An examination of Bush-Cull with a focus on fact-checking.
FACT CHECK:  Area social media meme's "5 Things You Should Know About Jeb Bush" factually accurate? Claim:  A social media meme accurately detailsfive aspectsof Jeb Bush's record on women's issues.  MOSTLY Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2015]Facebook post citing "evils" committed by Jeb Bush - only 15.5 months togo with this....  Origins:  On 15 June 2015 the women's rights-focused group Ultraviolet published the above-displayed image, addressing the record of Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush, to their Facebook page. After many viewers questioned the veracity of the claims made about Bush and his record on women's issues, the post was edited to include supporting citations for its entries; but earlierversions of the post continued to circulate without it.The numbered claims and their attendant backgrounds are as follows: Appointed a guardian for the fetus of a rape victim.  This statement stemmed from a 2003 case involving a 22-year-old, severely developmentally disabled Florida woman who had been living in state-supervised facilities for most of her life. She had become pregnant after being raped while living in a group home and had no family to make decisions on her behalf;and (even though neither the woman herself nor anyone caring for her had sought to abort the fetus) Governor Bush stepped in and asked the court to intervene in this "uniquely troubling situation" and appoint a representative to protect the fetus's rights:Religious groups praised the governor's actions."If a guardian is appointed, there would be a clear recognition that there is a human being occupying that womb," said Brian Fahling, senior trial lawyer for the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy. "The governor has the constitutional duty to uphold the right to life."The Christian Coalition of Florida issued a statement in support of Mr. Bush. "The appropriate thing to do is allow the child an opportunity at life and prosecute the criminal who raped the helpless woman."Critics say the governor's actions are intended to keep the issue in the courts until the woman is in the third trimester of her pregnancy and can no longer obtain an abortion."Our take on this is that this woman's needs, her desires and her interests need to take precedence," said Bebe Anderson, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group. "If she is incompetent, someone else should represent her and her interests alone and make that decision for her."The critics also accuse Mr. Bush, a Republican, of trying to set a precedent in establishing legal protection for fetuses and of using the case to win political points with conservative groups.The governor said in his statement, "While others may interpret this case in light of their own positions, we see it as the singular tragedy it is, and remain focused on serving the best interests of this particular victim and her unborn child."Refused to veto a bill requiring single mothers to publish their sexual history.  The statement originated with the Florida Adoption Act of 2001 (more commonly known as "Bill 141" or the "Scarlet Letter" law), which overhauled the state's adoption regulations with the stated goal of trying to "provide greater finality once the adoption is approved, and to avoid circumstances where future challenges to the adoption disrupt the life of the child." The bill was inspired, in part, by the three-year fight over Baby Emily, whose father, a convicted rapist, had contested her adoption. (The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Emily's adoptive parents in 1995.)The law required that any woman who was planning to put her infant up for adoption but did not know the identity of the child's father first had to run newspaper advertisements once a week for a month in the community where the child might have been conceived disclosing their names, ages, height, hair and eye color, race and weight, the child's name and birthplace, a description of the possible father, and details of the dates and places of sexual encounters that might have produced the child.Advocates of the bill maintained that it protected the rights of men who may not have known they had fathered children and that it would "minimize last-minute challenges from a biological father, as well as challenges a father might bring after an adoption has been made legal," while critics contended that it was "draconian and humiliating," and that Governor Bush's failure to veto the bill indicated he supporting the "shaming" of women for their sexual activity.Although Jeb Bush had previously lamented the lack of social stigma for having children outside of marriage (writing in his 1995 book Profiles in Character that "one of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame"), he did not fully approve of Bill 141 and said that the state should not be "stigmatizing women":Gov. Jeb Bush [has] noted numerous problems with it. Officials in the governor's office say he supports an alternative way of protecting fathers' rights  one already in use in many other states. Called fathers' registries, this system permits men who believe they may have fathered a child to place their names on a confidential list, which must be checked during adoption proceedings."We should be making adoption easier, not more difficult, and not stigmatizing women who are trying to do the right thing," Bush spokeswoman Elizabeth Hirst told reporters in Tallahassee.  Gov. Bush also stated in a letter to Secretary of State Katherine Harris that he felt the bill put too much responsibility on the birth mother to locate the father, and while he did not veto the "Scarlet Letter" bill, neither did he sign it: He passively allowed it to become law in the expectation that legislators would revise the section requiring the publication of women's sexual histories"House Bill 141 does have its deficiencies," he wrote. "Foremost, in its effort to strike the appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities, there is a shortage of responsibility on behalf of the birth father that could be corrected by requiring some proactive conduct on his part."In fact, immediately after he let the Florida Adoption Act become law, Bush was advocating for fixes to it. The Florida House almost immediately passed a law that Bush considered a "better alternative." It cut back on women's reporting requirements and established a paternity registry, for example. These were state-maintained databases that allowed a man to register if he believed he may have fathered a child. Then, if that child were ever put up for adoption, the father would have been notified and he could have a say in the proceedings.  Governor Bush repealed the "Scarlet Letter" law in May 2003, signing a replacement measure that instituted the paternity registry mentioned above. The repeal had become something of a moot issue by then, however, as an appeals court had ruled the previous month that it was unconstitutional for the state to require women and underage girls to disclose their sexual histories, even in cases of consensual sex. Hired a staffer who called women "sluts."  The claim that Jeb Bush hired a staffer who called women "sluts" is true in a literal sense, although the staffer's employment by Bush was very short-lived, as he immediately left his position after the controversy about some of his several-year-old Tweets hit the news.This brouhaha originated with Jeb Bush's temporary hiring in February 2015 of Hipster.com co-founder Ethan Czahor as his Chief Technology Officer, in charge of handling the preparations for Bush's presidential run. Almost immediately after the hiring was announced, Czahor's Twitter history was dissected and shared by various media outlets. Among their findings were a handful of tweets published by Czahor in 2009 and 2010 in which he made insensitive remarks about women and used the word "sluts" in reference to them. A Bush spokesman quickly characterized the comments as "inappropriate" and indicated that Czahor had been directed to promptly delete them.One day later, Czahor resigned from his newly-assigned position and apologized for his previous remarks. Said low-income women should "get their lifetogether and find a husband."  As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information.The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three."  Although a generous interpretation of this statement might be to say that Jeb Bush was simply enumerating the several possibilities that (female) welfare recipients could avail themselves of after the expiration of their benefits, he made it clear later that he felt unmarried women were a significant contribution to the welfare problem:Bush did not deny making the statement. In fact, he repeated that marriage is one way  along with finding a job and help from private charities  for women to get off welfare.Marriage, Bush said, "is one of many options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today, how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house." Used taxpayer money to promote anti-abortion groups.  In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on 13 April 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor:We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others, could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home.  While Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, the state funded crisis pregnancy centers through the sales of 'Choose Life' specialty license plates (under legislation signed into law by Bush in 1999) and through the creation of the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program (which was introduced by Bush in 2005):The Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program was introduced by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2005 to increase visibility for the state's non-abortion counseling options and stem its rising abortion rate. The $4 million launch established a toll-free hotline  1-866-673-HOPE  to point pregnant women in the direction of their nearest non-abortion, nonprofit option, and also provide grants to those organizations for counseling, prenatal support and adoption. The money is only available to organizations that make no mention at all of abortion. It can go to religious organizations, and it supplements the $800,000 the centers receive yearly from the state's "Choose Life" license plates and whatever federal funds come in.  Florida was not alone in that regard, however: several other states, including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas, approved state funding of crisis pregnancy centers during the same timeframe. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006 over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, in large part through abstinence-only programs initiated during the administration of Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush.Last updated: 21 June 2015Originally published:  21 June 2015 Claim:  A social media meme accurately detailsfive aspectsof Jeb Bush's record on women's issues.   MOSTLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2015]Facebook post citing "evils" committed by Jeb Bush - only 15.5 months togo with this....   Origins:  On 15 June 2015 the women's rights-focused group Ultraviolet published the above-displayed image, addressing the record of Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush, to their Facebook page. After many viewers questioned the veracity of the claims made about Bush and his record on women's issues, the post was edited to include supporting citations for its entries; but earlierversions of the post continued to circulate without it. published The numbered claims and their attendant backgrounds are as follows: Appointed a guardian for the fetus of a rape victim.  This statement stemmed from a 2003 case involving a 22-year-old, severely developmentally disabled Florida woman who had been living in state-supervised facilities for most of her life. She had become pregnant after being raped while living in a group home and had no family to make decisions on her behalf;and (even though neither the woman herself nor anyone caring for her had sought to abort the fetus) Governor Bush stepped in and asked the court to intervene in this "uniquely troubling situation" and appoint a representative to protect the fetus's rights:Religious groups praised the governor's actions."If a guardian is appointed, there would be a clear recognition that there is a human being occupying that womb," said Brian Fahling, senior trial lawyer for the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy. "The governor has the constitutional duty to uphold the right to life."The Christian Coalition of Florida issued a statement in support of Mr. Bush. "The appropriate thing to do is allow the child an opportunity at life and prosecute the criminal who raped the helpless woman."Critics say the governor's actions are intended to keep the issue in the courts until the woman is in the third trimester of her pregnancy and can no longer obtain an abortion."Our take on this is that this woman's needs, her desires and her interests need to take precedence," said Bebe Anderson, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group. "If she is incompetent, someone else should represent her and her interests alone and make that decision for her."The critics also accuse Mr. Bush, a Republican, of trying to set a precedent in establishing legal protection for fetuses and of using the case to win political points with conservative groups.The governor said in his statement, "While others may interpret this case in light of their own positions, we see it as the singular tragedy it is, and remain focused on serving the best interests of this particular victim and her unborn child."Refused to veto a bill requiring single mothers to publish their sexual history.  The statement originated with the Florida Adoption Act of 2001 (more commonly known as "Bill 141" or the "Scarlet Letter" law), which overhauled the state's adoption regulations with the stated goal of trying to "provide greater finality once the adoption is approved, and to avoid circumstances where future challenges to the adoption disrupt the life of the child." The bill was inspired, in part, by the three-year fight over Baby Emily, whose father, a convicted rapist, had contested her adoption. (The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Emily's adoptive parents in 1995.)The law required that any woman who was planning to put her infant up for adoption but did not know the identity of the child's father first had to run newspaper advertisements once a week for a month in the community where the child might have been conceived disclosing their names, ages, height, hair and eye color, race and weight, the child's name and birthplace, a description of the possible father, and details of the dates and places of sexual encounters that might have produced the child.Advocates of the bill maintained that it protected the rights of men who may not have known they had fathered children and that it would "minimize last-minute challenges from a biological father, as well as challenges a father might bring after an adoption has been made legal," while critics contended that it was "draconian and humiliating," and that Governor Bush's failure to veto the bill indicated he supporting the "shaming" of women for their sexual activity.Although Jeb Bush had previously lamented the lack of social stigma for having children outside of marriage (writing in his 1995 book Profiles in Character that "one of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame"), he did not fully approve of Bill 141 and said that the state should not be "stigmatizing women":Gov. Jeb Bush [has] noted numerous problems with it. Officials in the governor's office say he supports an alternative way of protecting fathers' rights  one already in use in many other states. Called fathers' registries, this system permits men who believe they may have fathered a child to place their names on a confidential list, which must be checked during adoption proceedings."We should be making adoption easier, not more difficult, and not stigmatizing women who are trying to do the right thing," Bush spokeswoman Elizabeth Hirst told reporters in Tallahassee.  Gov. Bush also stated in a letter to Secretary of State Katherine Harris that he felt the bill put too much responsibility on the birth mother to locate the father, and while he did not veto the "Scarlet Letter" bill, neither did he sign it: He passively allowed it to become law in the expectation that legislators would revise the section requiring the publication of women's sexual histories"House Bill 141 does have its deficiencies," he wrote. "Foremost, in its effort to strike the appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities, there is a shortage of responsibility on behalf of the birth father that could be corrected by requiring some proactive conduct on his part."In fact, immediately after he let the Florida Adoption Act become law, Bush was advocating for fixes to it. The Florida House almost immediately passed a law that Bush considered a "better alternative." It cut back on women's reporting requirements and established a paternity registry, for example. These were state-maintained databases that allowed a man to register if he believed he may have fathered a child. Then, if that child were ever put up for adoption, the father would have been notified and he could have a say in the proceedings.  Governor Bush repealed the "Scarlet Letter" law in May 2003, signing a replacement measure that instituted the paternity registry mentioned above. The repeal had become something of a moot issue by then, however, as an appeals court had ruled the previous month that it was unconstitutional for the state to require women and underage girls to disclose their sexual histories, even in cases of consensual sex. Hired a staffer who called women "sluts."  The claim that Jeb Bush hired a staffer who called women "sluts" is true in a literal sense, although the staffer's employment by Bush was very short-lived, as he immediately left his position after the controversy about some of his several-year-old Tweets hit the news.This brouhaha originated with Jeb Bush's temporary hiring in February 2015 of Hipster.com co-founder Ethan Czahor as his Chief Technology Officer, in charge of handling the preparations for Bush's presidential run. Almost immediately after the hiring was announced, Czahor's Twitter history was dissected and shared by various media outlets. Among their findings were a handful of tweets published by Czahor in 2009 and 2010 in which he made insensitive remarks about women and used the word "sluts" in reference to them. A Bush spokesman quickly characterized the comments as "inappropriate" and indicated that Czahor had been directed to promptly delete them.One day later, Czahor resigned from his newly-assigned position and apologized for his previous remarks. Said low-income women should "get their lifetogether and find a husband."  As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information.The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three."  Although a generous interpretation of this statement might be to say that Jeb Bush was simply enumerating the several possibilities that (female) welfare recipients could avail themselves of after the expiration of their benefits, he made it clear later that he felt unmarried women were a significant contribution to the welfare problem:Bush did not deny making the statement. In fact, he repeated that marriage is one way  along with finding a job and help from private charities  for women to get off welfare.Marriage, Bush said, "is one of many options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today, how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house." Used taxpayer money to promote anti-abortion groups.  In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on 13 April 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor:We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others, could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home.  While Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, the state funded crisis pregnancy centers through the sales of 'Choose Life' specialty license plates (under legislation signed into law by Bush in 1999) and through the creation of the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program (which was introduced by Bush in 2005):The Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program was introduced by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2005 to increase visibility for the state's non-abortion counseling options and stem its rising abortion rate. The $4 million launch established a toll-free hotline  1-866-673-HOPE  to point pregnant women in the direction of their nearest non-abortion, nonprofit option, and also provide grants to those organizations for counseling, prenatal support and adoption. The money is only available to organizations that make no mention at all of abortion. It can go to religious organizations, and it supplements the $800,000 the centers receive yearly from the state's "Choose Life" license plates and whatever federal funds come in.  Florida was not alone in that regard, however: several other states, including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas, approved state funding of crisis pregnancy centers during the same timeframe. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006 over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, in large part through abstinence-only programs initiated during the administration of Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush.Last updated: 21 June 2015Originally published:  21 June 2015   This statement stemmed from a 2003 case involving a 22-year-old, severely developmentally disabled Florida woman who had been living in state-supervised facilities for most of her life. She had become pregnant after being raped while living in a group home and had no family to make decisions on her behalf;and (even though neither the woman herself nor anyone caring for her had sought to abort the fetus) Governor Bush stepped in and asked the court to intervene in this "uniquely troubling situation" and appoint a representative to protect the fetus's rights:Religious groups praised the governor's actions. "If a guardian is appointed, there would be a clear recognition that there is a human being occupying that womb," said Brian Fahling, senior trial lawyer for the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy. "The governor has the constitutional duty to uphold the right to life." The Christian Coalition of Florida issued a statement in support of Mr. Bush. "The appropriate thing to do is allow the child an opportunity at life and prosecute the criminal who raped the helpless woman." Critics say the governor's actions are intended to keep the issue in the courts until the woman is in the third trimester of her pregnancy and can no longer obtain an abortion. "Our take on this is that this woman's needs, her desires and her interests need to take precedence," said Bebe Anderson, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group. "If she is incompetent, someone else should represent her and her interests alone and make that decision for her." The critics also accuse Mr. Bush, a Republican, of trying to set a precedent in establishing legal protection for fetuses and of using the case to win political points with conservative groups. The governor said in his statement, "While others may interpret this case in light of their own positions, we see it as the singular tragedy it is, and remain focused on serving the best interests of this particular victim and her unborn child."   The statement originated with the Florida Adoption Act of 2001 (more commonly known as "Bill 141" or the "Scarlet Letter" law), which overhauled the state's adoption regulations with the stated goal of trying to "provide greater finality once the adoption is approved, and to avoid circumstances where future challenges to the adoption disrupt the life of the child." The bill was inspired, in part, by the three-year fight over Baby Emily, whose father, a convicted rapist, had contested her adoption. (The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Emily's adoptive parents in 1995.) The law required that any woman who was planning to put her infant up for adoption but did not know the identity of the child's father first had to run newspaper advertisements once a week for a month in the community where the child might have been conceived disclosing their names, ages, height, hair and eye color, race and weight, the child's name and birthplace, a description of the possible father, and details of the dates and places of sexual encounters that might have produced the child. Advocates of the bill maintained that it protected the rights of men who may not have known they had fathered children and that it would "minimize last-minute challenges from a biological father, as well as challenges a father might bring after an adoption has been made legal," while critics contended that it was "draconian and humiliating," and that Governor Bush's failure to veto the bill indicated he supporting the "shaming" of women for their sexual activity. Although Jeb Bush had previously lamented the lack of social stigma for having children outside of marriage (writing in his 1995 book Profiles in Character that "one of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame"), he did not fully approve of Bill 141 and said that the state should not be "stigmatizing women":Gov. Jeb Bush [has] noted numerous problems with it. Officials in the governor's office say he supports an alternative way of protecting fathers' rights  one already in use in many other states. Called fathers' registries, this system permits men who believe they may have fathered a child to place their names on a confidential list, which must be checked during adoption proceedings. "We should be making adoption easier, not more difficult, and not stigmatizing women who are trying to do the right thing," Bush spokeswoman Elizabeth Hirst told reporters in Tallahassee.   Gov. Bush also stated in a letter to Secretary of State Katherine Harris that he felt the bill put too much responsibility on the birth mother to locate the father, and while he did not veto the "Scarlet Letter" bill, neither did he sign it: He passively allowed it to become law in the expectation that legislators would revise the section requiring the publication of women's sexual histories"House Bill 141 does have its deficiencies," he wrote. "Foremost, in its effort to strike the appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities, there is a shortage of responsibility on behalf of the birth father that could be corrected by requiring some proactive conduct on his part." letter In fact, immediately after he let the Florida Adoption Act become law, Bush was advocating for fixes to it. The Florida House almost immediately passed a law that Bush considered a "better alternative." It cut back on women's reporting requirements and established a paternity registry, for example. These were state-maintained databases that allowed a man to register if he believed he may have fathered a child. Then, if that child were ever put up for adoption, the father would have been notified and he could have a say in the proceedings.   Governor Bush repealed the "Scarlet Letter" law in May 2003, signing a replacement measure that instituted the paternity registry mentioned above. The repeal had become something of a moot issue by then, however, as an appeals court had ruled the previous month that it was unconstitutional for the state to require women and underage girls to disclose their sexual histories, even in cases of consensual sex. Hired a staffer who called women "sluts."  The claim that Jeb Bush hired a staffer who called women "sluts" is true in a literal sense, although the staffer's employment by Bush was very short-lived, as he immediately left his position after the controversy about some of his several-year-old Tweets hit the news.This brouhaha originated with Jeb Bush's temporary hiring in February 2015 of Hipster.com co-founder Ethan Czahor as his Chief Technology Officer, in charge of handling the preparations for Bush's presidential run. Almost immediately after the hiring was announced, Czahor's Twitter history was dissected and shared by various media outlets. Among their findings were a handful of tweets published by Czahor in 2009 and 2010 in which he made insensitive remarks about women and used the word "sluts" in reference to them. A Bush spokesman quickly characterized the comments as "inappropriate" and indicated that Czahor had been directed to promptly delete them.One day later, Czahor resigned from his newly-assigned position and apologized for his previous remarks. Said low-income women should "get their lifetogether and find a husband."  As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information.The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three."  Although a generous interpretation of this statement might be to say that Jeb Bush was simply enumerating the several possibilities that (female) welfare recipients could avail themselves of after the expiration of their benefits, he made it clear later that he felt unmarried women were a significant contribution to the welfare problem:Bush did not deny making the statement. In fact, he repeated that marriage is one way  along with finding a job and help from private charities  for women to get off welfare.Marriage, Bush said, "is one of many options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today, how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house." Used taxpayer money to promote anti-abortion groups.  In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on 13 April 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor:We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others, could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home.  While Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, the state funded crisis pregnancy centers through the sales of 'Choose Life' specialty license plates (under legislation signed into law by Bush in 1999) and through the creation of the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program (which was introduced by Bush in 2005):The Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program was introduced by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2005 to increase visibility for the state's non-abortion counseling options and stem its rising abortion rate. The $4 million launch established a toll-free hotline  1-866-673-HOPE  to point pregnant women in the direction of their nearest non-abortion, nonprofit option, and also provide grants to those organizations for counseling, prenatal support and adoption. The money is only available to organizations that make no mention at all of abortion. It can go to religious organizations, and it supplements the $800,000 the centers receive yearly from the state's "Choose Life" license plates and whatever federal funds come in.  Florida was not alone in that regard, however: several other states, including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas, approved state funding of crisis pregnancy centers during the same timeframe. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006 over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, in large part through abstinence-only programs initiated during the administration of Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush.Last updated: 21 June 2015Originally published:  21 June 2015   The claim that Jeb Bush hired a staffer who called women "sluts" is true in a literal sense, although the staffer's employment by Bush was very short-lived, as he immediately left his position after the controversy about some of his several-year-old Tweets hit the news. This brouhaha originated with Jeb Bush's temporary hiring in February 2015 of Hipster.com co-founder Ethan Czahor as his Chief Technology Officer, in charge of handling the preparations for Bush's presidential run. Almost immediately after the hiring was announced, Czahor's Twitter history was dissected and shared by various media outlets. Among their findings were a handful of tweets published by Czahor in 2009 and 2010 in which he made insensitive remarks about women and used the word "sluts" in reference to them. A Bush spokesman quickly characterized the comments as "inappropriate" and indicated that Czahor had been directed to promptly delete them. One day later, Czahor resigned from his newly-assigned position and apologized for his previous remarks. Said low-income women should "get their lifetogether and find a husband."  As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information.The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three."  Although a generous interpretation of this statement might be to say that Jeb Bush was simply enumerating the several possibilities that (female) welfare recipients could avail themselves of after the expiration of their benefits, he made it clear later that he felt unmarried women were a significant contribution to the welfare problem:Bush did not deny making the statement. In fact, he repeated that marriage is one way  along with finding a job and help from private charities  for women to get off welfare.Marriage, Bush said, "is one of many options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today, how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house." Used taxpayer money to promote anti-abortion groups.  In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on 13 April 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor:We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others, could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home.  While Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, the state funded crisis pregnancy centers through the sales of 'Choose Life' specialty license plates (under legislation signed into law by Bush in 1999) and through the creation of the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program (which was introduced by Bush in 2005):The Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program was introduced by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2005 to increase visibility for the state's non-abortion counseling options and stem its rising abortion rate. The $4 million launch established a toll-free hotline  1-866-673-HOPE  to point pregnant women in the direction of their nearest non-abortion, nonprofit option, and also provide grants to those organizations for counseling, prenatal support and adoption. The money is only available to organizations that make no mention at all of abortion. It can go to religious organizations, and it supplements the $800,000 the centers receive yearly from the state's "Choose Life" license plates and whatever federal funds come in.  Florida was not alone in that regard, however: several other states, including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas, approved state funding of crisis pregnancy centers during the same timeframe. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006 over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, in large part through abstinence-only programs initiated during the administration of Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush.Last updated: 21 June 2015Originally published:  21 June 2015   As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information. The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three."   Although a generous interpretation of this statement might be to say that Jeb Bush was simply enumerating the several possibilities that (female) welfare recipients could avail themselves of after the expiration of their benefits, he made it clear later that he felt unmarried women were a significant contribution to the welfare problem:Bush did not deny making the statement. In fact, he repeated that marriage is one way  along with finding a job and help from private charities  for women to get off welfare. Marriage, Bush said, "is one of many options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today, how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house."   In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on 13 April 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor:We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others, could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home. article interview CPCs   While Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, the state funded crisis pregnancy centers through the sales of 'Choose Life' specialty license plates (under legislation signed into law by Bush in 1999) and through the creation of the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program (which was introduced by Bush in 2005):The Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program was introduced by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2005 to increase visibility for the state's non-abortion counseling options and stem its rising abortion rate. The $4 million launch established a toll-free hotline  1-866-673-HOPE  to point pregnant women in the direction of their nearest non-abortion, nonprofit option, and also provide grants to those organizations for counseling, prenatal support and adoption. The money is only available to organizations that make no mention at all of abortion. It can go to religious organizations, and it supplements the $800,000 the centers receive yearly from the state's "Choose Life" license plates and whatever federal funds come in.   Florida was not alone in that regard, however: several other states, including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas, approved state funding of crisis pregnancy centers during the same timeframe. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006 over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, in large part through abstinence-only programs initiated during the administration of Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush. Last updated: 21 June 2015 Originally published:  21 June 2015 Sources:   Canedy, Dana.   "Gov. Jeb Bush to Seek Guardian for Fetus of Rape Victim."    The New York Times.  15 May 2003.   Canedy, Dana.   "Florida 'Scarlet Letter' Law Is Repealed by Gov. Bush."   The New York Times.  31 May 2003.  Dahlburg, John-Thor. "Florida Wants All the Details from Mothers in Adoption Notices."   Los Angeles Times.  21 August 2002.   Dahlburg, John-Thor.  "Florida Ends 'Scarlet Letter' Adoption Law."   Los Angeles Times.  31 May 2003.  Manes, Billy.  "Immaculate Deception."   Orlando Weekly. 26 February 2009.   Griffin, Michael. "Smith Rips Bush's 'Find a Husband' Tip for Women on Welfare."   Orlando Sentinel.  7 September 1994.   Hongo, Hudson.  "New Jeb Bush Hire Deletes Comments About Sluts, Gays from Twitter."    Gawker.  9 February 2015.   Kaczynski, Andrew. "Jeb Bush Chief Technology Officer Resigns After Deleting Old Tweets About 'Sluts.'"   BuzzFeed.  10 February 2015.   Kurtzleben, Danielle.   "Jeb Bush and Florida's 'Scarlet Letter Law,' Explained."     NPR.     10June 2015.   McDonough, Katie.  "Jeb's Abortion Nightmare."    Salon.  14 April 2015.   Miller, Zeke J.   "Jeb Bush Hires Co-Founder of Hipster.com."    Time.   9 February 2015.    Simon, Stephanie.    "States Fund Antiabortion Advice."    Los Angeles Times.   11 February 2007.
Urging the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas to choose a president who prioritizes jobs and rising wages for all communities, a Texas group said African Americans in the state have fared poorly on both fronts. The Texas Organizing Project,which saysit promotes social and economic equality for low- to moderate-income residents, joined labor unions in calling on the Fed, which has kept interest rates near zero since 2008 to spur business lending, not to raise interest rates and focus instead on full employment and higher wages, according to a March 4, 2015,news storyin theDallas Morning News. The project got our attention in a March 2015press releasewith this: Although the economy is adding jobs, the unemployment rate among blacks in Texas is 9.5% -- far more than double white unemployment -- and wages have fallen for black workers in Texas since 2000. We sought elaboration. Report offered as backup To our inquiry, a project spokesman, Daniel Barrera, pointed us by email to a March 2015 report by the Brooklyn-based Center for Popular Democracy, which says it promotes equity, opportunity and a dynamic democracy. The report,Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserves Full-Employment Mandate,presents charts with the cited figures, which the Washington, D.C.-based Economic Policy Institute based on federal wage and employment data. One chart says the 2014 Texas black unemployment rate, 9.5 percent, was more than twice the states white unemployment rate of 3.7 percent; the 2014 Hispanic jobless rate was 5.3 percent. Conditions may have been better in Texas than elsewhere over those years. Nationally, according to the report, black-white unemployment disparities were greatest in Wisconsin (the black jobless rate was 4.6 times the white rate), and Minnesota (the black rate was 3.7 times the white rate). Another chart in the report indicates median hourly wages of Texas whites and Hispanics increased 8 and 2.9 percent, respectively, from 2000 to 2014 while median hourly wages of black Texans decreased 0.8 percent. We wondered if blacks saw falling wages by this measure all through those years. They did not: To our inquiry, the Economic Policy Institute provided year-by-year data showing the hourly median for black Texans decreased in six years while going up in eight years. Through the period, the real median wage for Texas African Americans bottomed out at $13.61 in 2008. It crested at $15.18 in 2012. Nationally at the end of the 15-year period, median real wages of African-American workers were down even more than in Texas alone, according to the report. That is, the national median real hourly wage for African Americans in 2014 was $13.97, about 3 percent less than the comparable median of $14.41 in 2000. Also, according to the report, other states had bigger differences between the first and last years studied. Source:Report, Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserves Full-Employment Mandate,  Center for Popular Democracy, April 6, 2015  Source:Report, Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserves Full-Employment Mandate,  Center for Popular Democracy, April 6, 2015 And why? Missing from the report: Why the differences between black workers and others? When we called to ask about that, Ady Barkan, a center official, suggested multiple longstanding factors including racism and differences between blacks and whites in education levels and rates of incarceration. By email, Barkan also pointed out aJuly 2011 issue paperfrom the liberal Center for American Progress noting, among reasons, that in each of the latest U.S. recessions, blacks were most often the first employees fired and the last ones hired (once each recession was ending). We asked the Economic Policy Institute why black unemployment in Texas appeared to be runninghigher than white and Hispanic unemployment. Josh Bivens,director of research and policy, said by email this may be because of discrimination in the labor market and pre-labor market. And whats the pre-labor market? Bivens said residential segregation can lead to blacks going tolower-quality primary and secondary schools, potentially resulting in lower levels of educational achievement and less lucrative jobs. We also sought an explanation of the cited differences from Chris King, director of the Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources at the University of Texas. By email, King said labor economists would  explain higher unemployment among blacks/African Americans nationally by pointing out that African Americans tend to have lower levels of education and be employed in lower-paying occupations and industries than whites. King elaborated by pointing out Bureau of Labor Statistics data covering 2011 showing black men more likely to work in service, production, transportation and material moving jobs. Conversely, he wrote, black men were less likely to work in professional and managerial jobs than whites; the picture was similar, he said, for black women. (See his full reply here.) Another view Separately to our inquiry, analyst Chuck DeVore of the conservativeTexas Public Policy Foundation suggested real median hourly wage estimates used by the institute may deliver an incomplete picture of economic well being. People dont live on wages alone, DeVore said, adding that a more accurate indicator of wealth would be household income, folding in Social Security, inheritances and any other financial assistance.See more on this aspect here. Our ruling The Texas Organizing Project said: The unemployment rate among blacks in Texas is 9.5% -- far more than double white unemployment -- and wages have fallen for black workers in Texas since 2000. Texas African Americans may not have been as bad off as residents of other states, and this claim doesnt acknowledge wage fluctuations over the years. Regardless, evidence shows Texas blacks having a higher unemployment rate than fellow Texans and also being the lone group with lower wages in 2014 than in 2000. We rate the statement True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  Starting in 2011, all employees will have to pay taxes on the value of health insurance provided by their employers.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2010] I contacted my Congressman about House bill HR 3590, the health care bill. I asked for a summary of changes. The Aid directed me to go to www.thomas.gov, enter HR 3590 in the search box and look for summaries. Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or Governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross WILL go up by the amount of insurance you get. You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases. Not believing this I researched the summaries and here's what I'm reading: On page 25 of 29:TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS - (sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901)    Sec.9002."requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income." Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplinger's and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about. Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November and we need to vote in Conservatives that will repel this horrid law!    Origins:  This is another case of a legislative issue which has a kernel of truth to it, but which has been misinterpreted, affects only a small percentage of the population, and has misleadingly been blown out of proportion through someone's mistaken assumption that it applies to everyone. Section 9002 of PPACA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), requires that all employers, beginning in 2011, report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health benefits they provide to employees on those employees' W-2 forms.  However, the monetary values so reported will neither be counted as gross income nor will they be taxed; they will be included for informational purposes only.  (Section 106A of the Internal Revenue Code states that, in general, employer-provided health coverage is not taxable to the employee.) Section 106A The portion (Title IX, Sec. 9001) of the PPACA referenced above is entitled "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Coverage."  This is the section of the recently passed health care reform legislation that addresses taxing so-called high-level "Cadillac" health care plans that some employees receive through their employers.   Title IX, Sec. 9001 In general, beginning in 2018 (not 2011), the PPACA imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored medical insurance that exceeds a given threshold (initially $27,500 annually).  This excise tax would be paid by the insurance company, not the employee, and is initially expected to affect fewer than 10% of families covered by health insurance: Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. Workers pick up the rest but pay no taxes on the employer's often-substantial contribution. That's why many unions have bargained hard for generous health coverage over the years, even if that meant forgoing a bigger pay raise. The new agreement would take away the tax advantage for a small portion of the health benefit by imposing a 40 percent tax on the amount by which the premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage exceed specified thresholds. That would be $27,500 a year for a family, starting in 2018. The tax on a $29,500 plan would be $800, or 40 percent of $2,000. The insurance company would pay the tax but would almost certainly pass it along to the employer and its employees. That $27,500 threshold is well above the current average of $13,400 for a family plan. By 2016, more than 80 percent of all family plans are projected to still fall below the threshold. In the following years, the tax threshold would rise more slowly than the likely rate of inflation in medical costs, which could mean the plans of millions of workers  a small minority of the work force  would be subject to the tax in theory. Most likely, insurers will drop their premiums just below the threshold. They could do that by setting higher deductibles and co-payments, managing access to care more tightly, or reducing benefits. Last updated:  25 May 2010    The New York Times.  "Cadillac Plans."   15 January 2010.    The Washington Post.  "Will President Obama Defend the 'Cadillac Tax' to Cut Health-Care Costs?"   12 January 2010. On 10 May 2016, the Facebook page "Occupy Democrats" published a post claiming that Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly lost custody of his two children because he abused his ex-wife: post   Clicking through the link led to an articlefromOccupy Democrats, this one in February 2016: Notorious FOX pundit Bill OReilly has been denied custody of his children by a New York appeals court after they were convinced that he was unfit to care for them after a vicious domestic violence incident. His kids, a 12-year-old boy and 17-year-old girl, will stay with his ex-wife Maureen McPhilmy. The court ruling announced that: Viewing the totality of the circumstances, there is a sound and substantial basis for the Supreme Courts determination that it is in the best interests of the children for the mother to be awarded primary residential custody. Particularly relevant in this case are the clearly stated preferences of the children, especially considering their age and maturity, and the quality of the home environment provided by the mother. The right-wing propagandist and shameless liar initially lost custody of his kids following OReillys horrific attack on his ex-wife; his daughter told a court psychologist that he was choking her mom or had his hands around her neck and dragged her down some stairs. Thearticle did not back theheadline's assertions: it stated first that O'Reilly specifically lost custody of the children because he was deemed "unfit to care for them" following a "vicious domestic violence incident." But the portion of a court document quotedsimplysaid thatit was in the best interest of the children to remain in their mother's care. Occupy Democrats cited Raw Story, which in turn cited Gawker,which reported that O'Reilly had "lost custody" of his children in February 2016, but that article, again, did notsuggestthat O'Reilly was denied custodial care of the children due to violent behavior: Raw Story Gawker The lengthy decision affirms the holding of a Nassau County Supreme Court justice last year that the children, now aged 13 and 17, should live full-time with their mother (the former couple had been splitting residential custody). As we reported at the time, OReilly appealed that ruling, thereby delaying its enforcement (and, of course, extending his multi-front battle against McPhilmy and her new family). The Appellate Division issued its 1,400-word opinion on February 24, a little over a month after attorneys for OReilly and McPhilmyknown in court documents as Anonymous 2011-1 and Anonymous 2011-2presented oral arguments at the divisions courthouse in Brooklyn Heights. According to the opinion, the courts four justices unanimously ruled in McPhilmys favor based upon the clearly stated preferences of the children[.] The February 2016 court documents fromto the hearing can be read in full here. They make little mention of contentionbetween O'Reilly and his ex-wife (aside from a brief description of ongoingacrimony, not violence): here Here, viewing the totality of the circumstances, there is a sound and substantial basis for the Supreme Court's determination that it is in the best interests of the children for the mother to be awarded primary residential custody. Particularly relevant in this case are the clearly stated preferences of the children, especially considering their age and maturity, and the quality of the home environment provided by the mother (see Matter of Manfredo v Manfredo, 53 AD3d 498, 500 [2008]; Matter of O'Connor v Dyer, 18 AD3d 757 [2005]). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not err in denying the father's motion for an award of sole decision-making authority with respect to the children, and continuing instead the existing provisions of the judgment of divorce, which call for joint legal custody and joint decision-making authority. While ordinarily it is not appropriate to award joint legal custody and decision-making authority where the parties are antagonistic toward one another (see Irizarry v Irizarry, 115 AD3d 913 [2014]), in this case, the record supports the court's finding that, despite their antagonism, the parties have been able to agree on most decisions concerning the children (see Matter of Thorpe v Homoet, 116 AD3d 962, 963 [2014]). Moreover, the record supports the court's finding that if either parent were awarded sole decision-making authority, there would be a danger that it would be used to exclude the other parent from meaningful participation [*3]in the children's lives. In addition, the court appointed a parenting coordinator, who can assist the parents in resolving any disputes they may have concerning decisions about the children. It ispossible that arguments or physical altercations between Bill O'Reilly and his ex-wife were a factor in the court's 2016 decision to uphold the family's custody arrangements, but if that were the case, the ruling on which news reports did not indicate such a circumstance. The appellate court's opinion read as a standardcustody arrangement, and the sole factor emphasized in it was the preference (not safety) of the children. Occupy Democrats' May 2016 rehash of the February 2016 news insinuated that custody hinged on allegations made by his "young daughter." However, that "young daughter" was described as 17 yearsoldas ofFebruary 2016 court documents, and no reference was made to any "damning" accusations levied by her. It istrue O'Reilly was accused byGawkerin May 2015 of abusing his ex-wife verbally and physically, but  despite reporting to the contrary  those accusations weren't referenced or hinted at in the February 2016appellate court's decision to uphold a custody arrangement involving his children.  Garcia, Arturo.  "Foxs Bill OReilly Loses Custody Of Teen Children After New York Appeals Court Ruling."
Raw Story.  29 February 2016. Taylor, Colin.  "Family Values Hypocrite Bill OReilly Loses Custody Of Kids After Choking His Wife."
Occupy Democrats.  20 February 2016. Trotter, J.K.  "Bill OReilly Loses Custody Of Children In New York Court Ruling."
Gawker.  29 February 2016. Trotter, J.K.  "Court Transcripts: Bill OReillys Daughter Saw Him 'Choking Her Mom.'"
Gawker.  20 May 2015. Known as a famous Hollywood actor and one of the original men to portray the iconic character James Bond, Sean Connery died on Oct. 31, 2020. According to TMZ, he died at 1:30 a.m. "at his home in the Bahamas." TMZ Sean Connery died in his sleep from pneumonia, heart failure and old age ... according to his death certificate. TMZ obtained Connery's death cert and it shows he died from respiratory failure as a result of pneumonia, old age and atrial fibrillation ... an irregular heart rate that can increase the risk of strokes, heart failure and other heart-related complications. Entertainment Tonight made contact with the family, reporting that "Connery's wife, Micheline Roquebrune, and his two sons, Jason and Stephane, told ET that he died peacefully in his sleep, surrounded by family." reporting Following his death, at least one advertiser bought ad space on the social media platform Reddit, or on a mobile app that displays Reddit content. The ad read: "sean connery's Net Worth Left His Family In Tears." Connery's name was lowercase, likely because the "Net Worth Left His Family In Tears" part is a template. It's not true. It's fabricated and completely baseless. Sean Connery's family was not left "in tears" because of his net worth. We previously reported on the "net worth left his family in tears" advertising ploy with "Jeopardy" host Alex Trebek. The late Kenny Rogers also appeared to be a victim of the ploy. previously reported appeared   The advertisement in question appeared to lead to Life Exact, a viral content website. It was first documented by Reddit user JezCon. It's unclear if the advertisement is still active on the website. We were unable to locate the ad, but it likely lead to a slideshow with multiple pages, where the idea was to make more money on the advertisements displayed during the slideshow than it cost to run the original ad alongside Reddit content. This is known as advertising "arbitrage." first documented Business and technology blog Margins is managed by Ranjan Roy and Can Duruk, and Roy defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." He also called it "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." Margins Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us Claim:  Starting in 2011, all employees will have to pay taxes on the value of health insurance provided by their employers.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2010] I contacted my Congressman about House bill HR 3590, the health care bill. I asked for a summary of changes. The Aid directed me to go to www.thomas.gov, enter HR 3590 in the search box and look for summaries. Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or Governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross WILL go up by the amount of insurance you get. You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases. Not believing this I researched the summaries and here's what I'm reading: On page 25 of 29:TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS - (sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901)    Sec.9002."requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income." Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplinger's and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about. Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November and we need to vote in Conservatives that will repel this horrid law!    Origins:  This is another case of a legislative issue which has a kernel of truth to it, but which has been misinterpreted, affects only a small percentage of the population, and has misleadingly been blown out of proportion through someone's mistaken assumption that it applies to everyone. Section 9002 of PPACA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), requires that all employers, beginning in 2011, report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health benefits they provide to employees on those employees' W-2 forms.  However, the monetary values so reported will neither be counted as gross income nor will they be taxed; they will be included for informational purposes only.  (Section 106A of the Internal Revenue Code states that, in general, employer-provided health coverage is not taxable to the employee.) Section 106A The portion (Title IX, Sec. 9001) of the PPACA referenced above is entitled "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Coverage."  This is the section of the recently passed health care reform legislation that addresses taxing so-called high-level "Cadillac" health care plans that some employees receive through their employers.   Title IX, Sec. 9001 In general, beginning in 2018 (not 2011), the PPACA imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored medical insurance that exceeds a given threshold (initially $27,500 annually).  This excise tax would be paid by the insurance company, not the employee, and is initially expected to affect fewer than 10% of families covered by health insurance: Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. Workers pick up the rest but pay no taxes on the employer's often-substantial contribution. That's why many unions have bargained hard for generous health coverage over the years, even if that meant forgoing a bigger pay raise. The new agreement would take away the tax advantage for a small portion of the health benefit by imposing a 40 percent tax on the amount by which the premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage exceed specified thresholds. That would be $27,500 a year for a family, starting in 2018. The tax on a $29,500 plan would be $800, or 40 percent of $2,000. The insurance company would pay the tax but would almost certainly pass it along to the employer and its employees. That $27,500 threshold is well above the current average of $13,400 for a family plan. By 2016, more than 80 percent of all family plans are projected to still fall below the threshold. In the following years, the tax threshold would rise more slowly than the likely rate of inflation in medical costs, which could mean the plans of millions of workers  a small minority of the work force  would be subject to the tax in theory. Most likely, insurers will drop their premiums just below the threshold. They could do that by setting higher deductibles and co-payments, managing access to care more tightly, or reducing benefits. Last updated:  25 May 2010    The New York Times.  "Cadillac Plans."   15 January 2010.    The Washington Post.  "Will President Obama Defend the 'Cadillac Tax' to Cut Health-Care Costs?"   12 January 2010. Some of the most persistent contemporary legends about the 9/11 attacks involve people supposedly benefiting from foreknowledge of the event, whether it be a group of World Trade Center workers who "fortuitously" called in sick and escaped certain death that day, or investors who "fortuitously" bought "put options" on United and American Airlines stock immediately before the attacks, thus profiting when the prices of those stocks fell afterwards. workers stock American businessman Larry Silverstein, who famously signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center complex in June 2001, two months before the attacks, is at the center of another story about profiting from the event: Larry Silverstein Just months before 9/11, the World Trade Center's lease was sold to Larry Silverstein. Silverstein took out an insurance plan that 'fortuitously' covered terrorism. After 9/11, Silverstein took the insurance company to court, claiming he should be paid double because there were 2 attacks. He won, and was awarded $4,550,000,000. While the story obviously contains elements of fact, it's also partly fiction  most notably the implication, made via the use of scare quotes around the word "fortuitous," that Silverstein's decision to purchase terrorism insurance just before 9/11 was no mere coincidence.  There are several underlying assumptions at work here: that the World Trade Center must not have had terrorism insurance before Silverstein took over; that selecting such coverage was purely optional; and that because he "chose" to buy such coverage when he did, Silverstein must have known in advance that (and when) terrorists would strike. It's important to note that, despite appearances, Silverstein wasn't actually the sole leaseholder of the World Trade Center: He led a consortium of investors and lenders which included GMAC Commercial Mortgage (a General Motors subsidiary), Westfield America Inc. (a shopping center developer), and real estate investor Lloyd Goldman. All these entities had a voice in deciding how much insurance coverage the properties would have, and each had some claim on whatever insurance monies were paid out. Bear in mind, too, that when we speak of "terrorism insurance coverage," what we're actually speaking of is coverage that doesn't have a terrorism exclusion. Such exclusions aren't uncommon now, but according to the Insurance Information Institute virtually all commercial insurance policies sold in the U.S. before 9/11 covered terrorist incidents as a matter of course (and essentially free of charge), because the risk was considered so remote. Thus, for example, the World Trade Center was fully covered when it was bombed by terrorists in 1993, and insurers paid out an estimated $510 million in damages after that incident. There's no reason to suppose that the WTC wasn't routinely covered against terrorist acts right up until the time Silverstein took over the lease in 2001. covered Moreover, upon signing that lease, Silverstein was obligated to insure the World Trade Center. There was nothing strange, suspicious, or "fortuitous," therefore, about his purchasing an all-risk insurance policy  which at that time would have automatically included terrorism coverage  two months before 9/11, because that's when he became contractually responsible for doing so. Ultimately, Silverstein wasn't even solely responsible for the total dollar amount of that coverage ($3.55 billion) because that was the minimum demanded by his lenders, according to a 2002 report in The American Lawyer. report It's a fact that Silverstein took his insurers to court after 9/11 and asked for double the damages. It's also a fact that he did so on the grounds that there were two attacks (or, in insurance lingo, "occurrences"), not one. But this wasn't some premeditated scam based on foreknowledge that a terrorist attack involving two planes would occur. The cost of rebuilding the World Trade Center, which in 2004 was estimated at $9 billion, made Silverstein's court strategy a virtual necessity. Plus, he had obligations to lenders and co-investors, and still owed lease payments of $10 million per month to the Port Authority. estimated obligations The court ultimately did grant Silverstein a payout of $4.55 billion, which amounted to about a third more than the maximum allowable for a single "occurrence" by his insurance policy, but significantly less than the $7.1 billion he had originally sought. payout Ackman, Dan.  "Trade Center Financing on Shaky Ground."   Forbes.  11 September 2003. Bagli, Charles V. "Final Vote Set on Silverstein's Towers at Ground Zero."   The New York Times (City Room Blog).  25 August 2010. Frangos, Alex.  "Uncertainties Soar at Ground Zero."   The Wall Street Journal.  20 October 2004. Frankel, Alison.  "Double Indemnity."   The American Lawyer.  3 September 2002. Hirschkorn, Phil and Jonathan Wald.  "Verdict in 9/11 Insurance Battle."   CNN.  30 April 2004. Lieberman, Joseph.  "America Needs Terrorism Insurance."   Forbes.  12 July 2005. Sorkin, Andrew and Simon Romero.  "A Day of Terror: The Insurers; Reinsurance Companies Wait to Sort Out Cost of Damages."   The New York Times.  12 September 2001. Insurance Information Institute.  "Terrorism Risk and Insurance."   August 2016. Insurance Journal.  "Court Upholds Juries' Rulings in World Trade Center Claims."   19 October 2006. Reuters. "WTC Attack to Cost Insurers Billions."   11 September 2001. Claim:  Vending machines in Japan offer for sale panties purportedly worn by schoolgirls.   . Origins:  Used underwear that has supposedly been previously worn by schoolgirls is being offered for sale in vending machines in Japan. Though we don't know the current price for such items, in 1993 they sold for the equivalent of US $50 apiece. We'd read that this practice ended in 1993 and reported as much in the original of this article (which was penned in 2001), but since that time numerous readers living in Japan have written to say that not only haven't the machines gone away, but that they've themselves seen them. Japan is home to a thriving bura-sera industry    of which traffic in the soiled panties of schoolgirls represents only one part  with "bura-sera" or "buru-sera" the term for a specific male fascination relating to that country's schoolgirls. "Buru" is anglicized Japanese (Japlish) for "bloomers" and "sera" for "sailor"; the term refers to the sailor suit, the predominant style of girls' junior and high school uniforms. Dozens, if not hundreds, of magazines are exclusively devoted to bura-sera photographs, pictures that feature girls clad in school garb, holding up their skirts to display their panties. Usually in such photos the girls' faces are hidden, but that is not always the case. Girlish youth and innocence are considered sexy in Japan, a culture with a long history of regarding women more as sex toys than as people. This obsession with untouched adolescence results in the sad sight of women in their thirties emitting girlish giggles and clutching teddy bears in an effort to maintain their appeal to the opposite sex. Although it can fairly be said Western society also prizes youth in a woman, there the fascination has to do more with the looks of a girl than it does with her immaturity and presumed sexual innocence. A pretty 26-year-old who would be considered lovely in the West would in Japan be viewed by many as hopelessly long in the tooth. Western society looks for firm, youthful bodies housing the attitudes of grown women  we like them young, but we don't like them to act young. In the West, a teen's sex appeal is dependent upon her ability to look and act much older, thus the fascination with makeup and plunging necklines, accoutrements that make her appear less of a child and more of a woman. In Japan, this ideal is reversed  sexy in the Land of the Rising Sun adds up to childlike behavior and modes of dress that express this ideal. Sometimes this amounts to the adoption of clothing styles highly reminiscent of high school uniforms, but even when a girl dons an evening gown, she will strive to look like a kinderling caught parading in Mom's finery. Likewise, childish outbursts, pouting, and tantrums are viewed as charmingly erotic because such actions work to further the violated schoolgirl image.  In a sexual culture so dominated by roricon (Japlish for "Lolita complex"), buru-sera fetishism finds its footing. Those whose way of life has taught them to lust for young girls find outlet for their interest through viewing suggestive photos of teen girls and handling items previously worn by them.  For a price, girls supplying buru-sera items for resale will don a new pair of panties at a porn shop in the morning on their way to school, then change back into their own underwear at the end of the day at the same shop, leaving its proprietor with a saleable item. Girls can also turn a profit on their own used undies by offloading them to the same people.  Generally,  the more worn the item, the higher the price it will fetch.  Porn shops featuring buru-sera items also vend girls' used school uniforms.   There is no guarantee that all the panties marketed as having been worn by schoolgirls actually have been. Such details are not  scrupulously vetted; no regulatory body checks to ensure the veracity of claims made about these items.  However, it is clear that at least some of the used undies do come from teen girls, thus this "underwear of a Japanese schoolgirl" story is no myth. Japan has a tradition of vending through machines what Western society would view as unusual consumables. In addition to the many items one would typically expect to find offered for sale in this manner, porn magazines, disposable cameras, new pantyhose, horoscopes, and many other goods are routinely mechanically vended. Part of the appeal of such machines is attributable to a matter of convenience, but concern for privacy also fuels the mania. There is less chance of embarrassment in buying condoms from a machine than from a store where the sale must be rung up and bagged by a clerk. Likewise, purchases of "pink" videos (what in the West are termed "blue movies") are less likely to be blush-producing experiences when these transactions can be effected without anyone else's looking on. There was thus a waiting market for "schoolgirl panties" machines, in that those looking to obtain such items would not have to brave a bura-sera shop to fulfill their desires. These mechanical points of sale appeared in 1993 in Chiba City (Chiba Prefecture), in an area known for its porn magazine and adult video vending machines. Almost immediately, an outcry was raised against them, but there was a problem in getting them removed: Whereas sellers required licenses to distribute other types of goods, no such requirement was on the books for soiled underwear, because no one had foreseen the possibility of trade in such an item. These machines existed outside the law in the sense that no specific statute existed that could be invoked to combat them.  The solution was as creative as it is odd-sounding  the machines were countered by invoking the Antique Dealings Law, a statute which stipulates that an antique dealer or a dealer in second-hand items must obtain permission from local authorities. Lacking those permissions, the items could not be vended. In September 1993, three businessmen were charged with selling used panties without a permit under the provenance of this law.  This supposedly ended the presence of such salespoints in that country, but like we said at the top of this piece, countless readers have since written to tell us that the machines can still be found. Barbara "vend me your rears" Mikkelson Additional Information:    Teenage Sex and Buru-Sera Shops  Last updated:  8 July 2007    Sources:   Annells, Jonathan.  "Hot Pants, Hot Customers and Hot Prices."   South China Morning Post.  12 September 1993  (p. 4).    The Daily Yomiuri.  "Dealers of Used Female Underwear Charged."   21 September 1993  (p. 2).    Mainichi Daily News.  "'Bura-Sera' Vending Machines Stir Local Concern."   12 September 1993.    Tokyo Business Today.  "The Next Fad: Vending Machines for Panty Perverts."   November 1993  (p. 64). The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was underway in late February 2021 in Orlando, Florida, complete with a golden statue of former U.S. President Donald Trump. And it wasn't long before controversy unfolded. golden statue Eagle-eyed social media users claimed that the stage where Sen. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump Jr., and others made speeches looked eerily like a Nazi or white supremacist symbol.   Some even shared images comparing the stage to old uniforms from Nazi Germany. The image below could have been pulled from a Daily Mail article that claims to show a Nazi SS trooper. Daily Mail   We reviewed videos from CPAC and confirmed that the shape of the stage indeed reflects the images in the above tweets. The first three seconds of the following video show the full stage:  But was it truly a Nazi symbol? The shape of the stage, a diamond with two prongs extending on one end, is indeed similar to an early European Othala rune also known as the "Odal rune." According to the Anti-Defamation League this is a popular Neo-Nazi symbol, but as it is part of an ancient runic alphabet system, it has not solely been used as a hate symbol. It also appears in different forms, sometimes without the two prongs pointing upward. Anti-Defamation League It has, however, been used as the insignia of a number of Nazi divisions during the early 20th century. The rune was used as the logo of the Nazi 7th SS Mountain Division that fought in Croatia and the Balkans in the 1940s. One book "7th SS Mountain Division Prinz Eugen at War 1941-1945: A History of the Division," with photographs of Nazi soldiers collected by Ian Baxter, features the symbol prominently on its cover. Another historical account by Otto Kumm, a Nazi German commander of the SS during World War II, also features the symbol prominently on its cover. This edition, published in 1995, is available on Amazon. used book account Amazon   It was also described as a symbol popular with "skinheads" in a 2006 Edmonton Journal article: "In addition to the swastika, skinheads favor two ancient Nordic runes: the Odal rune which looks like a diamond with tails." described CPAC organizer, Matt Schlapp, responded to the theories surrounding the shape of the stage, calling them "outrageous" and "slanderous":   On March 2, in a statement to Jewish media outlet Forward, the company hired to set up the stage at CPAC took full responsibility for the stage design. Design Foundry said they "had no idea that the design resembled any symbol, nor was there any intention to create something that did." They added that the American Conservative Union had approved the stage design, which was "intended to provide the best use of space, given the constraints of the ballroom and social distancing requirements." statement The terms of the contract CPAC organizers signed with Design Foundry stated, "The designs, renderings, drawings, specifications, materials and other documents used or created as part of the proposal are owned by Design Foundry." Ian Walters, communications director for CPAC, told the Forward that the design firm "provided several options for us to choose from and what we ended up with was the most workable of the options they submitted [...] ACU and CPAC have no interest in promoting antisemitism from our stage, whether it's what happens on the stage or the design of the stage itself," he added. "It's clear that the company we retained designed a stage that has become an unwelcome distraction. As a result, we will not be using that company's services going forward at future events." told We reached out to CPAC organizers, and Design Foundry for details regarding the process of designing and selecting this stage. We will update this post as more information becomes available The shape of the Nazi symbol is eerily similar to the shape of the stage at CPAC. However, without documentation detailing the process of designing this stage, we are presently unable to confirm whether this was a deliberate choice made by the event organizers. At the moment, we rate this claim as "Mixture." Feb. 28, 2021: Update added with CPAC organizer's tweeted response. March 3, 2021: Updated added with stage design company and CPAC communications director's statement to Forward. March 3, 2021: Updated rating to "Mixture" and edited notes to "what's true" and "what's undetermined" sections. Updated rating overlay on image. On Oct. 25, 2023, a gunman opened fire at two separate locations in Lewiston, Maine, killing at least 18 people and wounding scores more. As reported by NBC News, "Seven people were found dead at the Just-In-Time Recreation bowling alley, eight were found dead at Schemengees Bar and Grille and three were pronounced dead at area hospitals." reported Just hours later, based on surveillance camera footage showing the perpetrator's face, law enforcement named Robert Card of Bowdoin, Maine, as a "person of interest:" named  As reported by NBC News, a bulletin put out by the Maine Information and Analysis Center, a database for law enforcement officials, indicated that Card was in the Army Reserve and was a trained firearms instructor. reported Around this time, video appearing to show a man being arrested on a dark street went viral with the claim that it purportedly showed Card being arrested: video  Such a claim was impossible. At the time of those posts and as of this reporting Card remained at large, and a massive manhunt was underway to capture him, as reported by CNN on Oct. 26, 2023: reported by An extensive manhunt is underway for a suspect in a mass shooting at a bowling alley and at a restaurant in Lewiston, Maine, on Wednesday night that left 18 people dead and 13 others injured, Gov. Janet Mills said Thursday. An arrest warrant has been issued for Robert Card, 40, accusing him of murder, Maine State Police Col. William Ross said during a Thursday news conference. He should be considered armed and dangerous, officials said. [...] Major Northeast grocery chain Hannaford Supermarkets kept all its Maine stores closed early Thursday, the company said. And public schools in Lewiston and Portland  the states largest district, with about 6,500 students  are closed, officials have said. People in nearby Bowdoin, Maine, were advised early Thursday the shelter in place advisory and school closings would include their town, Maine State Police announced: Please stay inside your homes while more than 100 investigators, both local and federal work to locate Robert Card who is a person of interest in the Lewiston shootings. Because Card was still at large at the time a video of his purported arrest went viral, we have rated claim as  Live Updates: At Least 18 Killed in Shootings in Lewiston, Maine; Manhunt Underway for Suspect. NBC News, 26 Oct. 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/lewiston-maine-shooting-manhunt-gunman-police-live-rcna122270. Police Identify 40-Year-Old Man as Person of Interest in Mass Shooting in Lewiston, Maine. NBC News, 26 Oct. 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lewiston-maine-shooting-robert-card-what-know-rcna122262. Smart, Sara, et al. Arrest Warrant Issued for Suspect after 18 Killed in Shooting Rampage in Maine as Manhunt Continues, Officials Say. CNN, 26 Oct. 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/26/us/lewiston-maine-shootings-thursday/index.html. Former President Bill Clinton raised a hot-button issue while stumping for his wife in Los Angeles this week: Americas mounting student loan debt. Student debt in the United States has reached $1.3 trillion, which trails only the amount Americans owe on their mortgages. Its often blamed for preventing young people from buying houses and cars, which fuels the countrys economy. Undergraduates in the class of 2015 finished school with anaverage of $35,000in student loan debt, the most in history, according to Edvisors.com, a financial aid website. If elected president in November, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton would remove a unique barrier related to college loans, the former president claimed. A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down, Bill Clinton said, speaking at a recent campaign rally at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College. We wondered: Is refinancing really off-limits for all college loans? With student loan debt such a big issue this election year, we decided to check the facts. Past efforts at change Both Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, have pledged to allow student loans to be refinanced. But they werent the first to call for this change. In June 2014, Senate Republicans rejectedlegislationby Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that would have let student borrowers refinance their federal loan debt. Homeowners are refinancing. Small businesses are refinancing. We just want young people who got an education to have their shot, Warren was quoted as saying in aWashington Post news articleat the time. Republicans said they were not convinced the legislation would have resulted in lower borrowing costs, and labeled it an election stunt. The bill would have let people with federal and private loans issued prior to 2010 refinance at 3.86 percent, the article said. It added that the Obama administration estimated that the bill could have helped 25 million borrowers save $2,000 each over the lifetime of their loans, or $50 billion. Former President Bill Clinton speaks during a campaign stop for his wife, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2016, at the West End Community Development Center in Greenville, S.C. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya) Our research As theyve campaigned across the country, Hillary Clinton and Sen. Sanders have each pledged to allow for refinancing of college loan debt. What they, and apparently Bill Clinton, are talking about is refinancing federally backed student loans, which account forabout 90 percentof all student borrowing. We turned to the nonprofit college planning group American Student Assistance for some advice. They and other groups say federal student loans can be refinanced into private loans. But doing so can remove federal protections such as fixed interest rates and the ability to pause repayments. Also, private student loans can be refinanced into new lower-interest private loans. But theres no provision in federal law allowing the refinancing of a federal loan to another, lower-interest federal loan. There is no federal refinancing. Congress sets the interest rate for federal student loans, and most of these rates are fixed by law, no matter how solid your credit or income becomes post-graduation, American Student Assistanceadvisespotential borrowers. PolitiFact Texasexamined a similar claimin 2014 and rated it Mostly True. They spoke withHeather Jarvis, a North Carolina attorney specializing in student loan law, who told them some graduates may be able to refinance student loans at lower rates through private lenders. But, she said, this would only happen in cases in which borrowers have substantial income. Jarvis added that refinancing federal loans with a private loan is risky. The borrower gives up important protections that accompany federal loans (like flexible repayment and discharge provisions). Students repaying federally backed loans, Jarvis said, are effectively barred from refinancing opportunities because federal law makes no provision for the government to make such offers. Asked about the former presidents statement, Bill Clintons press secretary said in an email its very safe to say that the vast majority of students with debt have federaldebt. She pointed tostatistics from the College Boardshowing federal loans account for about 90 percent of student borrowing. She said a small percentage of borrowers can refinance a federal student loan by making it a private loan. Our ruling Former President Bill Clinton said at a recent campaign rally in Los Angeles: A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down. Borrowers of federally backed student loans, which account for about 90 percent of student loans, cannot refinance those into lower-interest federal loans. Congress sets the interest rate on these loans, and theres no provision in federal law that allows for them to be refinanced. Depending on factors such as income, some borrowers can refinance their federal loans into lower-interest private loans, though they risk losing their federal loan protections. Clinton most likely was referring only to federally backed loans when he made his statement, but a clarification about private loans would have helped. We rated his claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.