Did Congress allocate $50 billion in 2006 specifically for the development of border fencing?
During the U.S. federal government shutdown that began in December 2018, President Donald Trump and many of his supporters blamed Congressional Democrats for the budgetary impasse. As part of that rhetorical battle, Trump and others accused Democrats of hypocrisy and political opportunism, alleging that their current opposition to providing funding for the president's long-promised border wall was in stark contrast to their past support for border security infrastructure. In his 8 January 2019 Oval Office address, President Trump alluded to this notion by taking a swipe at Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate Minority leader who, along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was scheduled to offer a response to the president's primetime immigration speech: "Senator Chuck Schumer  who you will be hearing from later tonight  has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past, along with many other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected President." In a similar vein, around the beginning of 2019 a widely-shared meme posed a rhetorical question about $50 billion in funding for border infrastructure that was supposedly part of the 2006 Secure Fence Act, implying that Democratic Congressional leaders had somehow been involved in misappropriating the money: "Schumer, Pelosi and the Dems may have wished they had just given POTUS the 5 Billion for the wall ... rather than having to answer this question!!! ... or is this the bigger picture??? Where is the $50 Billion set aside for the 2006 Secure Fence Act? Bush signed it & Obama was supposed to oversee its construction? Where is the money?" A 12 January post on the website of the conspiracy theorist Jeff Rense contained this graphic version of the meme: website   The figure of $50 billion was especially significant because it was a far greater sum than the $5 billion for border wall construction which President Trump demanded be included in the 2019 federal budget, and which formed the crux of the partisan standoff and ensuing government shutdown. The "$50 billion" message was shared widely on Twitter and Facebook, prompting inquiries from readers about its veracity. Twitter Facebook In reality, $50 billion was not set aside for border security infrastructure as part of the 2006 Secure Fence Act, and therefore no misappropriation of such funding occurred. One analysis, which predated the Secure Fence Act by seven years, predicted that building and maintaining the type of border fencing provided for in that legislation might cost up to $49 billion over the course of 25 years, but that analysis did not play a significant role in Congressional deliberations before the passing of the Secure Fence Act. The Secure Fence Act was a law introduced by Republican Congressman Peter King of New York in September 2006 and signed by President George W. Bush on 26 October 2006. Among other provisions, the law required the Secretary of Homeland Security to begin (within 18 months) the construction of at least two layers of fencing, along with barriers, cameras, and sensors, along five sections of the United States border with Mexico: law required In the context of the 2018-19 controversy over President Trump's proposed border wall, Republicans made claims about the effectiveness of that border fencing in reducing illegal border crossings into the United States. In a previous fact check, we found such claims to be vague and flawed. fact check Some Democrats supported the bill, and some didn't. In the House of Representatives, the Secure Fence Act passed by 283 votes to 138, with 64 Democrats voting in favor and 131, including Nancy Pelosi, voting against it. passed In the U.S. Senate, the bill passed 80-19. Some 26 Democrats supported it, including future president and vice-president Barack Obama and Joe Biden, 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and future Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer, while 17 Democrats, including future Secretary of State John Kerry and future Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, opposed it. passed The claim that Congress "set aside" $50 billion for border fencing in 2006 appears to have been derived from a 1999 study conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In a 2 January 2019& column for Fox News, Republican U.S. Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana used the figure in accusing Congressional Democrats of "playing games with America's safety": column The bill before us would certainly do some good. It would authorize some badly needed funding for better fences and better security along our borders that should help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country. No, that statement wasnt made by a Republican. It was a speech given by then-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in 2006, when 26 Senate Democrats -- including Obama and Sens. Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer of New York - voted for The Secure Fence Act, which allocated $50 billion over 25 years for 700 miles of fencing along the border. Thats right. Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer voted for 10 times more funding than President Trump is requesting now to secure our border. What has changed Democrats recognition that our southern border needs to be secured? Two words: President Trump. In a 2017 Boston Globe column, Annie Linskey wrote of the Secure Fence Act that "Congress put aside $1.4 billion for the fence, but the whole cost, including maintenance, was pegged at $50 billion over 25 years, according to analyses at the time." column Several articles from early 2007 and 2008 referred to the $50 billion claim. For example, in September 2008, then-Democratic U.S. Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas wrote in opposition to the border fencing envisioned in the Secure Fence Act: 2007 wrote "With construction expected to exceed $1.2 billion and lifetime maintenance of up to $50 billion, the exorbitant cost of this border fence would be better invested in additional Border Patrol agents, equipment and technology." In January 2007, the Migration Policy Institute cited a report by the Congressional Research Service as its source for the $50 billion figure, writing: cited The 700 miles of double-layer border fencing called for in the Secure Fence Act of [2006] could cost more than $50 billion over 25 years, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) ... The report cites a Corps of Engineers study that estimates construction of the fencing would cost about $1.2 to $1.3 million a mile, in addition to costs for labor and for purchasing the required property. Further, the Corps of Engineers estimates that maintenance of the fence over its 25-year lifespan would cost between $16.4 million to $70 million per mile, depending on the frequency and strength of attempts to cross it. The CRS report was dated 21 September 2006: seven days after the House of Representatives passed the Secure Fence Act, and eight days before the Senate did likewise: report Because border fencing is a relatively new and limited phenomenon along the U.S.-Mexico border, there is a dearth of information concerning its overall costs and benefits. The Corps of Engineers study predicted that the costs of constructing a double layer fence consisting of primary fencing and Sandia fencing would range from $1.2 million to $1.3 million a mile. The Corps of Engineers also predicted that the 25 year life cycle cost of the fence would range from $16.4 million to $70 million per mile depending on the amount of damage sustained by the fencing. If significant portions of the border were to be fenced, reducing the areas along which individuals could cross the border, it may stand to reason that the fencing will be subjected to more breaches and other attempts to compromise than the fencing that has already been constructed. This may mean that the costs of maintaining border fencing that is widely deployed in the future will be higher than they have been thus far for the limited deployment. The double-layer fencing envisioned in the Secure Fence Act was expected to stretch for a total of around 700 miles. If the "25-year life cycle cost" of the fence was between $16.4 million and $70 million per mile, that would equate to a 25-year cost of between $11.5 billion and $49 billion. That "worst case" estimate of $49 billion over 25 years is the source of the "$50 billion" claim which was promulgated in 2007 and 2008, and then again in 2017 and 2019, amid the controversy over President Trump's border wall proposals, and Democratic opposition to them. Because the original Corps of Engineers study was seven years old by 2006, the CRS adjusted the original figures presented in the 1999 report for inflation. The Corps of Engineers recommended using landing mat fencing for a primary fence and Sandia fencing for a secondary fence. Those figures were as follows: study   The existence of the 1999 Corps of Engineers study shows that, at the time lawmakers voted through the Secure Fence Act in 2006, one analysis from a reliable source included estimates that indicated the 25-year cost of a 700-mile double-layer fence along the southern border (such as that envisioned in the Secure Fence Act) could range from $11.5 billion to $49 billion. Furthermore, a Congressional Research Service report which reiterated those findings was published on 21 September 2006, too late to be taken into consideration by U.S. Representatives, but before their Senate counterparts cast their votes. However, these estimates (the source of the "$50 billion" figure) only appear to have attracted attention and gained traction after the passing of the Secure Fence Act (for example in the January 2007 Migration Policy Institute analysis), rather than beforehand. In a debate about the bill on 29 September 2006, for example, several U.S. Senators offered varying estimates of the likely cost of the fencing envisioned in the Secure Fence Act. None of them mentioned a figure of $50 billion, or even close to that. debate In fact, no member of either house of Congress mentioned either the figure of $50 billion nor the original 1999 Army Corps of Engineers study during any debate about the Secure Fence Act. On 25 September 2006, the Washington Post reported that confusion existed over how much the construction of the fencing would cost, although again, none of the estimates listed in the article came anywhere close to $50 billion: reported The House has passed and the Senate is debating legislation to build 700 miles of fence on the U.S.-Mexico border with no certain idea of how much it would cost. Estimates range from $2 billion, cited by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for homeland security, to $7 billion, the figure used by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Homeland Security officials told congressional aides it would cost about $5 billion. The department would not confirm that figure nor address the cost of the 107 miles of fencing already up along the nearly 2,000-mile border. The cost can vary depending on whether the government or a private contractor builds the fence. So while it's true that the Army Corps of Engineers study was publicly available when Congress passed the Secure Fence Act in 2006 and could have proved instructive to the debate around the planned construction of border fencing, no evidence suggests that either document played a part in the considerations or deliberations of lawmakers before they cast their votes. This is worth bearing in mind when evaluating any claim that lawmakers (particularly Democrats now hostile to President Trump's border wall plans) passed the Secure Fence Act despite estimates which placed its 25-year cost at $50 billion. Finally, the more specific claim made in the meme and by Rep. Scalise, that the Secure Fence Act "allocated" or "set aside" $50 billion over 25 years, is false. In fact, the Secure Fence Act did not authorize, allocate or "set aside" any funding. In 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) had spent $2.3 billion on building 654 miles of border fencing between 2007 and 2015, and that CBP had projected in 2009 that the cost of maintaining its border fencing for 20 years would be $1 billion. reported U.S. Congress. "Public Law 109-367 -- Secure Fence Act of 2006."
 26 October 2006. Kasprak, Alex.  "Did Illegal Border Traffic Drop by 90% in Areas Where Physical Barriers Were Expanded?"
  Snopes.com.  8 January 2019. Scalise, Rep. Steve.  "Democrats Need to Stop Playing Games with America's Safety and Fund Border Security Now."
  Fox News.  2 January 2019. Linskey, Annie.  "In 2006, Democrats Were Saying 'Build That Fence!"
  The Boston Globe.  27 January 2017. The Washington Times.  "Fence Advocate Calls Estimates Exaggerated."
  16 January 2007. Kariam, Reed.  "America's Border Fence."
  CQ Researcher.  19 September 2008. Gelatt, Julia.  "New Congress Takes First Steps Toward Immigration Reform."
  Migration Policy Institute.  15 January 2007. Nuez-Neto, Blas and Stephen Via.  "Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border."
  Congressional Research Service.  21 September 2006. Marsh, Dr. Charles P. et al.  "Engineering Life-Cycle Cost Comparison Study of Barrier Fencing Systems."
  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratories.  February 1999. Gamboa, Suzanne.  "Questions Remain on Cost of Border Bills."
  The Washington Post.  25 September 2006. U.S. Government Accountability Office.  "Southwest Border Security -- Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing's Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps."
  February 2017.
Legend:  A rattlesnake fang embedded in a pair of boots kills generations of owners. Examples:  [Brunvand, 1989] There is a rancher or cowboy who stomps the head of a rattlesnake after stunning it with a rope or quirt. The man sickens and dies within days. The man's son or nephew inherits the boots, and he too soon sickens and dies.  Then yet another male relative begins to wear the boots, then dies. And so it goes until someone takes a good look at the heels on the boots and discovers the rattlesnake's fangs broken off and still seeping venom!  [Benton, 1937] There's a crazy, far-fetched tale of an old cattleman who bought a new pair of boots. On his way homefrom town he got off his horse for some reason or other and was bitten by a rattlesnake. He died. Some time later his son, seeing the old man's boots in a corner, put them on and went to work. That night he got sick, swelled up, and died. There was a scratch on one of his legs. Nobody knew why he died. A little later another member of the family put on the boots, which were still new. He died also with a scratch on his leg. I've forgotten how many people died from wearing the boots, but the tale has it that the mystery was finally solved by discovering a couple of rattlesnake fangs in the boots. They had broken off there when the old man had been bitten and had continued to bite all those who wore the boots later! Variations:  The apocryphal boots of lore are often said to have killed three generations of the same family, or to have done away with three brothers.  Origins:  This   legend is even older than the 1937 print sighting (quoted above) would lead one to believe. Another sighting surfaces in a 1782 book, making it easily the oldest intact urban legend in existence. Snake experts dismiss this story as mere lore due to what's known about the structure of rattlesnake fangs and the potency of that varmint's venom. Although people have been poisoned by the broken or shed fang of a rattler, the tip of such an implement is highly unlikely to contain enough dried venom to do serious damage to the victim, let alone strike him dead. Cases on record have the scratched victim experiencing throbbing and sharp pain in the injured extremity, but only for a few hours. For the injury to be fatal, a much larger amount of venom would have to be injected into the victim  a surface scratch by the tip of a fang would introduce only whatever venom happened to be present on the part of the fang's surface that caused the scratch. Although there's no truth to the legend about a fatal pair of boots killing one family member after another, its underlying message that it always pays to be careful around rattlesnakes is worth heeding. Though a fang left that long in a boot wouldn't do much harm, supposedly "dead" snakes have been known to bite, sending a number of victims to the hospital every year.  Never assume the head of a decapitated snake  is safe to handle. Bites from dead snakes are more common than you might think, said Dr. Jeffrey R. Suchard, a medical toxicologist at Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center in Phoenix. Nearly 15% (5 of 34) snakebite victims admitted to that hospital between June 1997 and April 1998 were bitten by dead snakes.  Documented cases of deceased slitherers' delivering fatal bites can be traced back several hundred years to Spanish explorers. In 1956, rattlesnake researcher L.M. Klauber published a study showing that rattlesnake heads are dangerous for 20 minutes to an hour after decapitation.  Says Bill Sloan of the Arizona Herpetological Association: "As you go down the evolutionary scale, the functions of the brain and functions of the body become a little more separated. There's a reflex action involved when you touch a snake's mouth. The fang is like a hypodermic needle. It's going to continue to work if you put your hand near it." Which it did in the case of Justin Cluff: [Arizona Republic, 1999] Justin Cluff isn't surprised. The 21-year-old Queen Creek man could have died after picking up the decapitated head of a Mojave rattler a friend had shot with a .22-caliber rifle. The snake head rallied and sank a fang into Cluff's knuckle. "I had been around snakes so much I felt comfortable with them," Cluff said. "I guess I loosened up on my grip. That's when it bit me. The pain was terrible." Cluff ended up losing part of his right index finger. Barbara "fangs for the memory" Mikkelson Last updated:  29 June 2007    Sources:   Benton, Thomas Hart.  An Artist in America.   New York: Robert M. McBride, 1937  (pp. 210-211).   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Curses! Broiled Again!  New York: W. W. Norton, 1989.   ISBN 0-393-30711-5   (pp. 76-78). Curses! Broiled Again!    Buckland, Francis.  Curiosities of Natural History (First Series, 4th ed.)   London: Richard Bentley and Son, 1883  (p. 200).    Ropp, Thomas.  "Dead Snakes Still Bite."     Also told in:   Cohen, Daniel.  The Beheaded Freshman and Other Nasty Rumors The Beheaded Freshman and Other Nasty Rumors   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 56). The Big Book of Urban Legends Sitting in front of a mock pharmacy and flanked by people in white lab coats, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders on July 24, 2020, that he framed as end-all solutions for Americans who struggle to pay high premium prices for prescription drugs. Of one of the directives, specifically, Trump told a crowd of supporters and reporters at the ceremony: told Under this order, the price of insulin for affected patients will come down to just pennies a day  pennies a day from numbers that you werent even able to think about. Its a massive cost savings. News outlets such as The New York Times and Washington Post described the signing event like it was largely symbolic, since the executive orders are unlikely to take effect this year, if at all (we explain more below). The New York Times Washington Post Meanwhile, at least two conservative media sources, Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire and CNSNews  which claims to balance "liberal bias" in mainstream news with its coverage  reported on the president's pledge to slash prescription prices at face value, and highlighted the above-mentioned quote by Trump regarding insulin. Daily Wire CNSNews published the story, "Trump Says Executive Order Will Drop the Price of Insulin Down to Pennies a Day," which mainly quoted the president verbatim, and numerous Snopes readers reached out to us to investigate the claim's accuracy. Namely, diabetic patients wondered whether they would indeed pay less for insulin syringes or insulin cartridges for their pens or pumps because of the president. story pens   According to a Congressional analysis in September 2019, insulin averaged $34.75 per dose in the U.S.  a total that's almost 2.5 times higher than the average price in other countries. First, we'll lay out what was unequivocally true: Trump issued Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications during the July 24, 2020, signing event, and that directive authorized the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make certain changes regarding the cost of EpiPens for Americans with severe allergies and the cost of insulin for those who suffer from diabetes, specifically. It stated: Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications Department of Health and Human Services EpiPens The price of insulin in the United States has risen dramatically over the past decade. ... While Americans with diabetes and severe allergic reactions may have access to affordable insulin and injectable epinephrine through commercial insurance or Federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, many Americans still struggle to purchase these products. Medicare Medicaid Here's some more context: Medicare, the federal program that covers the majority of Americans over age 65 and those with disabilities, offers plans that help diabetic patients cover the cost of some insulin products. Meanwhile, policies for Medicaid, the government-run health insurance system for low-income people, vary state by state  variances that include whether or not the program covers the cost of diabetic enrollees' insulin, or to what extent. state by state Trump's directive pertained to "federally qualified health centers" (FQHC), which are about 1,400 community health care clinics nationwide that treat low-income patients on sliding fee scales and purchase discounted drugs from pharmaceutical companies under an existing federal program, known as 340B. The July 2020 executive order was worded like this: federally qualified health centers 1,400 340B   In other words, the president's order requires participants of the 340B Program to offer insulin at greatly reduced prices to patients with no or little insurance coverage, without providing specifics on how or when the change would take effect. Advisory Board, a news site for health care providers, said in a statement: "Only patients with low incomes; those with high cost-sharing requirements for insulin or epinephrine; those with high, unmet deductibles; and/or those without health insurance would be eligible for the discount." A news release from the HHS said: statement news release This will increase access to life-saving insulin and epinephrine for the patients who face especially high costs among the 28 million patients who visit FQHCs every year, over six million of whom are uninsured. For perspective, about 34.2 million Americans had diabetes as of 2018, which represented about 10.5 percent of the population, according to the American Diabetes Association. So, hypothetically, if the same proportion of people had diabetes within the FQHC population of 28 million patients (a total reported by the HHS), then Trump's executive order could help about 2.9 million people, depending on whether their insurance already covers the treatment. American Diabetes Association So to recap, in regard to the claim in question, it was true to state Trump signed an executive order in July 2020 that aimed to make it easier for low-income diabetic patients to pay for insulin. But nowhere in the federal document did the presidential administration explain its plan for implementing the change, nor the level to which insulin prices would drop. There was no proof that the order would allow any American to someday pay "pennies a day" on the protein hormone. We should note here: In addition to that previously explained executive order, a separate directive signed by Trump on July 24, 2020, touched on a yet-to-be-finalized initiative by the White House to relax international drug importation rules and added insulin to a list of prescription medications that can be imported from Canada. The president characterized that directive, too, as a positive step for people who want lower insulin costs. separate directive yet-to-be-finalized And that brings us to our final point: Much of what Trump celebrated in the July 2020 executive orders had been proposed by his administration prior to the signing ceremony but stalled amid opposition from pharmaceutical companies and political barriers. "[None] of these ideas put forth are new, or in fact any more implementable than before, especially without congressional action, an investor told FeircePharma, a trade publication for the pharmaceutical industry. FeircePharma For instance, in May 2020, Trump unveiled a plan to cap the cost of insulin for Medicare recipients at $35 per month beginning in 2021 (even that initiative would cost patients more than "pennies a day"). But as of this writing, it was unclear exactly how that directive would roll out, and when or if qualifying seniors with diabetes would notice a price difference. The Washington Post reported on July 24, 2020: May 2020 Washington Post The moves [by Trump] are largely symbolic because the orders are unlikely to take effect anytime soon, if they do so at all, because the power to implement drug pricing policy through executive order is limited. Voters will not see an impact before the November elections, and the drug industry is sure to challenge them in court. A couple days after the July signing ceremony, for example, Politico reported that representatives of major drug lobbies refused to meet with the president to discuss one of the four executive orders: a non-specific and controversial proposal to link Medicare payments for certain medicines to lower costs that people pay in other countries. After that refusal on industry leaders' part, investors told MarketWatch that the executive orders were "largely campaign fodder" and "come without the necessary force to meaningfully change prices in the U.S."  Politico reported meet controversial MarketWatch In sum, while it was truthful to claim Trump issued an executive order in July 2020 that was intended to lower the price of insulin for some Americans, it was misleading to claim that all diabetic patients would save money as a result of the directive  the directive only targeted low-income patients who are uninsured or underinsured and seek help from certain federal community health providers. Additionally, it was unclear as of this report when, if at all, that group would actually reap the benefit of the cost savings, and the estimated amount of such was unknown. It would be wrong to state based on available evidence that the executive order alone would drive down prices to "pennies a day." For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. White House. "Executive Order On Access To Affordable Life-saving Medications".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Lowering Prices For Patients by Eliminating Kickbacks To Middlemen".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Increasing Drug Importation To Lower Prices For American Patients".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Remarks By President Trump At Signing Of Executive Orders On Lowering Drug Prices".
 24 July 2020. Sanger-Katz, Margot. "As He Woos Drugmakers On Virus, Trump Demands Drug Price Controls".
 New York Times. 24 July 2020. Arter, Melanie. "Trump Says Executive Order Will Drop the Price of Insulin Down to Pennies a Day".
 CNSNews. 24 July 2020. National Conference of State Legislatures. "Diabetes Health Coverage: State Laws And Programs".
 10 January 2016. HHS.gov. "Trump Administration Announces Historic Action To Lower Drug Prices For Americans".
 24 July 2020. American Diabetes Association. "Statistics About Diabetes".
 Accessed 30 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Increasing Drug Importation To Lower Prices For American Patients".
 24 July 2020. Luhby, Tami. "Trump Administration Proposes Allowing Imports Of Certain Drugs From Canada".
 CNN. 18 December 2019. O'Donnell, Carl. "Explainer: Trump's Plan To Cut Drug Prices".
 Reuters. 27 July 2020. Abutaleb, Yasmeen and Josh Dawsey. "Trump Signs Executive Orders Aimed At Lowering Drug Prices In Largely Symbolic Move".
 Washington Post. 24 July 2020. Cohen, Joshua. "Trump's Executive Orders On Drug Pricing Contain Caveats And Limitations".
 Forbes. 25 July 2020. Ways And Means Committee Staff. "A Painful Pill To Swallow: U.S. Vs. International Prescription Drug Prices".
 September 2019. Reklaitis, Victor. "Trump's Meeting With Pharma Execs Called Off, As Analysts Say His Moves On Drug Prices Lack Bite". Prestigiacomo, Amanda. "Trump Issues Executive Orders To Slash Insulin, EpiPen Prices; End 'Global Freeloading'.
 The Daily Wire. 27 July 2020. On Nov. 28, 2022, the@Xx17965797N Twitter accounttweeteda video with a misleading caption that claimed the clip showed a sea of lined-up electric scooter bikes that were abandoned because of the high cost of electric vehicle (EV) battery replacement. The tweet read, "Electric green scooters that have reached end of battery life. Due to the batteries being so expensive to replace, electric scooters are abandoned because disposing of them any other way is dangerous and expensive." tweeted This was not true, despite the tens of thousands of combined retweets and likes that the tweet received.  The same video upload from @Xx17965797N was also misleadingly reshared by accounts including@PeterDClack, @JamesMelville, and @MillerForTexas. The former two tweets received thousands of engagements, despite the fact that the information pushed in the original tweet was not true. @PeterDClack @JamesMelville @MillerForTexas In cases like these where a caption is incorrect but the picture or video is real, we issue a fact-check rating of "Miscaptioned." Days before the @Xx17965797N tweet was posted, the@ElevaBrasilES account also misleadingly tweeted that the same video was shot in France. The tweet went up on Nov. 21 with an incorrect caption that read, "Green energy Cemetery of electric motorcycles in France. Now designated as a 'biohazard zone.'" (Note: This mention of France reminded us of other rumors we've debunked in the past, in particular about two photosof other car graveyards. The two pictures showed false captions that claimed the cars had been abandoned due to the high cost of battery replacement, just like the video we're looking at in this fact check.) tweeted two photos The oldest upload of the video that we could find came from TikTok user @smartsetting. The video was uploaded on Nov. 7 and by the end of the month had received nearly 5 million views.   Based on watching the video, the scooters appeared to be parked in a parking lot near a basketball court, perhaps in a university complex or public park. Several blurry Chinese characters were visible on the side of the bikes. At the end of the clip, a tall building could be seen on the right-hand side of the frame. Other than those pieces of information, we didn't have much to go on. In order to find the truth behind this video, we first used Adobe Media Encoder to export a JPEG file for each and every frame from the video. The results of this export were 440 individual images from the 14-second video. We then performed numerous reverse image searches with these picture files using Google Images and TinEye.com. These reverse image searches provided several clues as to where other users had reposted the video. However, we did not find any further details from these searches. Next, we tried several searches on Google, Twitter, and YouTube with phrases such as "electric scooter China" and "electric bike graveyard China," among other terms. This helped to find several repostsof the video. The searches alsoshowedresults for many of the sites in China that are the final resting placesfor massive stacks of bicycles dumped by bike-sharing companies with failed business models. Perhaps the most striking video we found was titled, "No Place To PlaceThe Wonders of Shared Bicycle Graveyards in China." several reposts showed results sites final resting places failed business models video At one point in our research, we stumbled upon an AFP videofrom 2021 that appeared to show the same yellow color and model of electric scooter bike. The caption for the clip said that it was captured "outside the city of Shenyang." The end of the video showed a stadium with special colors for seating zones. video model After an exhaustive search, we were able to find this same stadium by using the map tools on the Chinese website Baidu.com. Unlike Google Maps, Baidu.com has street-level views of nearby roads. However, this part of our effort wasn't very helpful. It remained unclear if this was the same location where the viral clip was shot. Baidu.com In the end, it was going back to TikTok that helped us find the origins of the video. A search on TikTok for "electric share bike China" brought us to this video from @evstevepan. The video showed the same kind of yellow electric scooter bike with a similar logo. A scan of the logo using a mobile phone camera and Google Translate revealed the company name Meituan, which is known as an "all-encompassing platform for local services." this video We then searched the internet for Meituan and electric scooters, which produced plenty of pictures on Shutterstock.com. For a moment, the two large characters on the side of the scooter didn't seem to match those from the viral video. We then horizontally flipped a still-frame from the viral video, which led us to discover that it had been mirrored, meaning that all words and numbers were backward. plenty of pictures All of these developments in our research led us to news articles that helped to show our findings were lining up. In April 2018, news broke that Meituan had purchased the company Mobike for $2.7 billion. According to the story, Mobike is "a Chinese startup that helped pioneer bike-sharing services worldwide." broke But by November of that same year, TechCrunch reported that Meituan would be "[walking] away from bike-sharing and ride-hailing," as there wasn't enough demand from customers for the supply of its bike-sharing venture: reported In April, Meituan entered the bike-sharing fray after it scooped up top player Mobike for $2.7 billion to face off Alibaba-backed Ofo. Over the past few years, Mobike and Ofo were burning through large sums of investor money in a bid to win users from subsidized rides, but both have shown signs of softening their stance recently. Mobike is downsizing its fleets to "avoid an oversupply" as the bike-sharing market falters, Meituan's chief financial officer Chen Shaohui said during the earnings call. Ofo has also scaled back by closing down many of its international operations. ... During its third quarter that ended September 30, Meituan posted a 97.2 percent jump on revenues to 19.1 billion yuan, or $2.75 billion, on the back of strong growth in food delivery transactions. The firm's investments in new initiatives  including ride-hailing and bike-sharing  took a toll as operating losses nearly tripled to 3.45 billion yuan compared to a year ago. Meituan shares plunged as much as 14 percent on Friday, the most since its spectacular listing. Just as so many electric bicycles from bike-sharing companies had piled up across China, so had electric scooters like the ones seen in the viral video. In sum, social media users falsely claimed that a video showed tons of lined-up electric scooter bikes that were abandoned in a "graveyard" due to the high cost of EV battery replacement. All evidence pointed to a simple answer: supply and demand. The number of electric scooter bikes and bicycles far outnumbered the number of people who requested to use them (or else they went missing or were stolen), which resulted in downsizing by some companies, and the closure of others.The clip appears to have been shot in China, although its precise location is unclear. far outnumbered went missing or were stolen We reached out to Meituan for comment on Nov. 29 but did not receive a response in time for publication. 25  2022 . ELDORADO, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gbI2Bo2xKCc. A Veces Hay Cosas Que Duelen y Desesperan. Lamenta, 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmV5lBEYEMU. @Atomicfact. Twitter, 14 Aug. 2018, https://twitter.com/atomicfact/status/1029352130086424576. Baidu. https://map.baidu.com/. @BBC. "The Problem of China's Huge Bike Graveyards." Twitter, 20 May 2018, https://twitter.com/bbc/status/998231947359997952. @ElevaBrasilES. Twitter, 21 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/elevabrasiles/status/1594826198831570947. @evstevepan. "Share Electric Scooter in China #electricscooter #china #vlog." TikTok, 25 Sept. 2022, https://www.tiktok.com/@evstevepan/video/7147290373868506411. Freer. "Meituan Electric Shared Bikes on the Street." Shutterstock, 19 May 2020, https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/zhongshan-guangdong-chinamay-19-2020meituan-electric-1736816009. Google Images. https://images.google.com/. Google Translate. https://translate.google.com/. "Graveyard of the Bikes: Aerial Photos of China's Failed Share-Cycle Scheme Show Mountains of Damaged Bikes." The Straits Times via AFP, 21 Apr. 2021, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/graveyard-of-the-bikes-chinas-failed-share-cycle-scheme-from-above. "Graveyard of the Bikes: China's Failed Share-Cycle Scheme from Above." Techxplore.com via AFP, 21 Apr. 2021, https://techxplore.com/news/2021-04-graveyard-bikes-china-share-cycle-scheme.html. @JamesMelville. Twitter, 29 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/jamesmelville/status/1597532727338639360. Liao, Rita. "Meituan, China's 'everything App,' Walks Away from Bike Sharing and Ride Hailing." TechCrunch, 23 Nov. 2018, https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/23/meituan-scale-back-ride-hailing-and-bike-sharing/. @mbrennanchina. Twitter, 4 Dec. 2018, https://twitter.com/mbrennanchina/status/1069940186786775042. @MillerForTexas. Twitter, 28 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/millerfortexas/status/1597346555111280640. No Place To PlaceThe Wonders of Shared Bicycle Graveyards in China. Guoyong Wu, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDfLWFv3ixk. @PeterDClack. Twitter, 28 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/peterdclack/status/1597371847397761024. Russell, Jon. "Chinese Bike-Sharing Pioneer Mobike Sold to Ambitious Meituan Dianping for $2.7B." TechCrunch, 3 Apr. 2018, https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/03/chinese-bike-sharing-pioneer-mobike-sold-to-ambitious-meituan-dianping-for-2-7b/. Shared Electric Bikes Roll into Changsha in Central China. CGTN, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkSUN-FSuNI. Siqi, Ji. "Taxpayers Foot the Clean-up Bill for China's Bike-Sharing Bust." South China Morning Post, 2 Oct. 2020, https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/3103908/what-happens-discarded-bikes-chinas-sharing-boom-taxpayers. Sprawling Bike Graveyard from China's Failed Share-Cycle Scheme. AFP News Agency, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N1Qxs_KOYo. TinEye Reverse Image Search. https://tineye.com/. u/silvertomars. "A Graveyard for Electric Scooters the Batteries Have Reached the End of Their Life-Time, but Are Too Expensive to Replace and Safely Disposing or Recycling the Batteries Is Also Too Expensive." r/Wallstreetsilver via Reddit.com, 28 Nov. 2022, https://www.reddit.com/r/Wallstreetsilver/comments/z7i7ng/a_graveyard_for_electric_scooters_the_batteries/. @vegastarr. Twitter, 28 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/vegastarr/status/1597338236472659968. @Xx17965797N.Twitter, 28 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/xx17965797n/status/1597310309139873792. Yan, Alice. "Chinese Bike-Share Firm Closes after 90 per Cent of Cycles Stolen." South China Morning Post, 21 June 2017, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2099293/chinese-bike-share-firm-closes-after-90-cent-cycles-stolen. The Georgia night sky could -- loudly -- come to life if a piece of legislation becomes state law. Senate Resolution 378 would allow revenue from the sale of consumer fireworks to be used to help fund trauma care and firefighter services in Georgia. Currently, nothing with more pop than a sparkler can be sold in this state. The expansion would allow the sale of more high-powered fireworks, such as rockets, firecrackers and Roman candles. The resolution, if approved, would require a statewide voter referendum in November 2014. One prominent sponsor of the bill, Sen. Jeff Mullis, said theres a practical reason for such a law. We lose millions of dollars of revenue because people go out of state to buy fireworks, said Mullis, a Republican from Chickamauga, a 10-minute trip from the Tennessee border. Mullis claimed in a press release that the sales tax on these purchases will raise and [sic] estimated $5 million each year for vital emergency services. Lawmakers propose a 6 percent tax on fireworks sales with the proceeds being evenly split for trauma care and a firefighter safety council. An additional 1 percent tax could be collected by cities and counties. PolitiFact Georgia received a reader request to figure out if Mullis is correct in his assertion that Georgia loses millions of dollars because people travel to Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee to get their fireworks. We try to stay away from fact-checking revenue projections. Mullis, a former firefighter, said via email that his primary concern is Georgia is failing to capitalize on a form of commerce that could add millions of dollars to our state's bottom line, as well as jobs which would be created as a result of new industry. Marietta resident Bill Tugwell owns the large Alabama fireworks store on U.S. 431 between Phenix City and Eufaula that many metro Atlantans pass on their way to vacation along the Florida Panhandle beaches. The parking lot is often filled with cars bearing Georgia license plates. I dont think its millions plural, Tugwell said regarding how much money Georgia loses to other states. I think its closer to a million. Some states have interesting purposes for their fireworks laws. Florida allows people to buy an estimated 2,000 forms of fireworks that are listed under the category of sparklers. For anything that explodes or lifts off the ground, you need a permit. Some of the permitted uses for more powerful forms of fireworks include scaring birds away from crops. There shouldnt be a critter left in Florida, quipped Julie Heckman, executive director of the American Pyrotechnics Association, a Maryland-based trade group. Revenue officials in Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee said they did not have any research showing how much money Georgians spend on fireworks there. Economics academics at colleges and universities in those states said they havent seen or conducted such research. A Senate spokeswoman sent us a report by the American Pyrotechnics Association that says consumers nationwide spent $649 million on fireworks in 2011, up from $284 million in 1998. The figures were not broken down by states. Jeff Humphreys, director of the University of Georgias Selig Center for Economic Growth, suggested we could come up with an estimate by calculating a per capita breakdown of how much money Georgians would spend on fireworks if the menu of products was expanded. Since slightly more than 3 percent of the nations population lives in Georgia (9.9 million residents), that would equate to about $20 million being spent by Georgians in 2011. Humphreys advised us that there would be a multiplier effect on top of the direct fiscal impact due to reduced shopping outside Georgia if fireworks were available for purchase inside the state, but he said it would not be large. A 6 percent tax or fee could be worth at least $3 million annually. In 2006, Indiana lawmakers imposed a 5 percent safety fee on retail fireworks sales. Indiana collects about $2.5 million a year from the fee, state data shows. Indiana has about 6.5 million residents. Michigan collected $755,262 from a 6 percent fireworks safety fee during the first eight months of its new law to allow more powerful fireworks to be sold, the Detroit News reported. The newspaper reported the revenue collected was far below projections. Michigans new fireworks safety fee and guidelines took effect in January 2012. Michigan has 9.8 million residents, nearly the same amount as Georgia. Bill Weimer, a top official of a company in Ohio that sells many of the fireworks not currently sold in Georgia, believes Mullis claim is accurate. Weimer looked at the amount of fireworks sold in Indiana and believes the same volume of fireworks will be sold in Georgia or more. You can do the math, said Weimer, vice president of Phantom Fireworks, which sells fireworks to several national retail chains. Phantom Fireworks has been working with Mullis and other lawmakers trying to pass SR 378. So where does this leave us? Mullis claimed Georgias economy loses millions of dollars in revenue because residents travel outside the state to purchase their fireworks. Its probable, but there is no specific research to support his argument. We do know some Georgians go outside the state to buy fireworks, and it does seem like people spend millions of dollars on fireworks in other states. It would be useful if there were more hard numbers out there to back up Mullis claim. But based on the specific numbers we have from other states and our own estimates, he seems to be in the ballpark. We rate his claim Mostly True. In the summer of 2020, Snopes readers asked us to look into the accuracy of social media posts that claimed to list the names of 41 U.S. Senators who had "voted to let babies scream until they die if born alive." social media posts   The meme referred to Senate Bill 311 (SB 311), which was introduced in the Senate in January 2019 by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service summary of the legislation reads as follows:  summary This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must exercise in the event a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion. A health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to another child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) immediately admit the child to a hospital. The bill also requires a health care practitioner or other employee to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement. A person who violates the requirements is subject to criminal penalties  a fine, up to five years in prison, or both. Additionally, an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder. The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive for conspiracy to violate these provisions, for being an accessory after the fact, or for concealment of felony. A woman who undergoes an abortion or attempted abortion may file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill. The text of SB 311 can be read in full here. It's true that Democratic and Independent senators did vote to block that bill's progress, but the above-displayed Facebook meme leaves out crucial context  federal and state laws already provide protections for babies born alive after abortions  and obscure the stated reasons for those votes, an essential component of any evaluation of a legislative vote. Overall, we rate the meme's core claim as "false."  here The proposed "Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act" has been stuck in the Senate since February 2019, despite efforts by Republicans to revive it in February 2020. The bill has not been forwarded to any Senate committee, and Republicans have failed on two occasions to obtain the votes necessary to advance the legislation through the Senate.  Those two votes, in February 2019 and February 2020, were on motions of cloture. A motion of cloture is, roughly speaking, a proposal signed by at least 16 senators to close debate on a particular bill. At first glance, that might suggest that those in favor of the cloture motion are opposed to the content of the legislation itself, but in fact, "invoking cloture" is a way to advance a bill's progress in the Senate by pushing through the debate stage and arriving at a full-Senate vote on the legislation itself. Cloture is a key mechanism for breaking a filibuster in the Senate.  February 2019 February 2020 motion of cloture filibuster On most matters, a cloture motion must be agreed to by 60% of senators, which usually means 60 votes (except in cases where a Senate seat is temporarily vacant). In the 2019 vote, only 53 members voted "Yea," and in 2020 that number was 56  below the 60-vote threshold on each occasion. It's worth noting that the Senate has not yet voted on whether to pass SB 311 itself, so a vote in favor of a motion for cloture should not be conflated with a vote in favor of the substance of the legislation. However, it is reasonable to assume, in general, that senators who voted to push SB 311 through to the next stage towards enactment were also in favor of enacting the bill itself, and those who voted against the cloture motions were doing so in order to halt the legislation's progress because they opposed its contents. This assumption is borne out in the partisan contours of the 2019 and 2020 cloture votes: On both occasions, no Republican voted against the motion, and only Democrats voted against it (including Independent Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who both caucus with the Democrats). On both occasions, three Democrats crossed the floor and voted in favor of the cloture motions: Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Doug Jones of Alabama.  2019 2020 The exact claim in the Facebook meme is somewhat confusing. The caption refers to 41 senators, but the list contains 44 names. In February 2019, all 44 of the senators listed in the meme voted against the Republican cloture motion. However, in February 2020, 41 of them voted against the cloture motion, with the remaining three not voting (Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Sanders). So it's not clear to which vote the meme refers. However, on each occasion the wording of the cloture motion and the question put to senators was identical, so the distinction is only a formal one. was identical In evaluating whether the Democratic senators listed in the meme did, in fact, "vote to let babies scream until they die if born alive," it is necessary to assess the reasons for their votes against cloture motions and the effect of the failure of the cloture motions.  It hardly needs to be said, but neither the bill itself, nor any statements made by the Democratic senators who opposed it, contained any mention of "babies screaming until they die." So in voting against the progress of SB 311, no senator was explicitly voting in order to bring about that outcome, in those terms. Rather, that phrase was a characterization of the effect of the votes, which originated from the creator of the Facebook meme.  By voting against the cloture motions, the senators halted the progress of a bill that, if enacted, would mean that federal law required health care practitioners to provide the same life-saving treatments and interventions for a baby born alive after a failed abortion (including admitting the baby to a hospital) as they are currently required to provide to babies born alive under other circumstances. The bill would also mean that health care practitioners would be required, under federal law, to report to law enforcement if they became aware that someone else had violated those requirements. Any health practitioner convicted of failing to fulfill those requirements, or failing to report someone else's violation, would be liable to be fined and/or imprisoned for up to five years. SB 311 would also mean that a person found to have intentionally killed a baby born alive after a failed abortion would be liable to conviction and punishment under the federal prohibition against murder.  prohibition Does this mean that by preventing the passage of SB 311 Democratic senators were allowing health care practitioners to lawfully let babies die, without rendering aid, if they are born alive after a failed abortion? Not really.  Federal law already explicitly states that babies born alive, regardless of the circumstances, are human persons and should be treated as such in the context of criminal law. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush in 2002. It states that: states (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words person, human being, child, and individual, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. As used in this section, the term born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. This means that intentionally killing a baby born alive can be, and is, prosecuted as murder, since the baby is defined under the 2002 act as a human person. In principle, it also means that doctors and nurses have the same professional, legal, and ethical responsibility to babies born alive after failed abortions as they do to babies born alive in other circumstances.  The 2002 law does not include an explicit, affirmative duty of care for health care practitioners and does not stipulate any penalties for failing to provide appropriate care. However, many individual states do. Based on research originally published by the anti-abortion Family Research Council, Snopes checked legislation in all 50 states and found that, as of Aug. 20, 2020, 34 states have laws that explicitly either: affirm the equal right to medical care of a baby born alive after an abortion; or assert an affirmative legal obligation for medical practitioners to provide care; or set out criminal penalties for failing to provide care; or all of the above provisions. A full list of each state's "born alive" abortion laws, including links to the original legislation, can be found here.  published here (Note: At the time of the first cloture vote in February 2019, the number of states with "born alive" abortion laws was 33. West Virginia's Senate passed the state's own Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on Feb. 10, 2020, and Gov. Jim Justice signed it into law on March 2, 2020. By the time the U.S. Senate had its second cloture motion on Feb. 25, 2020, Justice had already vowed to sign the West Virginia law, meaning the number of states with "born alive" abortion laws was imminently about to become 34.) passed signed vowed The effect of the decision to block the progress of SB 311 through the U.S. Senate was to preserve the legal status quo around the country, namely that: two-thirds of states already had laws offering various levels of protection for babies born alive after failed abortions, and various levels of criminal penalties set out for health care practitioners who fail to provide care for them; and that federal law already recognized that babies born alive after failed abortions should be treated as human persons in the context of criminal law. This significantly undermines the Facebook meme's claim that the 44 senators had voted to allow babies to be left to die if they are born alive after a failed abortion, because that it isn't the case in most states. However, passing SB 311 would mean that there would be no ambiguity about the criminal implications and consequences of the 2002 law. Under SB 311, federal law would unequivocally set out a legal duty of care and a reporting obligation for health care professionals, as well as specific criminal penalties. While the 2002 law empowered states to enact their own "born alive" abortion laws, and 34 states have opted to do just that, 16 states have not, and SB 311 would introduce a "born alive" abortion law that would apply uniformly throughout the entire country. By voting to block the progress of SB 311, the Democratic and Independent senators did undoubtedly prevent that outcome from becoming much more likely.  In evaluating whether voting against the cloture motions on SB 311 meant the 44 senators were voting to allow babies born alive after abortion to simply die without medical aid, it is also necessary to examine the reasons why the senators voted the way they did.  In general, the Democratic senators who gave statements about their votes on SB 311 said that they had opposed the passage of the bill because they felt it was unnecessary in light of existing law and because they felt it inappropriately criminalized health care practitioners and interfered in the doctor-patient relationship. None said they had voted against the cloture motions in order to allow babies to be left to die or expressed indifference about that outcome. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, for example, wrote, "We should not unnecessarily create new federal crimes and penalties to punish behavior that is already illegal under existing state and federal laws." Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland wrote, "It has always been illegal to kill or harm a newborn infant, and this bill had nothing to do with that. Instead, this bill would have subjected medical professionals to unprecedented criminal liability and inappropriately comes between a woman and her doctor. wrote wrote Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii said SB 311 was "a solution in search of a problem," adding, "Contrary to what the proponents of this bill argue, it is and has always been a crime to harm or kill newborn babies. And people guilty of this crime can already be charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." said Speaking from the floor of the Senate, Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois emphasized the fact that abortions that take place late enough for a fetus to show vital signs overwhelmingly occur in the context of a late diagnosis of a fetal abnormality that will, in short order, prove fatal. She stated that her reason for opposing SB 311 was that it would exacerbate the suffering of parents in such scenarios and force health care practitioners to attempt medical interventions that they know to be futile. stated ... Imagine the heartbreak of going to the doctor one day and learning that theres no chance your baby will survive that theres no hope your baby girl will ever speak her first word or take her first step  Or that delivering her would put your own life at risk, leaving your firstborn to grow up without a mother. These are the types of scenarios that lead to the heart-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy later on. As the mom of two little girls, I cant begin to fathom that kind of pain. And yet today, some on the other side of the aisle are trying to use those parents' suffering for political advantage  making worst-case scenarios like these all the more difficult by pushing a bill aimed to criminalize reproductive care no matter the cost. If it becomes law, this bill would force doctors to perform ineffective, invasive procedures on fetuses born with fatal abnormalities  even if its against the best interests of the child. Even if it goes against recommended standards of care and they know it wouldnt extend or improve the babys life. Even if it would prolong the suffering of the families  forcing women to endure added lasting trauma ... making one of the worst moments in their lives somehow even more painful. If physicians refuse, theyd be punished ... sentenced to up to five years in prison. In February 2019, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Nurse-Midwives co-signed a letter to U.S. Senators, urging them to vote against SB 311 for similar reasons to those given by Duckworth and others, writing: letter "It [S. 311] injects politicians into the patient-provider relationship, disregarding providers training and clinical judgment and undermining their ability to determine the best course of action with their patients." Late-term abortions are exceedingly rare. In 2016, the most recent year for which data was available, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that just 1.2% of abortions took place after 21 weeks' gestational age. reported Deaths involving babies born alive after an abortion are even rarer. According to CDC data, just 143 newborn deaths were recorded as resulting from spontaneous or induced terminations of pregnancy between 2003 and 2014, a period during which more than 49 million live births took place. The CDC advised that the figure of 143 might be an understatement, but also stated that two-thirds of those newborn deaths involved a "maternal complication or one or more congenital anomalies," which corroborates the claims of Duckworth and others.  data Sasse, Ben. "S. 311 -- Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act."
 U.S. Senate. 31 January 2019. Davis, Christopher M. "Invoking Cloture in the Senate."
 Congressional Research Service. 6 April 2017. Congressional Research Service. "Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate."
 7 April 2017. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. "U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 51, Section 1111 -- Murder."
 Accessed 20 August 2020. Chabot, Steve. "H.R. 2175 -- Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002."
 U.S. House of Representatives. 5 August 2002. Family Research Council. "Pro-Life Laws in the States -- Born-Alive Protections."
 Accessed 20 August 2020. PBS/The Associated Press. "West Virginia Senate Passes 'Born Alive' Abortion Bill."
 10 February 2020. Justice, Jim. "Governor Speaks on 'Protecting Abortion Survivors.'"
 The Point Pleasant Register. 14 February 2020. Kaine, Tim. "Kaine Statement on S. 311."
 25 February 2020. Cardin, Ben. "Cardin Statement on the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act."
 26 February 2019. Hirono, Mazie. "Hirono, Murray, and Colleagues Denounce Latest Republican Attack on a Womans Right to Choose in Remarks on the Senate Floor"
 25 February 2019. Duckworth, Tammy. "Minutes Before Vote, Duckworth Pushes Senate to Reject Latest Anti-Choice, Anti-Doctor GOP Bill."
 25 February 2019. Jatlaoui, Tara et al. "Abortion Surveillance -- United States, 2016."
 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 29 November 2019. National Center for Health Statistics. "Mortality Records with Mention of International Classification of Diseases-10 code P96.4 (Termination of Pregnancy): United States, 2003-2014."
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 11 April 2016. Robertson, Lori. "The Facts on the Born-Alive Debate."
 Factcheck.org. 4 March 2019. Claim:  Dell Hospital will contribute money towards the medical care of a 5-year-old rape victim every time a message is shared.  Example:  [Collected via Facebook, October 2010] This guy raped a five year old little girl. He ruined her life, she is alive & in the hospital can't move and can never have children, or a normal life. This guy goes by different names he is in hiding & has AIDS. The girl came out positive. Please help us catch this animal. Every time this message is fwd the Dell Hospital will donate $.15 to Maria's medication & treatment. Please dont hesitate to fwd this. It could've been youre daughter or sister. God bless. Thank you!. Forward this to as many people as you can.  Origins:  The account given in the above entreaty for funds to help pay the medical costs of a five-year-old rape victim named Maria is just another in a long line of hoaxes  playing on the idea that some entity will pay out money every time good-hearted souls use Facebook's "share" feature to pass along information to their social network friends. The notion that various business entities will pony up funds for a good cause whenever someone forwards, texts, likes, posts, shares, or otherwise disseminates a particular message is one of the longest-running hoaxes on the Internet.   hoaxes This item is similar in form to another widely circulated Facebook hoax about raising funds for the medical care of a child rape victim, but at least that other example was based on a real-life event (even if its appeal for money was spurious). In this case, however, the message is not based on any actual incidence of crime. child rape The Dell Childrens Medical Center of Central Texas has been bedeviled by this rumor since October 2010, at which time they posted an alert about it on their web site: alert ALERT: SPAM Text Message Makes  Claim A false text message has been circulating that describes an incident involving a 5-year old girl. The message states that every time you forward it to someone, Dell Children's Medical Center will donate 15 cents to cover the child's healthcare expenses. This message is spam and is in no way affiliated with Dell Children's Medical Center or the Seton Family of Hospitals. If you receive this message, please delete it. If you want to make a difference in the life of an injured or sick child, the best approach is still the old-fashioned one: donate your money and/or time, not a text message or Facebook wall post. Last updated:  11 May 2015 In January 2020, we received multiple inquiries from readers about the accuracy of a social media meme that made striking claims about the past record of U.S. Sen. and 2020 Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders. The meme featured black-and-white photographs of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who led the Islamic revolution of 1979 and became Iran's supreme leader; former U.S. President Jimmy Carter; and Sanders, along with the following text: meme text In 1979 Iran took 70 Americans hostage for 444 days. Most [of] America united, but one politician stood aloneSocialist Workers Party leader Bernie Sanders supported Ayatollah Khomeini against the US, condemned President Carter for imperialism, and accused the hostages of being CIA spies.  Is this what Democrat voters stand for? Bernie Sanders for President?Maybe in Iran. Not in the US.    The claims contained in the meme appeared to borrow from two articles published in January 2020, just two weeks before the Democratic presidential primaries began in earnest with the Iowa caucuses.  On Jan. 16, The Daily Beast published an opinion column written by historian Ronald Radosh, which carried the headline, "When Iran Took Americans Hostage, Bernie Backed Iran's Defenders." There, Radosh wrote that Sanders "aligned himself with the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), the self-proclaimed Trotskyist revolutionary party, became its presidential elector in Vermont, and campaigned for its candidates and platform that defended the Iranian hostage seizure." column On Jan. 18, The Jerusalem Post published an article that bore the headline, "Bernie Sanders Backed a Party That Supported Iran During Hostage Crisis." The piece largely restated portions of Radosh's earlier column. article Important differences exist between the claims made in the above-displayed meme, which contained several key falsehoods, and Radosh's article, but the latter also omitted important context and made misleading assertions. Sanders and the SWP The January 2020 meme described Sanders as the "Socialist Workers Party leader." This is false. Sanders was never even a member of that party, contrary to Radosh's claim that the future U.S. senator "stood apart by joining a Marxist-Leninist party that not only pledged support for the Iranian theocracy, but also justified the hostage taking" [Emphasis is added].  A spokesperson for the Sanders campaign told Snopes, "Senator Sanders was never a member of the Socialist Workers Party." This is corroborated by several news reports from that era. In October 1980, the SWP's newsletter The Militant described Vermont as "a state where there is no branch of the Socialist Workers Party," further undermining any claim that Sanders, who has lived in Vermont since the late 1960s, was a member of the party (let alone its leader) at that time. several news reports described However, Sanders was undoubtedly affiliated with the SWP. In 1980, he served as one of three Vermont Electoral College electors on behalf of the SWP's presidential candidate and leader Andrew Pulley, a former steelworker and Vietnam War veteran from Chicago. Sanders' role and Pulley's candidacy itself were both purely symbolic. Pulley was then only 29 years old and therefore ineligible to serve as president under the U.S. Constitution, and his place on several state ballots, including Vermont, was taken by Clifton DeBerry. Between them, Pulley and DeBerry got just 46,000 votes nationwide.  electors ballots After Sanders became mayor of Burlington in 1981, running as an independent, his affiliation with Pulley and the SWP continued, and he spoke at SWP campaign events in 1982 and 1984. However, his connection with the party appears to have diminished after that, as Sanders' own political vision moved from revolutionary socialism to social democracy. spoke The SWP's 1984 presidential candidate, Mel Mason, told Washington Times in 2019 that, "We had a long-distance relationship, but that kind of changed after he ran for Congress [in 1990]. I didn't have as much contact anymore. I have a lot of respect for him, but I just don't think the programs he put forward are what workers need in this country." told It's also important to note that although Sanders supported SWP candidates for president in 1980 and 1984 and spoke at several SWP events, he did not necessarily support or endorse each of their policies or utterances. In fact, Sanders made a point of saying this in the summer of 1980, when it was first announced he would be an SWP elector in that year's presidential election. At the time, he said, "Although I am not in agreement with the SWP on all issues, I strongly support that party's attempt to become a nucleus for a national labor party, which will fight for the interests of low income and working people." said Similarly, Sanders publicly clashed with the SWP on certain issues. At a forum in Worcester, Vermont, in July 1980, he put "demanding questions" to Matilde Zimmermann, the SWP's vice presidential candidate that year, on the subject of nuclear power. According to Burlington Free Press, "the tone of the questions became almost hostile at moments." That interaction came just days after Sanders was announced as a Vermont elector for the SWP. Burlington Free Press In combination with the fact that Sanders never joined the SWP, held office in it, nor ran on an SWP ticket, this demonstrates that he was broadly supportive of the party's aims and campaigns for a period, but did not march in lockstep with each and every SWP policy or pronouncement. The SWP and the Iran Hostage Crisis During the Iran hostage crisis between 1979 and 1981, the SWP and its leader Pulley did criticize the approach of the U.S. government under then-President Jimmy Carter and at times even expressed support for positions taken by the recently installed, anti-Western, Islamic regime led by Khomeini. Broadly speaking, the SWP claimed that the Carter administration was cynically using the crisis in order to boost domestic public support for a military conflict with Iran; called on Carter to accede to the Khomeini regime's demands, including the extradition of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the U.S.-friendly former Shah of Iran who had been overthrown in the 1979 Islamic revolution and fled to the U.S.; and claimed that the U.S. Embassy, which was stormed in the hostage-taking, had been a hub of American intelligence activities, and some of the hostages were spies.  claimed In November 1980, Pulley and his former running mate Zimmermann published a statement calling on Carter to accede to the Iranian regime's demands, calling them "simple and just," and said the U.S. should "end its attacks on the Iranian revolution": statement Washington's refusal to accept the offer of the Iranian parliament for releasing the hostages shows once again the U.S. government's total lack of concern for their safety and wellbeing. The proposals from Iran are simple and just: no U.S. military or political involvement in Iran; unfreeze the Iranian assets; cancel all claims against Iran; and return the shah's stolen wealth. If granted, the hostages would immediately be freed. [...] We should demand that the U.S. government immediately agree to the proposals from Iran-with no strings attached-and end its attacks on the Iranian revolution. A year earlier, Pulley issued the following statement: "American people oppose U.S. support to shah. We will fight any U.S. attempt to intervene in Iran. Long live Iranian revolution!"  statement We did not find any public statements by Sanders on the subject of the Iran hostage crisis, so the claim that he expressed support for Khomeini was false, and a clear case of "guilt by association" with the utterances of Pulley and the SWP being transferred on to Sanders because of his links to both. A spokesperson for Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign indicated he was opposed to SWP policy on Iran at that time, telling Snopes: "Senator Sanders did not think the hostages were spies nor did he support their captivity. Any suggestion otherwise is nonsense."  However, Sanders' disagreement with Pulley and the SWP on the Iran hostage crisis was demonstrably not strong enough to prompt him to sever ties with either, given that the future U.S. representative and senator continued to speak at SWP campaign events after the hostage crisis and supported the party's presidential candidate four years later.  Image caption: Bernie Sanders, then Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in his office at City Hall on March 1, 1985. Radosh, Ronald. "When Iran Took Americans Hostage, Bernie Backed Iran's Defenders."
  The Daily Beast. 16 January 2020. The Jerusalem Post. "Bernie Sanders Backed a Party That Supported Iran During Hostage Crisis."
  18 January 2020. Berney, Louis.  "FBI Probes Mayor to Discredit Witness."
  The Burlington Free Press. 8 April 1981. The Burlington Free Press. "Pulley to Explain Socialist Suit Against FBI, CIA."
  20 May 1981. Abbey, Alan. "Burlington Immigration Office May Get Role in Socialist Probe."
  The Burlington Free Press. 21 May 1981. Rose, Andy. "Vermont Workers, Students Welcome Pulley."
  The Militant. 24 October 1980. Kingsley, Robert. "Socialists Launch Campaign to Get Candidates on Ballot."
  The Rutland Daily Herald. 11 July 1980. Simonson, Joseph. "Bernie Sanders Campaigned for Marxist Party in Reagan Era."
  The Washington Times. 30 May 2019. Davis, Neil. "Candidacy No Shield for Zimmermann."
 The Burlington Free Press. 20 July 1980. The Militant. "Protests Say: 'No War Against Iran!'"
  30 November 1979. Pulley, Andrew; Zimmermann, Matilde. "Socialists: 'Meet Just Proposal of Iranian People.'"
  The Militant. 14 November 1980. Conservative political commentator Wayne Allyn Root opined back in 2010 that President Obama "is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos."  Claim:   Wayne Allyn Root wrote in an opinion piece that President Obama is "purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy."  Example:  [Root, June 2010]   Rahm Emanuel cynically said, "You never want a crisis to go to waste." It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama's presidency. Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos  thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within. Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it. [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  Wayne Allyn Root, the Libertarian Party's 2008 vice presidential candidate, is a political commentator whose columns appear on various conservative web sites and the author of several books, including The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts.  He penned a biweekly political opinion column published the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and his entry for 6 June 2010 was the article excerpted above, entitled "Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system," in which he opined that President Obama is "purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos." Wayne Allyn Root column article Some online-circulated versions of this column are entitled "Obama's college roommate speaks out," but that heading reflects a misreading of the word "classmate," as Wayne Allyn Root never was, or claimed to be, Barack Obama's roommate  Root merely attended Columbia University at the same time as Barack Obama did and later claimed (despite substantial evidence to the contrary) that neither he nor anyone else attending Columbia during that time had ever heard of or met Barack Obama. claimed Root's credentials as a political prognosticator are rather suspect, as he predicted in May 2012 that Barack Obama would lose the upcoming presidential election to Republican candidate Mitt Romney "in a landslide."  (Obama handily won with 62% of the electoral vote.) predicted handily Humans have been modifying their bodies as long as there have been tools available to do so. Tattoos, piercings, corseting, and other practices generally characterized as "transgressive" actually come with centuries of historical weight, and even newer types of body modification generally have precedents. Eyeball tattooing is no exception to this, despite popping up mostly in news stories after 2015, when an inmate in Alaska appeared in court with one of his sclera evidently tattooed:   Jason Barnum, also known as "Eyeball," was sentenced to 22 years in prison for shooting a police officer. His face and eye tattoos came up during the sentencing hearings as well; the prosecution said that his tattoos showed a specific behavior pattern, and Barnum argued that poor decisions earlier in life had left him unable to find work. sentenced At any rate, eye tattoos are real -- and permanent. The BBC weighed in on the practice of eyeball tattooing in 2015, concluding that the tattoos are a strikingly visible way to proclaim one's individuality to the world: Looking a little out-of-this world is something that appealed to Kylie Garth, a body piercer who works in Luna Cobra's Sydney studio. Before deciding to change the colour of her eyeballs, Garth had experimented with a number of body modifications including face tattoos, piercings, elf-like pointed ears and a bifurcated tongue. "It was mentally intense," she says of the several injections needed to colour her eyeballs a delicate blue-green, a colour she refers to as sea foam. "It feels like somebody is poking at your eye, then it feels like strange pressure and then it feels you have a bit of sand in your eye, but there's no pain." In 2007, a handful of stories ran on the practice of eyeball tattooing, mostly focusing on a tattoo artist named Luna Cobra who tattooed Garth's sclera and who claims to have invented the modern practice: practice First and foremost, I, Luna Cobra, am the inventor of eyeball, or sclera, tattooing (tattooing the white of the eye in a solid or mix of colours). I first attempted the procedure on sighted human eyeballs in 2007 on three well-informed and consenting parties. Since then, I have fine-tuned both the technique and materials to increase the safety and minimize the risks of tattooing the eyeball. There are still risks involved, of course, but in the 8 years I have been performing this procedure, all my clients are all still ok. Secondly, I personally have not trained anyone else to do this procedure. I have appeared on various tv/news segments though, and have inspired many copycats worldwide. This is important to know because without the proper education, training, experience and guidance, these practitioners have caused vision impairments like blurred vision, spots or floaters, and even blindness. YES PEOPLE ARE NOW BLIND FROM EYEBALL TATTOOING. The practice of tattooing the sclera or the cornea (mostly the cornea, over the iris of the eye) stretches back to at least the first century A.D. and has been documented as a cosmetic enhancement (e.g., a way to alleviate unsightly scars on the iris) since then: documented Permanent colouring of unsightly corneal scars has been known for almost 2000 years. During the final decade of the 19th and the first decades of the 20th century it was a commonly applied technique. Owing to the tremendous progress in microsurgical reconstructive procedures, corneal tattooing today will only apply for a minor and carefully selected group of patients. However, the procedure of coloring the whites of the eyes for elective cosmetic purposes has gained ground since Luna Cobra apparently developed it. That procedure is slightly less invasive, consisting of sandwiching pigments between the sclera and the conjunctiva of the eye, rather than depositing bits of ink just beneath the upper layer, as with a more traditional tattoo: tattoo Using the injection method of eyeball tattooing, where a larger area of ink is injected via a single hole, complex designs are not possible, and although fades from one color to another are possible to some extent, they can be difficult to control and master. The difficulty in controlling the spread of the ink makes this method inadvisable for the cornea (ie. over the iris and pupil) because of the danger of obscuring vision if the ink spreads over the pupil. Because only a few injections are required to completely cover the white of an eye with ink, many of the risks in the traditional method such as significant ink loss and ulceration are largely mitigated (although they are not eliminated). However, the injections can be difficult to control, and over-injection or injections that are too deep or too shallow carry significant risk  the appropriate zone is less than a millimetre thick, with serious consequences for missing it. The medical community uses almost exclusively the traditional tattoo method  although even after 150 years they have not come up with an agreed upon technique, which is very telling  whereas the body modification community uses almost exclusively the injection method. To date, attempts to tattoo the white of the eye using traditional needle methods have been extremely unsatistfactory, almost completely falling out. The general consensus is that injection is the only acceptable method of scleral tattooing. The end result of this method permanently turns the whites of the eyes another color to create an otherworldly, striking look.  Gifford S.R., Steinberg A.  "Gold and silver impregnation of cornea for cosmetic purposes."
American Journal of Ophthalmology. 1927. Gold and silver impregnation of cornea for cosmetic purposes Larratt, Shannon. "The Eyeball Tattoo FAQ." 
Body Modification Ezine. 21 November 2012. The Eyeball Tattoo FAQ Pitz, S., et al. "Corneal Tattooing: An Alternative Treatment for Disfiguring Corneal Scars."
 British Journal of Opthamology.  April 2002. Corneal Tattooing: An Alternative Treatment for Disfiguring Corneal Scars. In late August 2021, an image started circulating on social media that supposedly showed a letter issued by Chase Bank informing retired Gen. Michael Flynn that his credit cards had been canceled due to a "reputational risk":   This is a genuine letter sent from Chase to a member of the Flynn family. The first name on this letter has been redacted so we can't say with certainty that this letter was addressed to Gen. Flynn. A spokesperson for Chase confirmed to us that this letter was real, but added that it was sent by mistake and that this person's credit cards would not actually be closed.  A spokesperson for Chase told us: "Weve contacted our customer to let her know that we made an error and we apologized for any inconvenience this caused." The Chase spokesperson's use of the pronoun "her" leads us to believe that this letter may not have been sent to Flynn himself, but to another member of his family. The spokesperson did not elaborate. Many people encountered this letter as it was circulated on Twitter by third-party accounts. As this letter wasn't shared on the platform under Flynn's own handle (Flynn has been banned from Twitter since January 2021), it left people wondering if this letter was authentic.  banned from Twitter Disinformation researcher Jim Stewartson detailed the origins of the letter in a Twitter thread. According to Stewartson, this letter was originally shared on Telegram by Qanon influencer and recently elected South Carolina GOP official Tracy Diaz (@tracybeanz). The letter was deleted shortly after it was posted along with a message stating that there had been a "miscommunication" about making the letter public. However, the image continued to circulate and eventually Flynn posted two messages on Telegram that seemingly confirmed the authenticity of the letter. Twitter thread Qanon influencer recently elected South Carolina GOP official two messages   We archived @RealGenFlynn's Telegram posts here and here. On Aug. 30, 2021, Flynn posted an update to the situation, thanking his followers for their support and praying that "Chase Bank and all their cancel culture partners think twice about what they are doing to destroy the fabric of our constitution." here here posted update to the situation Banks assess a number of risk factors when deciding whether or not to do business with someone. For example, if a person has a criminal history of fraud they may find it difficult to get a credit card. Banks also look at reputational risk, or the impact that doing business with a person or company may have on the bank's reputation. Here's how the German multinational investment bank Deutsche Bank explains their approach to "reputational risk."  Deutsche Bank The reputation of Deutsche Bank is founded on trust from its employees, clients, shareholders, regulators and from the public in general. Isolated events can undermine that trust and negatively impact Deutsche Banks reputation and it is therefore of the utmost importance that it is protected, for which it is the responsibility of every employee of the Bank. Reputational risk at Deutsche Bank is defined as the risk of possible damage to Deutsche Banks brand and reputation, and the associated risk to earnings, capital or liquidity arising from any association, action or inaction which could be perceived by stakeholders to be inappropriate, unethical or inconsistent with the Banks values and beliefs. Reputational risk is governed by the Reputational Risk Framework, which was established to provide consistent standards for the identification, assessment and management of reputational risk issues. Assuming this letter is real, it's possible that Chase deemed Flynn a "reputational risk" as he pled guilty to lying to federal officials about his contacts with a Russian ambassador in 2017 (Flynn was later pardoned by former U.S. President Donald Trump), his statements in support of the QAnon conspiracy theory, or, more recently, his comments in June 2021 that seemingly encouraged people to stage a violent coup to overthrow the U.S. government. Flynn later released a statement saying that he has never advocated for a coup.  pardoned QAnon conspiracy theory encouraged people released a statement It's also possible that Chase deemed Flynn a "reputational risk" due to questionable financial transactions. In 2017, for example, it was reported that Flynn's consulting firm received more than $500,000 from the Turkish government while Flynn was serving as Trump's national security adviser.  The New York Times reported: reported The candidate he was advising last fall was running on a platform of America First. The client he was working for last fall was paying him more than $500,000 to put Turkey first. Michael T. Flynn, who went from the campaign trail to the White House as President Trumps first national security adviser, filed papers this week acknowledging that he worked as a foreign agent last year representing the interests of the Turkish government in a dispute with the United States. The viral image truly shows a letter that was sent from Chase Bank to Gen. Flynn's family regarding credits cards that were to be canceled due to reputational risk. A spokesperson for Chase confirmed the authenticity of the letter, but said that it had been sent in error and that the account would not be closed. Updated [31 August 2021]: Status changed to "Mixture" after receiving a statement from Chase Bank.