investments, so the ripple effects of the crisis were bigger than they would have been otherwise, he said, adding that itwasnt just the headline-making banksthat struggled. The extent over Glass-Steagalls effect on the financial crisis is a topic on which reasonable people can disagree. More so in Clintons favor is the fact that Glass-Steagall was a shadow of its former self by the time 1999 rolled around. Deregulating like its 1999 A few decades out from the Depression, starting in earnest in the 1970s, there was a push to roll back financial regulations that continued throughout the administrations of former presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. As part of that movement, banks and lawmakers steadily chipped away at Glass-Steagall and took advantage of loopholes. Banks were engaging in the kinds of activity Glass-Steagall was intended to stop even though the law was still on the books. By the time Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act, commonly known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley, repealing the key components of Glass-Steagall in 1999, the regulation was nearly toothless. The law was simply catching up to what the market had already accomplished in the previous 10 to 15 years, said Kathleen Day, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and an expert in financial crises. Take for example the poster child of the end of Glass-Steagall: The merger of Citicorp, a bank, and Travelers Group, a financial conglomerate, was announced in 1998 before Glass-Steagall was repealed. Even though this was the exact type of merger Glass-Steagall was intended to halt, the financial industrydid not see many obstaclesfor the creation ofCitigroup. Citigroup and others wanted and got the repeal of Glass-Steagall in order to validate what they had already been allowed to do, said Simon Johnson, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. So the overall, decades-in-the-making decline of Glass-Steagall might have contributed to the financial crisis and its fallout, as it was part of the deregulatory push. But Clinton putting pen-to-paper on the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 probably didnt make any meaningful difference. But Clintons hands arent clean of the financial crisis, because his administration played no small part in the longer term deregulatory trend. Clinton and his administration did not make an earnest attempt to maintain oversight over the big, hybrid banks created by the demise of Glass-Steagall, Day said. Additionally, the administrations firm decision not to regulate other aspects of the financial market played a meaningful role in the crisis -- for example, the absence of regulations regarding over-the-counter derivatives, which were becoming increasingly prevalent,despite internal warnings. Clintons claim might be technically true, but its a sin of omission, Day said. Our ruling Clinton said, There's not a single, solitary example that signing the bill to end Glass-Steagall had anything to do with the financial crash. By focusing on the bill that officially repealed Glass-Steagall, Clinton's statement ignores the fact that the demise of Glass-Steagall took place over decades, amid a deregulatory push in which the Clinton administration played a role. By the time the law to repeal hit his desk, Glass-Steagall had been whittled down so much that it wasnt very meaningful. It's a matter of debate how much of a role the overall demise of Glass-Steagall had in causing the financial crisis, but we couldn't find any economists who argue that the regulation was the sole linchpin keeping the financial system stable until its official repeal in 1999. Overall, we rate Clintons claim Mostly True. Following the unexpected firing of Fox News personality Tucker Carlson on April 25, 2023, a flurry of claims  both old and new  about the conservative commentator went viral. One long-standing assertion regarding Carson is that his mother left him only $1 in her will: unexpected firing  The claim stems from documents produced amid a multi-generational legal dispute over the inheritance of mineral rights that had been left to Lombardi by her mother. Here, Snopes explains the controversy and the basis for rating the claim  Tucker Carlson's parents were Richard Carlson and Lisa Lombardi. Lombardi, an artist described by contemporaries as a "bohemian," came from several wealthy "pioneer families," including a man, Henry Miller, dubbed the "The Cattle King." At the time of Miller's death in 1916, he owned 3 million acres of rangeland in California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada. described pioneer families  Her family's ownership of this vast expanse declined over the years, but the family retained much of the land's mineral rights. In some cases, real estate transactions allow a person to sell land but retain rights to any profits generated by mining or drilling on the land. Lombardi inherited a portion of her family's mineral rights, which pay or paid out royalties in 1993, when her mother died. some cases Carlson's dad and Lombardi divorced in 1976, when Tucker was 6 years old. The elder Carlson was awarded full custody of both of their children, and Carlson had little to no relationship with his mom after the divorce. As reported ina profile of Carlson published by Insider, Lombardi "disappeared from her sons' lives," according to Carlson's childhood friends. a profile Carlson was later adopted by his father's second wife  Swanson frozen chicken heiress Patricia Swanson. adopted frozen chicken heiress Lombardi died on Oct. 14, 2011, while abroad in France with her husband. Just shy of a year later, a lawyer for Tucker and brother Buckley Carlson filed a petition in Kern County, California, for a court to rule on the succession of property owned by Lombardi. That court was entitled to rule on such a matter due to Lombardi's ownership of mineral rights in that county. on Oct. 14, 2011 With the agreement of Lombardi's surviving husband, Michael Vaughan, the court finalized a settlement ruling that Lombardi died "intestate" (without a will), and that property with mineral interests and royalty shares totaling about $129,684 would be distributed evenly between Vaughan and the two Carlson brothers. That ruling went into effect in July 2013. finalized a settlement After finding a hand-written will in 2013 leaving virtually all of her estate to Vaughn, however, Vaughan's family filed a petition in South Carolina, Lombardi's legal residence at the time of her death, to become the legal representative of Lombardi's estate and officially enter the will into probate. This handwritten document contains the instructions that Tucker and Buckley Carlson receive "one dollar each" at issue in viral claims: handwritten document  The Carlsons at firstobjected to the admission of this will into the South Carolina probate case, describing it as a potential forgery. In addition to instruction to give $1 to each of her estranged sons, the will also provided that Vaughan get all her property, including the aforementioned mineral rights: objected  The Carlsons dropped their challenge to the will's admission in South Carolina probate court. Kern County ultimately ruled that the will, while legally valid, could not affect the past distribution of settlement funds due to California probate law. ultimately ruled Copies of this will were included as exhibits in multiple attempts by Vaughn and other Lombardi family members to overrule the Kern County settlement based on several legal theories, including that the above will invalidated the previous settlement, that Lombardi never gained possession of some or all of the mineral rights in question, and that they were never part of her estate. This latter claim required lawyers for the estate of Lombardi's long-deceased mother to get involved in the dispute. Ultimately, Kern County denied these attempts, finding Vaughn bound by prior admissions in the original case and that the lack of timely admission of the will to the Kern County court was not the fault of the court system. In other words, the Carlson brothers got more than the $1 Lombardi's August 1995 will stipulated, and this decision has been affirmed several times. affirmed several times Just because the will did not affect the Kern County settlement does not mean the document is not valid or not Lombardi's authentic wishes. According to court testimony, Isabell Vaughan, one of Michael's daughters from a prior marriage, "discovered Lisa's handwritten will in Lisa's painting room and office" in the Fall of 2013. As described in an Insider profile: According described "Lisa was basically sort of a hippie and a free spirit," said one attorney who represented the Vaughan family and recalled having conversations about the case. "She was very liberal and she did not agree with Tucker's politics. But she stuck the will in the book, everyone forgot about it, and then she passed away." The Carlsons originally challenged the admission of that will in the South Carolina probate case, arguing that the will "was a forgery" and that Vaughn had already signed documents in Kern County indicating Lombardi left no will. Vaughn's lawyers hired a handwriting expert who concluded it was "highly probable" that the will was authored by Lombardi. The Carlsons voluntarily dropped their objection. originally challenged This left the admission of the will in Lombardi's South Carolina probate case without any objections or challenges. Legally speaking, then, that handwritten document is the last will and testament of Lombardi, and it effectively cut her estranged sons out of her inheritance. For that reason, the claim at issue in this story is true. In practice, however, the Kern County challenges made by Vaughan and their subsequent appeals  some of which were based in part on that will  have all been denied, and the Carlson brothers inherited a third of their estranged mothers mineral interests in spite of it. all been denied Bickel v. Carlson (In Re Estate of Vaughan), F077628 | Casetext Search + Citator. https://casetext.com/case/bickel-v-carlson-in-re-estate-of-vaughan. Accessed 26 Apr. 2023. Case N0. S-l 501-PB-62045: REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO VOID AND VACATE ORDER DETERMINING SUCCESSION. https://nimbus.kern.courts.ca.gov/case-file/Reply%20to%20Opposition?documentId=qx1M8G. Case No. S-1501-PB-62045 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO VOID AND VACATE ORDER DETERMINING SUCCESSION FILED BY REPRESENTATIVE OF ESTATE OF THE MOTHER OF DECEDENT. https://nimbus.kern.courts.ca.gov/case-file/Opposition%20to%20Motion?documentId=rk0JvW. KCSC Portal -- S1501PB62045 LISA M LOMBARDI DECEASED. https://portal.kern.courts.ca.gov/case-details/mYAlG. Accessed 26 Apr. 2023. "Mineral Rights on Property." Home Guides | SF Gate, https://homeguides.sfgate.com/mineral-rights-property-7961.html. Accessed 26 Apr. 2023. Sherman, Gabriel. "Tucker Carlson Was Blindsided by Fox News Firing." Vanity Fair, 24 Apr. 2023, https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04/tucker-carlson-fox-news-fired. Short, Aaron. "The Tucker Carlson Origin Story." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/the-tucker-carlson-origin-story-2022-5. Accessed 26 Apr. 2023. ---. "Tucker Carlson's Mother, Lisa McNear Lombardi, Was a Free-Spirited Artist Who Mostly Disappeared from His Life When He Was Six Years Old." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/meet-tucker-carlsons-mother-the-artist-lisa-mcnear-lombardi-2022-5. Accessed 26 Apr. 2023. In late 2021 and early 2022, critics of former U.S. President Donald Trump, primarily left-leaning, enthusiastically shared a social media post which appeared to add some credibility to long-standing rumors about him.  On Dec. 29, a jury in New York convicted English socialite Ghislaine Maxwell of assisting her longtime companion, the disgraced billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein, in procuring underage girls to be sexually abused, over a period of many years. Epstein died in prison in August 2019, while facing sex trafficking charges, in what the New York City medical examiner determined was a suicide.  convicted English socialite Ghislaine Maxwell died in prison Like other influential and well-connected politicians and businessmen, Trump knew and socialized with both Epstein and Maxwell, and he has long been the subject of so-far unsubstantiated rumors of sexual impropriety involving young women and even girls.  knew socialized rumors Against that background, @USAlight3, a Twitter account that regularly posts left-wing, anti-Trump content, wrote on Dec. 30: wrote "FOX NEWS: Trump vowed to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell if he wins in 2024."  The claim was that Fox News reported that Trump had said he would pardon Maxwell if he were elected as president again in 2024. In reality, Fox News had reported no such thing. Back in the summer of 2021, several outlets wrote about a snippet from Michael Wolff's book "Landslide" which alleged, based on unnamed sources, that Trump had mentioned Maxwell in the context of conversations about his presidential pardon power, before he left office in January 2021. Notably, Trump did not actually pardon Maxwell, even though the charges against her were well known by that time. We are issuing a rating of "false." wrote about well known By logical necessity, any "vow" by Trump to pardon Maxwell if he won election in 2024 would have to have taken place after President Joe Biden's election win in November 2020 (otherwise, Trump would have framed his intention in terms of a second term). We could find no such report on the website of Fox News during the period since Biden's victory. Nor did we find any similar reports from any other reputable news source. So the "2024" claim, in particular, was baseless. However, although unproven, the broader allegation that Trump has held an interest in pardoning Maxwell was at least based on some external source, namely Michael Wolff's 2021 book "Landslide." In it, Wolff describes the chaotic final days and weeks of Trump's presidency, and in one section, writes about Trump's approach to issuing pardons, as follows: Landslide Bored by the process and the details, Trump nevertheless, in the last week, would trawl for candidates, with sudden spurts of determination not to leave this power unused. Who do you think should be pardoned? Give me one personwhos your top pick? became a frequent conversational interruption. One "Oh, shit" moment involved his sudden interest in Ghislaine Maxwell, the former girlfriend of Jeffrey Epstein now facing years in prison over allegations of her role in the Epstein sex-abuse scandal. Trump had tried hard to downplay his own long relationship with Epstein Has she said anything about me? He openly wondered. Is she going to talk? Will she roll on anybody? But pardon talk almost immediately segued to the question of if he should pardon himself: They say I can. Unlimited pardon power. Wolff's putative sources are unnamed, so we cannot even begin to test the accuracy of that description. However, one thing we do know for certain is that Trump did not actually pardon Maxwell of anything while he was president, despite having the power and opportunity to do so.  did not Colson, Thomas. Trump Took a sudden Interest in Ghislaine Maxwell When Discussing Who to Pardon, According to a New Book. Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-ghislaine-maxwell-case-pardons-michael-wolff-book-2021-7. Accessed 4 Jan. 2022.