Eddie O'Hare and Son
Claim:  Notorious mob lawyer "Easy Eddie" O'Hare teaches his son Butch the value of honesty and integrity; the son goes on to become a decorated war hero and dies in the service of his country. Status:  Multiple  see below. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] During the course of World War II, many people gained fame in one way or another. One man was Butch O'Hare. He was a fighter pilot assigned to an aircraft carrier in the Pacific. One time his entire squadron was assigned to fly a particular mission. After he was airborne, he looked at his fuel gauge and realized that someone had forgotten to top off his fuel tank. Because of this, he would not have enough fuel to complete his mission and get back to his ship. His flight leader told him to leave formation and return. As he was returning to the mother ship, he could see a squadron of Japanese Zeroes heading toward the fleet to attack. And with all the fighter planes gone, the fleet was almost defenseless. His was the only opportunity to distract and divert them. Single-handedly, he dove into the formation of Japanese planes and attacked them. The American fighter planes were rigged with cameras, so that as they flew and fought, pictures were taken so pilots could learn more about the terrain, enemy maneuvers, etc. Butch dove at them and shot until all his ammunition was gone, then he would dive and try to clip off a wing or tail or anything that would make the enemy planes unfit to fly. He did anything he could to keep them from reaching the American ships. Finally, the Japanese squadron took off in another direction, and Butch O'Hare and his fighter, both badly shot up, limped back to the carrier. He told his story, but not until the film from the camera on his plane was developed, did they realize the extent he really went to, to protect his fleet. He was recognized as a hero and given one of the nation's highest military honors. And as you know, the O'Hare Airport was also named after him. Prior to this time in Chicago, there was a man named Easy Eddie. He was working for a man you've all heard about, Al Capone. Al Capone wasn't famous for anything heroic, but he was notorious for the murders he'd committed and the illegal things he'd done. Easy Eddie was Al Capone's lawyer, and he was very good. In fact, because of his skill, he was able to keep Al Capone out of jail.  To show his appreciation, Al Capone paid him very well. He not only earned big money, he would get extra things, like a residence that filled an entire Chicago city block. The house was fenced, and he had live-in help and all of the conveniences of the day. Easy Eddie had a son. He loved his son and gave him all the best things while he was growing up: clothes, cars, and a good education. And because he loved his son he tried to teach him right from wrong. But one thing he couldn't give his son was a good name, and a good example. Easy Eddie decided that this was much more important than all the riches he had given him. So, he went to the authorities in order to rectify the wrong he had done. In order to tell the truth, it meant he must testify against Al Capone, and he knew that Al Capone would do his best to have him killed. But he wanted most of all to try to be an example and to do the best he could to give back to his son, a good name. So he testified. Within the year, he was shot and killed on a lonely street in Chicago. This sounds like two unrelated stories. But Butch O'Hare was Easy Eddie's son.  Do you think Easy Eddie was able to pass the value of integrity on to his son? Origins:  Some parts of this glurge about Edgar Joseph "Easy Eddie" O'Hare (also known as EJ) and his son, Edward Henry "Butch" O'Hare, are true, if exaggerated in the presentation above. The senior O'Hare provided legal services to Al Capone and later helped the government bring that notorious gangster to justice on tax fraud charges in 1931, then was murdered on 8 November 1939.  (Exactly who killed Eddie O'Hare has always been a subject for debate, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates that he was killed on orders from Capone for having given information to the government that led to Capone's imprisonment.)  Eddie's son Butch was a pilot who died in the Pacific during World War II when he failed to return to his carrier after a night mission on 26 November 1943, and Chicago's O'Hare airport was indeed named in his honor. (Dispute remains over exactly what happened to Butch, a Medal of Honor winner, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates his plane was downed by friendly fire rather than Japanese Zeroes.)   This glurge completely  jumps the tracks, however, in trying to turn the story of Eddie and Butch O'Hare into a tale of redemption, a little morality play to demonstrates the importance of recognizing the errors of one's ways, of atoning for one's misdeeds, of trying to do right and prevent one's sins from being visited on future generations.  Those are all valuable lessons, but they have precious little to do with this story. Eddie O'Hare was not just a gangster's lawyer, he was also a partner in some of Al Capone's illegal activities. Despite having entered a profession in which he was expected, of all things, to uphold the law, the senior O'Hare broke the law to enrich himself through unethical and illegal schemes in partnership with the most notorious gangster in American history.  What's more, he served Capone as an attorney and business manager, aiding the mobster in setting up illegal enterprises and helping to keep Capone and his cronies out of prison. When "Easy Eddie" did eventually provide information that aided federal authorities in sending Capone to prison for income tax evasion, it was far less likely that he did it because he had an attack of conscience, wanted to right the wrongs he'd done, or sought to teach his son the value of integrity.  More probably he turned state's evidence because he could see the handwriting on the wall: Capone was going to be nailed with or without his assistance, but by doing the government a favor Eddie could keep himself out of prison.  (Some sources even suggest the connections Eddie made by turning government informant were what got his son Butch a berth at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis.) Perhaps Eddie O'Hare believed or knew he would be killed for what he had done; perhaps not.  Either way, it was his son Butch who redeemed the family name through his wartime bravery and heroism, and the price he paid for that redemption was his life.  None of that redemption was achieved through the actions of Easy Eddie. Was the elder O'Hare "able to pass the value of integrity on to his son"?  If his actions illustrated anything, it was just the opposite of integrity: if you're clever enough and sufficiently lacking in moral values you can live a life of wealth and privilege by victimizing others, and if  your gravy train should ever derail you can adopt an "every man for himself" attitude and save your own skin by ratting on your associates. Butch O'Hare was suitably honored when the Chicago airport known as Orchard Depot was renamed O'Hare International in 1949.  It's unfortunate that he and the airport have to share the O'Hare name with his unscrupulous father. Additional information:     Capone and the O'Hares  (Combined Counties Police Association)  Last updated:  1 February 2005    Sources:    Ewing, Steve and John B. Lundstrom.  Fateful Rendezvous: The Life of Butch O'Hare.   Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1997.  ISBN 1-55750-247-1. Fateful Rendezvous: The Life of Butch O'Hare
In the wake of public criticism of the Trump administration's response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico in late 2017 as "inadequate" (among other things), a post widely shared via social media endeavored to make the opposite case, namely that President Trump deployed a massive amount of government assets to address the disaster:   President Trump has dispatched 140 helicopters, 28 ships, 6 Army field hospitals, 3 Navy Seabee Battalions, 5 US Army Combat Engineer Battalions, 3 Civil Affairs battalions, 2 Nuclear Submarines capable of generating 2.8 Gigawatts of Power, released 300,000 tons of food, medical supplies and water from Military stocks. We were unable to trace the figures to any official source, nor do we know who compiled them. We can say, however, based on actual facts and figures shared by FEMA and the Department of Defense (DoD), that the stated numbers range from inflated to downright fictional.  140 Helicopters Mixture. Based on United States Department of Defense statements, dozens of helicopters have been deployed to Puerto Rico, though the actual number is far less than 140. On 27 September (the same day the meme began circulating), DoD announced an "acceleration" of Puerto Rico relief efforts including the deployment of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp, whose complement of rotary-wing aircraft would bring the total number of helicopters in use there to 52.  announced 28 Ships Mixture. By our count, using figures released by the DoD and U.S. Coast Guard, the total number of U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships deployed to Puerto Rico is 18 (though an unknown number of non-military ships are also in use). Counting the USNS Comfort, a 1,000 bed hospital ship scheduled to dock in the disaster zone on 4 October, the arrival of the USS Wasp will bring the total number of U.S. Navy ships deployed to five (including the USS Kearsage and USS Oak Hill, both conducting search and rescue flights, aerial damage assessments, logistics support and route clearance on and around the island, and the SS Wright, tasked with delivering 1.1 million meals and one million liters of water). According to the U.S. Coast Guard, 13 of its cutters have been performing search and rescue missions and delivering supplies. An unspecified number of commercial ships are also participating in the aid effort. arrival 6 Army Field Hospitals false. We've found no evidence, either in press reports or statements from DoD or FEMA, that Army field hospitals are in use in Puerto Rico, though that doesn't mean no medical help is being supplied. Emergency medical services are being provided not by Army field hospitals, but by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) personnel assigned to support the efforts of doctors at fully or partially functional hospitals around Puerto Rico, as well as five "federal medical stations" set up near those facilities.  assigned 3 Navy Seabee Battalions, 5 US Army Combat Engineer Battalions, 3 Civil Affairs battalions true. According to press reports there are Seabees and members of the Army Corps of Engineers now on the ground in Puerto Rico, but we've seen no announcements supporting the numbers specified above. Although DoD officials have not released a breakdown of the various military forces thus far deployed to Puerto Rico, Gov. Ricardo Rossello said there were roughly 7,200 U.S. military personnel on the ground as of 2 October, according to a DoD press release, in addition to an estimated 3,000 non-military federal employees, for a total of more than 10,000 government workers involved in relief efforts. release 2 Nuclear Submarines False. It is not the case that two nuclear submarines were sent to provide emergency electricity to Puerto Ricans. A reported 95 percent of the island's 3.4 million inhabitants were still without power as of 2 October, according to local officials. FEMA reported distributing and setting up more than 300 emergency generators since the disaster, but most of that effort was devoted to restoring power to hospitals and other critical facilities. Using nuclear submarines to supply emergency power in disaster areas has been proposed, but never tried. In 1982, the USS Indianapolis was deployed to Kauai, Hawaii in the aftermath of Hurricane Iwa, a solution both Navy and civilian officials said would have been technically feasible, though the plan was ultimately abandoned in favor of using a portable generator to "jump start" the island's main power plant. No such "nuclear option" has been proposed in the case of Puerto Rico. deployed 300,000 Tons of Food, Medical supplies and Water true. We have not found the above (or any) overall total tonnage stated in any official sources, but vast amounts of food and supplies have either arrived or are on their way to Puerto Rico. According to FEMA, more than two million meals and 2.5 million litres of water have reached the island and been distributed, plus medical equipment, generators, gasoline, and other supplies, with more coming. FEMA For more information, see FEMA's daily-updated overview of federal government efforts on behalf of the citizens of Puerto Rico. overview Davis, Aaron, Lamothe, Dan and O'Keefe, Ed.  "U.S. Response in Puerto Rico Pales Next to Actions After Haiti Quake."
The Washington Post. 28 September 2017. Dickstein, Corey. "Pentagon Adding USS Wasp to Puerto Rico Response, USNS Comfort Departs for Island."
Stars and Stripes. 29 September 2017. Garamone, Jim. "Unified Coordination Group Addressing Puerto Rico Recovery, Governor Says."
U.S. Dept. of Defense. 2 October 2017. Hernandez, Arelis R., Lamothe, Dan, O'Keefe, Ed and Achenbach, Joel. "Trump Administration Rushes Military Assets to Puerto Rico Amid Growing Crisis."
The Washington Post. 27 September 2017. Starr, Barbara, Cohen, Zachary and Browne, Ryan. "U.S. Military Sends Ships, Aircraft to Puerto Rico."
CNN. 26 September 2017. Werner, Ben. "Pentagon: Hospital Ship USNS Comfort Prepares to Depart for Puerto Rico."
USNI News. 26 September 2017. FEMA. "Overview of Federal Efforts to Prepare for and Respond to Hurricane Maria."
2 October 2017. Reuters. "Factbox: Relief Efforts in Puerto Rico After Hurricane Maria."
29 September 2017. UPI. "Navy Seeks to Return Power to Stricken Hawaii Island."
29 November 1982. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. "HHS Augments Medical Care at Hospitals in Puerto Rico Impacted by Hurricane Maria."
30 September 2017. OK folks, we don't often get serious but this is important. Little Kyron Horman has been missing and his mother just put up this billboard in WA state.... please share everyone... please! This boy needs to be home with his Momma :(((  As noted on the web site of National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Kyron Richard Horman, then seven years old, went missing from his Portland, Oregon, home back in June 2010: Kyron Richard Horman He was last seen at school on June 4, 2010. Kyron was last seen wearing a black t-shirt with "CSI" in green letters and a handprint graphic. He was also wearing black cargo pants, white socks, and black Sketchers sneakers with orange trim. Kyron may wear glasses. More than two years later, this missing child case was brought to widespread public attention in conjunction with legal maneuvering, in which a $10 million lawsuit was brough by Kyron's biological mother, Desiree Young, which sought to compel Kyron's stepmother, Terri Horman, to either return Kyron or provide information about what had happened to him: More than two-years after 6-year-old Oregon boy Kyron Horman disappeared, the boy's stepmother is asking a judge to delay hearing a civil suit that says she knows the child's location.  The lawsuit was filed against Terri Horman by Kyron's biological mother, Desiree Young, asking the judge to order the stepmother to return Kyron or, if he's dead, say where his remains are located. The lawsuit also seeks $10 million. Terri Horman says in a brief that a criminal investigation is under way, and the civil suit should be stayed two years while it plays out. Investigators have long focused on Terri Horman, although they have not named her as a suspect or filed criminal charges. The lawsuit accuses her of kidnapping Kyron, by herself or with help. The boy was reportedly last seen on the morning of June 4, 2010 at Skyline Elementary School in Portland, where his stepmother had taken him for a science fair. Five years on, Kyron's case was still being actively pursued by law enforcement, friends, and family: As the five-year anniversary of Kyron Horman's disappearance approaches, The Multnomah County Sheriff's Office wants the public to know the search is still active. Friends and family members said they plan to put together another search effort this summer. But Lt. Steve Alexander said the sheriff's office had to date received more than 4,000 tips in the case. And he said the investigation is definitely still active. "A full time sheriff's office detective is primarily assigned to the Kyron Horman missing child investigation, and efforts to locate Kyron," Alexander said. "Additionally, a now-retired FBI Agent with years of experience in the Child Abduction Rapid Deployment teams continues his involvement in this case, reviewing the evidence amassed by investigators." He said tips in the case come in from all over the world nearly every day. Kyron's stepmother Terri Horman, whom a judge described as a prime suspect in her stepson's disappearance, has twice tried to change her name, and in January 2016 she was reported to have moved out of Oregon to California: The stepmother of missing Portland boy Kyron Horman has moved out of Oregon. In October [2015], Terri Horman changed her Oregon driver's license to an address in Sacramento, California. In August 2014, Terri Horman tried to change her name to Claire Stella Sullivan.  During a court hearing, Horman said she wanted a new name to "start over a new life without the stigma of Horman attached to it."  A Douglas County judge denied that request. Four months later, Horman applied for another name change in Lane County.  She wanted to change her name to Claire Kisiel, but later withdrew the request In a 20 January 2016 interview with People magazine, Terri Horman asserted she had nothing to do with Kyron's disappearance: Terri has never been named a suspect or a person of interest in the case surrounding Kyron's disappearance, which officials for the Multnomah County Sheriff's Department say is an "ongoing investigation."  Still, a cloud of suspicion has followed Terri, and she's ready to answer questions that people have wanted to know. Terri [says] she did not harm or kill Kyron and has no idea what happened to him or where he is.  "The answer is what I've said a hundred times  I don't know." A Facebook group has been established to help disseminate information about Kyron and raise funds for ongoing search efforts. Facebook Leibowitz, Barry.  "Kyron Horman's Stepmom Wants Delay in Lawsuit."
  CBSNews.com  25 July 2012. 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. PHOTOS STORED IN AN OLD BROWNIE CAMERA Thought you might find these photo's very interesting, what quality from 1941.Pearl Harbor Photos found in an old Brownie stored in a foot locker.  THESE PHOTOS ARE FROM A SAILOR WHO WAS ON THE USS QUAPAW ATF-11O. INTERESTING, I THINK THEY'RE SPECTACULAR.                    On Sunday, December 7th, 1941 the Japanese empire launched a surprise attack against the U.S. Forces stationed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. By planning his attack on a Sunday, the Japanese commander Admiral Nagumo, hoped to catch the entire fleet in port. As luck would have it, the Aircraft Carriers and one of the Battleships were not in port. (The USS Enterprise was returning from Wake Island, where it had just delivered some aircraft. The USS Lexington was ferrying aircraft to Midway, and the USS Saratoga and USS Colorado were undergoing repairs in the United States.)  In spite of the latest intelligence reports about the missing aircraft carriers (his most important targets), Admiral Nagumo decided to continue the attack with his force of six carriers and 423 aircraft. At a range of 230 miles north of Oahu, he launched the first wave of a two-wave attack. Beginning at 0600 hours his first wave consisted of 183 fighters and torpedo bombers which struck at the fleet in Pearl Harbor and the airfields in Hickam, Kaneohe and Ewa. The second strike, launched at 0715 hours, consisted of 167 aircraft, which again struck at the same targets.  At 0753 hours the first wave consisting of 40 Nakajima B5N2 "Kate" torpedo bombers, 51 Aichi D3A1 "Val" dive bombers, 50 high altitude bombers and 43 Zeros struck airfields and Pearl Harbor Within the next hour, the second wave arrived and continued the attack.When it was over, the U.S. losses were:  CasualtiesUSA : 218 KIA, 364 WIA..USN: 2,008 KIA, 710 WIA.USMC: 109 KIA, 69 WIA.Civilians: 68 KIA, 35 WIA.TOTAL: 2,403 KIA, 1,178 WIA.-------------------------------------------------   BattleshipsUSS Arizona (BB-39) - total loss whe n a bomb hit her magazine.USS Oklahoma (BB-37) - Total loss when she capsized and sunk in the harbor.USS California (BB-44) - Sunk at her berth. Later raised and repaired.USS West Virginia (BB-48) - Sunk at her berth. Later raised and repaired.USS Nevada - (BB-36) Beached to prevent sinking. Later repaired.USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) - Light damage.USS Maryland (BB-46) - Light damage.USS Tennessee (BB-43) Light damage.USS Utah (AG-16) - (former battleship used as a target) - Sunk.-------------------------------------------------CruisersUSS New Orleans (CA-32) - Light Damage.USS San Francisco (CA38) - Light Damage.USS Detroit (CL-8) - Light Damage.USS Raleigh (CL-7) - Heavily damaged but repaired.USS Helena (CL-50) - Light Damage.USS Honolulu (CL-48) - Light Damage.-------------------------------------------------DestroyersUSS Downes (DD-375) - Destroyed. Parts salvaged.USS Cassin - (DD-37 2) Destroyed. Parts salvaged.USS Shaw (DD-373) - Very heavy damage.USS Helm (DD-388) - Light Damage.-------------------------------------------------MinelayerUSS Ogala (CM-4) - Sunk but later raised and repaired.-------------------------------------------------Seaplane TenderUSS Curtiss (AV-4) - Severely damaged but later repaired.-------------------------------------------------Repair ShipUSS Vestal (AR-4) - Sever ely damaged but later repaired.-------------------------------------------------Harbor TugUSS Sotoyomo (YT-9) - Sunk but later raised and repaired.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Aircraft188 Aircraft destroyed (92 USN and 92 U.S. Army Air Corps.) The images seen above are genuine photographs of the Japanese attack on American military forces at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii on 7 December 1941, but not  as claimed in the accompanying text  all of them pictures taken by a sailor with a Brownie camera that remained undiscovered in a footlocker for many decades.   Brownie For a "sailor" to have snapped pictures from all the perspectives shown above, he would had to have been in the harbor aboard his ship, on the ground, and aloft in an airplane  all while the attack was in progress.  Moreover, the ship on which this wide-ranging sailor supposedly served, the first USS Quapaw, wasn't even built until well after the attack on Pearl Harbor. USS Quapaw Most (if not all) of these images are readily identifiable as archival U.S. Navy photos that have been available since the early 1940s and have appeared in countless articles and books about the Pearl Harbor attack. archival As the race between Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Republican challenger Scott Brown heats up, the attacks are growing more intense. In a recent radio ad, Shaheen accused Brown of being too friendly with Wall Street when serving as a senator from neighboring Massachusetts from 2010 to 2012. Heres the 60-second ads narration: Wonder why Scott Brown lost re-election in Massachusetts? Well, he was working for Wall Street, not the people. Scott Brown blocked a major financial reform bill until he could water it down and save Wall Street $19 billion. Scott Brown really delivered for Wall Street, said the Boston Globe. Even after the bill passed, news reports show Brown was secretly serving the interests of Wall Street, working behind the scenes to help the big banks, not consumers. Wall Street thanked Scott Brown by giving him more campaign contributions than any other candidate -- $5.3 million. Now, Scott Brown wants New Hampshire to send him to Washington. Wall Streets once again spending millions to help. Scott Brown says he really cares about New Hampshire. Come on, dont be fooled. No matter where he lives, Scott Brown will always put Wall Street first. And thats good for Scott Brown, but not New Hampshire. Thats a lot to chew on. PolitiFact New Hampshire already checked a claim by a pro-Shaheen group that Browns actions had saved big banks $19 billion in taxes, rating itMostly False. But what about the ads claim that Wall Street gave him more campaign contributions than any other candidate -- $5.3 million? We decided to take a closer look. The Shaheen campaign pointed us to calculations by the Center for Responsive Politics, whoseopensecrets.orgwebsite tracks a wide variety of campaign-finance data. Its a trusted source that weve used many times in the past. The Shaheen campaigns $5.3 million figure refers to how much Brown received in the 2012 campaign cycle -- when he lost his seat to Democrat Elizabeth Warren -- from donors categorized as being part of the finance, insurance and real estate sector. Theirdollar figure is correct-- as is Browns No. 1 ranking among all Senate candidates for donations from that sector -- but Shaheens ad stretches a bit when it calls this Wall Street. Most finance firms have a reasonable claim on being part of Wall Street, but a lot of the insurance and real-estate sectors fall outside that category. Also, not everyone working at these firms is a financial mogul, but their individual donations still count towards the total. So we decided to drill down a little deeper. We found a few sub-categories of finance/insurance/real estate that are a closer fit to Wall Street. They include: Securities and investment: Brown ranked first among Senate candidates in the 2012 campaign cycle with$2,682,872. Private equity and investment firms: Brown ranked first with$556,092in donations. Hedge funds: Brown ranked first with$306,800in donations. Venture capital: Brown ranked first with$262,081in donations. This provides support for the notion that Brown ranked No. 1 in these types of donations. But he ranked a little lower in two other categories: Finance and credit companies: Brown ranked ninth with$54,450in donations. Commercial banks: Brown ranked third with$297,539in donations. Meanwhile, Browns total haul from these six categories was about $4.2 million, or about one-fifth lower than what the ad said. This is not the first time that Shaheens campaign has used somewhat loose language in describing Browns donors. When a previous Shaheen ad claimed that Big Oil gave Scott Brown $454,260, we rated that claimHalf True, noting that only about 11.5 percent of Browns haul came from companies and individuals affiliated with the biggest multinational companies -- what most viewers would consider Big Oil. When we contacted Browns staff, spokeswoman Elizabeth Guyton said, Scott Browns fundraising is no different than Jeanne Shaheens in that they both accept contributions from the financial services industry. The only difference is that Jeanne Shaheen is hypocritically attacking him for it. However, in the 2012 election cycle -- when Brown was receiving $5.3 million from the finance/insurance/real estate sector -- Shaheen accepted just $64,139 from the same sector, ranking 65th among all Senate candidates. In the current cycle, she has accepted $565,935 from the finance/insurance/real estate sector, ranking her 21st among Senate candidates. Our ruling Shaheens ad said that in 2012, Wall Street gave Scott Brown more campaign contributions than any other candidate -- $5.3 million. If you put together six categories that might reasonably be considered Wall Street, Brown received about $4.2 million in all, and he finished first among Senate candidates in four of those six categories. However, the total amount is short of the $5.3 million claimed in the ad. The statement is generally accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. On 3 August 2016, CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond shared a screenshot via Twitter of an e-mail sent by a frustrated former Trump supporter, claiming that it was impossible for backers to cancel recurring donations to the Trump campaign: Jeremy Diamond INBOX: Help, I set up a recurring contribution to Trump's campaign & want to cancel it: (cc: @realDonaldTrump) pic.twitter.com/TFOHhdZDlJ @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/TFOHhdZDlJ  Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016  Diamond's tweet sparked a number of articles and blog posts stating it was "impossible" to cancel recurring Trump campaign donations, based solely or primarily on the anecdotal, secondhand claim made  in that tweet. Among the comments prompted by original tweet sent by Diamond were those left by other purported donors asserting that the claim wasn't exactly accurate:  @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Spreading bogus info. When you contribute, you get receipt with an email + tel number to call if you need help. @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump  M G (@MadaGasp) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016  @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump now please stop spreading false information, its all in the email you receive when you contribute @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump  Brian (@Brian_with_a_B) August 6, 2016 August 6, 2016   A large number of commenters expressed skepticism about the report, given that the claim was anonymously  sourced from a single individual: @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Cheap shot: we all know you can contact your bank or other form of payment you use, to cancel right away. @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump  Viktor Staudt (@ViktorStaudt) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016  @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump so exactly who was this unknown mystery person that went straight to a journalist? pic.twitter.com/R4h78829CP @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/R4h78829CP  Patti Hannah (@b6sangel) August 7, 2016 August 7, 2016  We were unable to turn up any reports about the issue that antedated Diamond's tweet. If any Trump donors had previously encountered difficulties canceling their recurring donations, they didn't seem to chatter very much about it on social media prior to 3 August 2016 (and ceasing to support Trump as a candidate is only one reason someone might seek to cancel a recurring payment). Diamond appeared to pass the baton on the story overall, updating followers later with a link to an article published by Mic: The folks at @mic took this ball and ran with it. Here's what they found: https://t.co/eTODFa4f3O https://t.co/cktSrf88Z2 @mic https://t.co/eTODFa4f3O https://t.co/cktSrf88Z2  Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 5, 2016 August 5, 2016  Diamond did not provide any further information about the claim, the claimant, or how he verified it before sharing it to Twitter. But Mic attempted to reproduce the problem on 4 August 2016 and gathered more information on the difficulty level of canceling recurring Trump donations. In a series of screenshots the site illustrated their findings, stating it was not possible to delete a stored credit card without replacing it with a separate valid credit card:  After investigating, Mic can confirm that there is no easy option to stop recurring donations on Trump's donation site: We set up a recurring donation of $1 and found no button or other obvious way to cancel payments or remove a credit card from the system  either on the homepage, the "update card" page, or in your contribution confirmation email. Once you're registered, if you try to change your payment information on Trump's site, you will see no option to remove your credit card  only "update" it. Then, when you click on "update card," you see a page that allows you to alter your payment information  but you cannot completely delete your credit card. You are forced to replace it with another valid card: Invalid numbers are rejected. One responder to the original tweet then objected to that claim, stating it was impossible to set up a recurring $1 donation:  .@JDiamond1 You can't set up a $1.00 recurring amt.What else about this story is BS?@realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/kB4TalWOSE @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/kB4TalWOSE  ValerieNoFux (@OPFergVal) August 7, 2016 August 7, 2016  However, it appears that it is possible to enter any amount as a recurring donation: enter  Mic confirmed that if a putative donor set up an account, then it would be possible for that person to cancel a recurring donation made via Trump's web site: It turns out that there is a way to delete your card from the Trump campaign's system, but it seems you must have first registered an account and created a password: If you did not do so, there is no clear way to cancel your payment. Assuming you did create an account and have logged in, to stop your payment you must click the small gray question mark icon in the upper right corner of the donations page. Then you will see [a separate] screen. In order to delete your card, you must click "manage." Then will you be redirected to the website of the Trump campaign's vendor. There you must click "recurring plans," and only then can you cancel your monthly payment; notably, even after you cancel, there is still no obvious way to delete your card number without replacing it with another valid number. Per Mic's screenshots, that vendor was Revv, and we sent an e-mail inquiry to them to clarify whether it was possible to cancel the recurring payments some other way.  Revv However, even if the web site interface didn't allow for such a cancellation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) notes that the the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) provides for consumers to cancel unwanted recurring payments: notes If you have regular, automatic deductions from your checking account (to pay for expenses such as insurance premiums or utility bills), the EFTA allows you to stop those payments. First, notify the vendor. Next, tell your bank about your request at least three business days before the money is scheduled to be transferred. Your notice to the bank may be oral, but the institution may require you to provide a written follow-up within 14 days to ensure that no additional payments are made. If you fail to provide a written follow-up, the bank is no longer responsible for stopping future payments. Stopping an automatic, recurring payment on a credit card is different. Start by putting in your request with the vendor. But if the vendor continues to charge your credit card, contact your card issuer. You'll have 60 days to dispute the charge, starting when the card issuer sends you the statement with the charges. While it appears to be atypically difficult to cancel a recurring donation to the Trump campaign, it is certainly not impossible, as individuals who create an account can do so via the web interface. Overall, it seemed the problem related more to the interface of a third-party vendor (Revv) to whom the Trump campaign had outsourced donations and not to the campaign itself.  Dennin, James.  "Donald Trump's Campaign Website Won't Let Some Cancel Recurring Donations."
  Mic.  4 August 2016. In early 2022, the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, many were debating the effects of masks and lockdowns on early childhood development.  Internet rumors abounded, including one claiming that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) actually lowered the standard milestones for measuring childhood development largely because of the allegedly deleterious effects of pandemic safety measures, particularly wearing masks.  standard milestones for measuring childhood development One post claimed: The CDC just quietly lowered the standards for speech in early childhood development. Now children should know [about] 50 words at 30 [months] rather than 24 [months]. Instead of highlighting the harmful effects masks and lockdowns have had on children, the CDC just lowered the bar for milestones.     In February 2022, the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) did release a statement describing updates to their developmental milestone checklists. The updates included Adding checklists for ages 15 and 30 months; now there is a checklist for every well-child visit from 2 months to 5 years. February 2022, Before this, in addition to checklists for older age groups, there was already a checklist for children 2 years old (24 months). That checklist is on the CDC's website. The checklist for 24-month-olds never stipulated the number of words a child should be able to speak at that age, only that a 2-year-old says sentences with 2 to 4 words. (See archived versions of that same checklist from 2020 and 2017, for example.)  checklist 2020 2017 The CDC specified the following in its Language/Communication Milestones for a 30-month-old child: following Says about 50 wordsSays two or more words, with one action word, like Doggie runNames things in a book when you point and ask, What is this?Says words like I, me, or we The point about knowing 50 words was new (for any age group), and had not been part of the 2-year milestones on the CDC website prior to this addition. According to Dr. Paul H. Lipkin who assisted with the revisions, the goal of the checklist was to identify developmental delays early. The earlier a child is identified with a developmental delay the better, as treatment as well as learning interventions can begin, he said. At the same time, we dont want to cause unnecessary confusion for families or professionals. Revising the guidelines with expertise and data from clinicians in the field accomplishes these goals. Review of a childs development with these milestones also opens up a continuous dialogue between a parent and the health care provider about their childs present and future development. Dr. Paul H. Lipkin said It should be noted that according to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), a child saying fewer than 50 words at 2 years old is a sign of a language disorder. ASHA released a statement about the updated milestones, expressing concern: according statement ASHA has reached out to CDC, expressing its concern about inconsistencies and urging the agency to utilize the expertise of SLPs when making changes to developmental milestones in speech, language, feeding, and social communication. In general, ASHA is supportive of efforts to help identify children earlier, but the milestones presented to parents must be evidence-based in order for families to make well-informed decisions about their children's care. That said, the CDCs milestone revisions were already in development before the pandemic began, with a broad literature search underway in 2019. According to a research article detailing the process and philosophy behind the revisions, the new milestones aim to capture the 75th percentile, or what 3/4 of children are expected to achieve at a particular age, instead of the previously used 50th percentile, which was found to be less helpful for families and clinicians.  2019 research article The CDCs milestones are intended to help parents identify autism and developmental delays in their children, and not act as a screening tool for medical professionals. "The revised developmental milestones are written in family-friendly language and identify the behaviors that 75% or more of children can be expected to exhibit at a certain age based on data, developmental resources and clinician experience," their news release stated.   intended stated As of this writing, no evidence has emerged that shows masking negatively affects childhood development, so the claim that the CDC intentionally obscured masking harm is incorrect. The AAP website states: AAP website A key part of learning to communicate for a child is watching the faces, mouths, and expressions of the people closest to them. Babies and young children study faces intently, so the concern about solid masks covering the face is understandable. However, there are no known studies that use of a face mask negatively impacts a child's speech and language development. And consider this: visually impaired children develop speech and language skills at the same rate as their peers. In fact, when one sense is taken away, the others may be heightened. Young children will use other clues provided to them to understand and learn language. They will watch gestures, hear changes in tone of voice, see eyes convey emotions, and listen to words. A 2021 University of Miami study also found, Wearing a mask in school does not hinder a young childs ability to learn language, even if they have hearing loss.  University of Miami study Meanwhile, studies of the effects of a range of pandemic lockdowns on childhood development have shown mixed results. A study conducted by the Early Intervention Foundation (EIF) in the U.K. showed that the pandemic had a significant adverse impact on mostly vulnerable, low-income older children, and those who were from minority ethnic backgrounds. But the study emphasized that more research was needed on the effects of the pandemic on childhood development for children aged 05 years.  study A number of studies by an international consortium of researchers from 13 countries, including from the University of Oslo, the University of Gttingen, and University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, looked at the effects of COVID-19 lockdown on early development. Shortly after isolation began in March 2020, parents were asked to fill out questionnaires, and then contacted at the end of the lockdown. The studies found that "despite having increased exposure to screen time during lockdown, children learned more words during the lockdown period in March 2020, relative to before the pandemic. This is potentially due to other activities that parents undertook with their children during lockdown."  studies Another report on behalf of the International Society for Social Pediatrics & Child Health (ISSOP) included studies conducted across 22 countries, and a wide age range (0-18 years) and concluded that "pandemic school closure and lockdown have adverse effects on child health and well-being in the short and probably long term."  report A January 2022 report in Nature detailed how varied the data could be: report Some babies born during the past two years might be experiencing developmental delays, whereas others might have thrived, if carers were at home for extended periods and there were more opportunities for siblings to interact. As with many aspects of health during the pandemic, social and economic disparities have a clear role in who is affected the most. Early data suggest that the use of masks has not negatively affected childrens emotional development. But prenatal stress might contribute to some changes in brain connectivity. The picture is evolving and many studies have not yet been peer reviewed. And one particular study by Brown Universitys Advanced Baby Imaging Lab found that the pandemic-born babies they tested scored lower during early learning tests including for language, puzzle-solving, and motor skills. But other researchers argued that these tests were not necessarily indicative of longer term problems, and the findings are currently under revision.  study While the CDC did update its checklist to include development milestones for 30-month-old children, those changes were already in process before the pandemic began. The 50-word expectation was new and did not exist in older versions of the milestones. Furthermore, there is no evidence to date that masks cause developmental delays in children, and the evidence regarding the effects of lockdowns on childhood development has been mixed, so it's illogical to claim that the CDC obscured such information or revised the milestones due to the effects of masking and lockdowns. Given all of the above, we rate this claim as false. ASHA Statement on CDCs Updated Developmental Milestones. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, https://www.asha.org/about/statements/ASHA-Statement-on-CDC-Developmental-Milestones/. Accessed 4 Mar. 2022. "Do Masks Delay Speech and Language Development?" HealthyChildren.Org. https://perma.cc/CS22-HG2P. Accessed 4 Mar. 2022. Early Identification of Speech, Language, and Hearing Disorders. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, https://www.asha.org/public/early-identification-of-speech-language-and-hearing-disorders/. Accessed 4 Mar. 2022. Growing up in Lockdown: The Impacts of Pandemic Life on Childrens Early Physical Development. Early Intervention Foundation, 26 Nov. 2021, https://www.eif.org.uk/blog/growing-up-in-lockdown-the-impacts-of-pandemic-life-on-childrens-early-physical-development. Accessed 4 March 2022.  "Psychologists: Masks Do Not Impede Preschoolers Language Development." University of Miami, 13 Sept. 2022. https://perma.cc/AY3A-EBR2. Accessed 4 Mar. 2022. Rajmil, Louis, and Anders Hjern, Perran Boran, and on behalf of International Society for Social Pediatrics & Child Health (ISSOP) and International Network for Research on Inequalities in Child Health (INRICH) COVID-19 Working Group, et al. "Impact of lockdown and school closure on childrens health and well-being during the first wave of COVID-19: a narrative review." BMJ Paediatrics Open, 2021. https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/5/1/e001043. Accessed 4 March 2022.  Schering, Steve. "CDC, AAP Update Developmental Milestones for Surveillance Program." Feb. 2022. publications.aap.org, https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/19554/CDC-AAP-update-developmental-milestones-for. Accessed 4 March 2022.  University of Gttingen. "Impact of COVID-19 social isolation measures on early development: Researchers investigate impact of lockdown measures on 8- to 36-month-old infants across 13 countries." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 7 February 2022. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220207083421.htm>. Accessed 4 March 2022.  Wenner Moyer, Melinda. The COVID Generation: How Is the Pandemic Affecting Kids Brains? Nature, vol. 601, no. 7892, Jan. 2022, pp. 18083. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00027-4. Accessed 4 March 2022.  What Developmental Milestones Is Your 30-Month-Old Reaching? Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Feb. 2022, https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/milestones/milestones-30mo.html. Accessed 4 March 2022.  Your Child at 2 Years. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/pdf/checklists/checklists_2yr.pdf. Accessed 4 March 2022.  Zubler, Jennifer M. and Lisa D. Wiggins, Michelle M. Macias, Toni M. Whitaker, Judith S. Shaw, Jane K. Squires, Julie A. Pajek, Rebecca B. Wolf, Karnesha S. Slaughter, Amber S. Broughton, Krysta L. Gerndt, Bethany J. Mlodoch, Paul H. Lipkin. "Evidence-Informed Milestones for Developmental Surveillance Tools." Pediatrics March 2022; 149 (3): e2021052138. 10.1542/peds.2021-052138. Accessed on 3 March 2022. Claim:  For John Kerry's Labor Day 'front porch' stop in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, neighborhood streets were closed and residents told to take down their Bush/Cheney signs. Status:  Multiple  see below.  Neighborhood streets were closed:  True. Residents were ordered to remove their Bush/Cheney signage:  False.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Good Tuesday morning! John Kerry brought his "front porch meeting" to our Canonsburg, PA neighborhood on Labor Day morning. Since you will never hear the truth from the TV or print media I thought that you should know from someone who was 'almost' there. The residents who live on the street where the event took place were not allowed to attend. Kerry shipped in approximately 90 invitation only VIPs. In addition, there was a hard luck case who was about to lose her job at USAIR and another was an elderly woman who was having health careproblems. Neither one was from this neighborhood. The street was closed to all traffic the night before and all residents on the street were REQUIRED to remove their Bush/Cheney signs. The sympathetic police officers on duty told us that Kerry used imminentdomain to claim the street for his purposes. Residents who have homes within the perimeter (approximately 1 full block) were kept behind a line away from the partisan crowd. The rest of us were not allowed within the 1 block cordon. A neighbor from across the street came to the line where we were being kept and asked us to come onto his property. The police told us that we could stand on this mans FORMERLY private property! This was set up so that Kerry's views could be heard - but not the neighbors. About 30 peoples (mostly neighbors) shouts echoed down the street "Let the neighbors in". We could barely hear Kerry speaking with his microphone because press buses were used to block us off from view! This mornings papers are reporting how hecklers tried to interrupt Kerry as he spoke to the neighborhood gathering, but he turned our chants to his favor by calling us rude. Even though most of the media was there to record our stories of not being included in the neighborhood forum, not one of them printed or aired the truth. This is what America will look like if Kerry becomes president. Get registered and get all of your friends registered to vote if they have not already. Kerry thinks that he is better than the rest of us and he has the media on his side to make him out to be what he is not! Finally, last night as I drove down the street where the rally was, I was shocked to see Bush/Cheney signs in almost every yard on the street! Please send this e-mail on to as many people as you can. LET FREEDOM RING! Origins:  On Monday, the 6th of September 2004, John Kerry took his campaign to Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, a working class neighborhood near Pittsburgh. That day's schedule began with a front-porch question and answer session with supporters on West College Street at the home of Dale and Jody  Rhome.  It is that session of politicking which is the subject of the e-mail quoted above. Although not every claim made in the report can be substantiated or dismissed, some can. Statements made in two articles that appeared in the Observer-Reporter, the newspaper from the nearby town of Washington, Pennsylvania, after the 'front porch' meeting support the e-mail's claim of the street's being closed all night to traffic: "The 200 block of West College was shut down for the visit" and "On Sunday morning, the Rhomes and Kerry campaign workers went door-to-door on the street, alerting neighbors of Kerry's upcoming visit. [Said Jody Rhome] 'We also told them they had to get their cars off the street because the street was being shut down.'"  However, its next assertion, that "all residents on the street were REQUIRED to remove their Bush/Cheney signs," appears to contradict a line from an Observer-Reporter article two days after the event: "In an effort to block out the few dozen Bush supporters on one end of the street, Kerry officials provided volunteers with various Kerry signs in key positions to block Bush signage." Had neighbors been made to take  From left, Karen Fortney, Beth Soucie and Traci Fortney hold up  signs supporting President George Bush during a visit by Democraticcandidate Sen. John Kerry to Canonsburg yesterday. down their Bush/Cheney signs, nothing would have remained that required screening from sight. Yet the Observer-Reporter's statement might have referred to placards brandished by demonstrators rather than signs erected on people's lawns. However, a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette account of the day makes it clear that fixed signs were not removed, saying: "Beth Soucie, who stood in a yard filled with Bush signs, said she will stick with the Republican incumbent." The description of the Soucie yard stands at odds with the claim of removed signs, as does the photo on this page of Mrs. Soucie and two other women standing in the Bush/Cheney-festooned Soucie yard. According to a blogger called ilja who posts on the RightNation.us forums, his conversation with Stan Soucie, the husband of the Beth Soucie interviewed and photographed by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, further argued against the 'sign removal' aspect of the account. In his 18 September 2004 post to the "Kerry Campaign Stop AngersPennsylvania Neighborhood" thread, he reported: RightNation.us Angers He said that I could cite him [Stan Soucie] and that they were not told they had to take their Bush/Cheney signs down because there was a yard down the street from where they were standing with a whole lot of Bush signs in the yard. He did state that whenever the TV cameras would move to where a Bush sign was that the Democratic organization would hold their signs in front of the Bush signs to block out the view. However, since they were standing on a porch, the Democrat signs were not tall enough to block them. The   e-mailed narrative states, "The sympathetic police officers on duty told us that Kerry used imminent domain to claim the street for his purposes." If members of the police force said that, they were in error, because Senator Kerry could not have invoked "eminent domain." One block of West College was cordoned off by the Secret Service, who are charged with protecting the nominee. The Senator would not have had much, if any, say in this. eminent domain John Kerry was heckled during his remarks that morning and did dialogue back and forth with his detractors, which means the e-mail's "This was set up so that Kerry's views could be heard - but not the neighbors" should be viewed with skepticism. Also, that the Senator was heckled shows that  the assembled crowd couldn't have been composed of only hand-picked VIPs, else there wouldn't have been that sort of sparring. This is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's account of some of those exchanges: With a friendly crowd in Canonsburg lobbing softball questions yesterday, Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry could have ignored a pocket of hecklers that tried to disrupt his campaign. Instead, Kerry pulled the detractors into his Labor Day speech, part of the "front-porch discussions" he's been holding across the country. He told them their shouts and taunts couldn't cover up facts  namely, that America has had a net loss of 1.6 million jobs under President Bush. Gasoline prices are up 31 percent since Bush took office, and college tuition has grown more expensive by the year, he said.  At the same time, he said, wages are down by $1,500 for "the average family." One heckler then shouted, "Yeah, Kerry, you're really average." Kerry pounced on the comment, replying: "No, I'm privileged, and my tax burden went down. I don't think that's right." Kerry said Bush, also a man of money and privilege, has worked hard to lessen tax payments for the wealthiest Americans. Otherwise, Kerry said, Bush has presided over an economy that is in disarray. Income for all Americans fell 9.2 percent in 2001 and 2002, according to the Internal Revenue Service. In addition, Bush has rung up record budget deficits, and he will be the first president since Herbert Hoover in the Great Depression to have lost more jobs than he created, Kerry said. "Franklin Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all created jobs during their presidencies, even though they had wars to contend with," Kerry said. The jobs developed under Bush's administration are nothing to shout about, Kerry went on. He seized on a just-released Bureau of Labor Statistics report that said new jobs in growing industries pay $8,848 a year less than jobs that were lost, either because of shrinking industries or exportation of work to foreign soil. "If you think that's moving in the right direction, go vote for the other guy," Kerry said to the hecklers. According to the e-mail, "This mornings papers are reporting how hecklers tried to interrupt Kerry as he spoke to the neighborhood gathering, but he turned our chants to his favor by calling us rude." The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had a different take on what was said and why: Patricia Romano of Canonsburg told Kerry that she has had 11 throat surgeries and must pay so much for prescription drugs that she had to get a part-time job at age 70. Hecklers drowned out Romano at one point. That prompted Kerry to say, "While the Bush people were rudely shouting, we had a 70-year-old woman trying to speak" about runaway costs of prescription drugs. The identity of the person who wrote this by now much-traveled account remains a mystery. Roughly three of every four copies that found their way to us were prefaced: "Received this from a very good friend in PA. She wants everyone to know what she saw." Yet in none of those forwards was the 'very good friend in PA' identified by name or her e-mail address provided; other than her gender and state of residence, nothing is known about the purported authoress of this chronicle. Paradoxically, about one-quarter of the narrations bears the name "Ken Armstrong," and about one-twentieth "Charles A. Walter." Both are decidedly male names, further muddying the question of authorship. Barbara "front porch remarks, back fence gossip" Mikkelson Last updated:  20 October 2004    Sources:   Hazlett, Terry.  "Prepping a Porch for Kerry."   [Washington] Observer-Reporter.  8 September 2004  (p. A1).    Simonich, Milan.  "Kerry Jousts with Hecklers."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  7 September 2004  (p. A3).    Walters, Patrick.  "Heinz Kerry Visits Pittsburgh, Philadelphia for Labor Day Parades."   The Associated Press.  7 September 2004.    Warco, Kathie.  "Rendell, Hoeffel Stump in S. Strabane."   [Washington] Observer-Reporter.  7 September 2004  (p. A1). Claim:  Alabama mom's Obamacare horror story gives America a glimpse of government run healthcare. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected on the Internet, December 2013] My family's journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013.   I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us.   We are a family of four, with two little boys' ages seven years old and three years old.   My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively.  We have been with the same two companies for those years.  We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us.  We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us.  On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama.  When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement.  Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband.  So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us.  This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month.  I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this.  Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly.  I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kids college, our retirement, etc.  I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month  how in the world could this help the economy too?  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  The item referenced above, an open detailing one Alabama woman's extreme difficulty and frustration in obtaining ACA-compliant health insurance coverage for her family (including her 7-year-old son with ADHD) was posted under the name of Karri Kinder on 23 December 2013 as the sole entry in a blog and was republished (without additional comment) by the Independent Journal Review on 31 December 2013. blog republished Certainly her experience is not unique in kind, as many residents of Alabama covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama (an insurer who has an 88% share of the state's health insurance market) found out at the end of 2013 that they would be paying much higher premiums for ACA-compliant coverage through BCBS: Doug Hoffman, who works statewide to help people sign up for benefits through the Affordable Care Act, just received a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama notice in the mail to find health insurance rates for his family have doubled. And  he's mad  at Blue Cross. "I just got my benefits renewal from Blue Cross for next year and they doubled my rate!" he wrote AL.com in an email. "I was paying $675 for a family premium (2 adults, one 22 yo dependent) with a $1,500 deducible. The new rate for a comparable plan is $1,360 with a $3,000 deductible. Basically they have doubled my costs." "It appears as though Blue Cross is taking advantage of the ACA by hiking rates big time," said Hoffman, who is based in Birmingham with Enroll Alabama. Others, who have received the notices from the state's dominant health insurer are mad as well  at Obamacare. "Obama thinks that he is making insurance affordable," wrote one reader to the Mobile Press Register Sound Off feature. "I just got a letter from my Blue Cross Blue Shield that if I want to keep their insurance it's going to cost me $300 more a month. I already pay $300 a month now and they're wanting right at $600 a month for this Affordable Care Act." Blue Cross posted an explanation for the rate hikes to its Facebook page, maintaining that several reasons are behind the increased premiums: more taxes and fees, a requirement to rate family members individually, and the elimination of health underwriting and waiting periods for preexisting conditions: explanation The new law requires all health insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to use a consistent rating method called "member level rating." For the individual market, this means each person on an insurance policy will now be rated based on age, whether he or she uses tobacco, and the county in which the policy holder lives. In the past Blue Cross was able to offer one family premium, no matter the size.  For family plans, most family members will now be rated individually. Once each person has been rated, the amounts are added together to get a family's premium cost. For children age 20 and younger, the oldest three children will be individually rated and included in the family premium amount.   As a result, larger families may experience higher premiums. As Mike Oliver noted in an article for AL.com, the elimination of health underwriting may have a substantial effect on health insurance premiums in that state: article "Alabama has allowed medical underwriting  you're going to be quoted a high premium if you have something wrong with you," said Michael Morrisey, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Lister Hill Center for Health Policy. "The Affordable Care Act abolishes medical underwriting." This means that those with expensive health problems will likely now jump in and buy coverage because it will be less expensive for them  or if they already have coverage  their rates will go down. But that also means rates will go up for everyone else as the insurer spreads that new cost around. "The thing that happens when you eliminate underwriting is that you lump dissimilar people together," Morrisey said. "When you combine groups, one group is better off and the other group is worse off"  in terms of premium prices. As a policy, the elimination of medical underwriting and preexisting condition clauses helps broaden access to health care coverage and that was the aim of its inclusion in the Affordable Care Act. Reformers say it eliminates insurers from "cherry-picking" and reduces uncompensated care. Karri Kinder subsequently posted followups to her original blog entry about her insurance issue, the update of 4 January 2014 stating that: Karri Kinder blog entry I do have some good news.  Because I decided to write my letter and speak out, people stepped up and helped us.  We were contacted on January 1, 2014 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  I was told by the woman I spoke with that she had read my letter and wanted to get her team involved and see what they could do to help us.  I recounted to her what was happening and that I had been advised to go ahead and sign me and my husband up for a plan on healthcare.gov.  We went with a lower cost plan because it was going to just be the two of us.  We had no idea what it was going to cost for the children once we got some answers.  So we went with BCBS Blue Value Saver plan.  The cost of the plan is $459.19.  We qualified for $255.00 in subsidies so the final cost of the plan to us is $204.19 each month.  I told the lady that I would cancel that plan if I needed to.  What we wanted was to have all of us on one plan like we always have been.  She said, "If the kids qualify for All Kids then I am pretty sure they have to go that route or you will have to buy them a plan at the normal rate."  So again we were told more than likely we will have to go through All Kids.  She took the rest of our information down and said she was getting her team to work on it and would either call us back or All Kids would contact us. Last updated:  4 January 2014    Oliver, Mike.   "Blue Cross in Alabama: We Didn't 'Cancel' Health Policies."   AL.com.  2 December 2013.    Walsh, Alex.   "Obamacare, Big Blue, and You."   AL.com.  31 December 2013. Sen. Jeff Merkley appeared at the new Childrens Center in Clackamas County to raise awareness about an increase in child abuse and, according to his news release, to highlight the correlation to the economic downturn.Even one case of child abuse or neglect is too many, and with the ongoing economic downturn, the numbers of Oregon children suffering from abuse is on the rise, said Merkley. We must do everything in our power to reduce the number of children being abused and help provide sanctuary to those in need.The Childrens Center received some federal money last year. And the visit was a good photo op for a freshman senator during a congressional break.But at Politifact Oregon, we wondered if child abuse really is on the rise and if there is actually a cause-and-effect connection between child abuse and dismal economic times.Merkley is correct about the increase: More Oregon children are suffering abuse and neglect.The Oregon Department of Human Servicesreportsthat 11,090 children were victims of abuse or neglect last year, a 6.4 percent increase from 2008.Population growth isnt the only culprit behind the higher numbers. The state reports that the rate of abuse increased from 11.8 victims per 1,000 children to 12.5 per 1,000.A check with the agencys number-crunchers indicates the trend holds this year, with abuse reports up between 6 percent and 7 percent between July 2009 and July 2010. Though reports dont always turn out to be confirmed cases, officials say they expect the number of child victims will rise again for 2010.But is the increase because of high unemployment?Merkleys spokeswoman, Courtney Warner Crowell, said she hadnt seen any research linking a rise in abuse to an economic downturn. But she said several people shed talked to blamed the increase in child abuse on the economy.But there isnt any statistical evidence drawing a direct link between increased child abuse and a bad economy.We cant say that factually and we cant prove it, says Katharine Cahn, executive director of the Child Welfare Partnership at Portland State University.The number of child abuse victims can rise, even in good times, Cahn says, simply because more people are reporting the abuse.State stats do show alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence and parental run-ins with police among the common stress factors that contribute to child abuse.Cahn concedes that people do feel stressed and depressed when the economy goes bust and may drink or use drugs in an attempt to cope. And that, she says, may be the indirect tie to Oregons rising numbers.So, it appears that while Oregons junior senator was right about the numbers of kids abused, the sour economy may not be deserve all the blame. We find the claim Mostly True. Comment on this item.