Says About 7 in 10 of Oregons inmates are in prison for violent crimes and serious sex offenses.
Frankly, PolitiFact Oregon was surprised to spota press release fora new radio campaign ad designed to set the record straight on Oregons prisons laws. We didnt know there was a need. Was there another ballot measure pending? Was somebody spreading falsehoods about prison laws? Didnt Oregonians vote on sentencing back in 2008? What was going on?Steve Doell is a longtime advocate of crime victims and president ofCrime Victims United, which helped get Measure 11 passed in 1994. This ad campaign is his latest venture, a nonprofit that he says is separate from Crime Victims and one that he said is aimed at giving people the facts about prison statistics.He wants to remind voters through the Truth in Sentencing Project that fewer than one in four convicted felons is sent to prison. Less than one-half of one-percent are in prison for drug possession. And this:About 7 in 10 of Oregons inmates are in prison for violent crimes and serious sex offenses including felony assault, armed robbery, kidnapping, manslaughter, child molestation, rape, attempted murder, and murder, he writes in the press release.In the accompanying radio ad, he says two-thirds of prisoners are violent criminals. In short, Oregons system works, he said. Doell got his numbers from theOregon Criminal Justice Commission, which administers Oregon's felony sentencing guidelines and serves as a statistical and data clearinghouse. Off we went, with a detour stop at the Department of Corrections.According to theagencys July 2012 inmate population profile, 9,878 of the 14,186 people in prison were there because of crimes against a person. That is 70 percent, or more than two-thirds. Hold on to the idea of a person crime.The same population profile also tells us that nearly 9,300 of those inmates are in prison for crimes one could describe as violent: Assault, homicide, rape, kidnapping, robbery, sodomy and sex abuse. Thats about 65 percent, which is about two-thirds.We caught up with Craig Prins, the criminal justice commissions executive director, who confirms that 70 percent of inmates have committed a crime against a person -- but he wanted to make sure we understand that that doesnt mean they are all necessarily violent criminals, on par with murderers and child molesters.For example, a drunken driver who doesnt kill anyone is categorized as committing a crime against a person, even though no one was hurt. A drunken driver who hits and kills another person has definitely committed a crime against a person, even though there was no intent to commit homicide. For Prins there is a distinction. For Doell, there isnt. We offer the information for readers to assess.We also have another point that readers may want to keep in mind: More non-violent offenders are being admitted into prison -- which means that the ratio of violent offenders may drop in the future.Thats because in 2008, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 57, which increased sentences for drug and property offenders. It was a legislative proposal drafted in response to a more punishing measure sponsored by Doell and others. Property and drug offenders sentenced under Measure 57 are expected to add 1,000 beds to the prison system over 10 years with overall bed growth closer to 2,000.Prins and others onGov. John Kitzhabers Commission on Public Safety have been tasked with finding ways to improve public safety and save money. The commission is to come up with ideas for the 2013 Legislature. And while Doell insists the Truth in Sentencing Project is not in response to an outside force, its clear this governor wants to make changes in state prisons.A June report by the Pew Center on the States, which is providing technical help to Oregon to review numbers and tease out prison growth drivers, states thatOregon in 2011 admitted more low-risk offenders than in 2000. Also, the share ofproperty, drug and other offenders increased from 53 percent of new admits in 2000 to 59 percent in 2011. (p.20) In other words, trends are changing and they may change more with the approval of Measure 57, which went into effect in January.Doell says the state doesnt have the greatest record on correctly projecting bed additions. He also doesnt think Measure 57 will change the ratio that much. I dont think theres going to be a significant change, I think it could be a percentage point or points here and there, he said.We think readers should be mindful that there is a forecast and new sentencing guidelines that may change the ratio in the future, but we dont know for sure by how much, if at all. The state would not hazard a projection other than the overall increase of 2,000 beds, of which at least 1,000 come from Measure 57.As for a ruling? It is factually correct that as of now, 70 percent of inmates are in prison for crimes against a person, and that 65 percent are in there for crimes we can see are violent in nature. That is about seven in 10 or two-thirds. We rate the statement True.
Claim:  The Dalai Lama once said that if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2013] Did the Dalai Lama really say "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." I've found this on many sites, but just can't believe it's true. Origins:  In May 2001 Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th and current Dalai Lama (the head monk of the Gelugpa lineage of Tibetan Buddhism), made a three-day visit to Portland, Oregon, during which he gave a talk to 7,600 area high school students in what was billed by organizers as the "Educating the Heart Summit."  As reported by the Seattle Times, during that talk the Dalai Lama responded to a question posed by a student about how to react to a potential school shooter by stating that it would "be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun," with the proviso that one should aim to wound and not to kill: His message resonates in an era when schools must be on guard against violent acts by gun-toting students. Included in the audience were some 35 students from Thurston High School in Springfield, Ore., where Kip Kinkel went on a May 1998 rampage in which his parents and two students were killed and 24 other students were wounded. Students, in a question-and-answer period, asked some hard questions. One girl wanted to know how to react to a shooter who takes aim at a classmate. The Dalai Lama said acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators. But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg. Many Americans might find the Dalai Lama's response surprising, given that he has expressed a dedication to nonviolence, and Buddhism is widely viewed in western culture as a religion that embraces pacifism.  However, commentators have noted that the image of Buddhist pacifism is an exaggerated one which has been projected onto Buddhism by others: commentators Buddhist cultures, including Tibet, have not historically been pacifist. The previous dalai lama strove to develop a modern military. So the current one's dedication to nonviolence should not be taken as a matter of course. He was influenced by Gandhi, a British-trained lawyer whose pacifism was rooted in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. His nonviolent approach is exceptional for a Buddhist political leader and integrates Indian and western concepts of nonviolent struggle. The exaggerated image of pacifism projected on Buddhism (and Hinduism) was embraced and promoted by natives, as it conveyed moral superiority over colonialist oppressors and missionaries. Getting the message fed back by natives reinforced the original misconceptions. But the ultimate source is Euro-Americans themselves, weary of a century of warfare and longing for a pacifist Shangri-La. Buddhist cultural values were never so simplistic and practically served rajas, khans, and daimyo for millennia. The main reason Buddhists' history does not match our expectations, aside from them being as human as the rest of us, is that our expectations have been mistaken. Some think that fantasies of a pacifist utopia benefit the Tibetan cause. It can also be argued that they encourage communists to contemptuously dismiss western support for Tibet and obstruct Buddhists from engaging their values. The Buddhist world is racked with violence and it has never been more important to understand Buddhist ethics. These include never acting in anger; exhausting alternatives such as negotiation; striving to capture the enemy alive; avoiding destruction of infrastructure and the environment; and taking responsibility for how one's actions and exploitation cause enemies to arise. They also emphasise the great psychic danger to those who act violently, something we see in the large number of suicides among youth sent to these wars. Above all, rather than "national self-interest", the guiding motivation should be compassion.    Last updated:  10 October 2015    Jenkins, Stephen.  "It's Not So Strange for a Buddhist to Endorse Killing."   The Guardian.  11 May 2011  (p. B1). In the days following the pro-Trump riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6. 2021, several lawmakers started calling for U.S. President Donald Trump to be impeached for a second time, this time, according to one draft of the impeachment articles, for "incitement of insurrection." one draft of the impeachment articles As the momentum for impeachment built, some social media users argued that it wasn't worth impeaching Trump again as he would be leaving office in a few days regardless.  But according to a viral message from Twitter user @BenCostiloe, the potential consequences of impeachment extended further than removal from office. This message, which was shared more than 150,000 times, claimed that impeaching Trump would also strip him of several post-presidency benefits, such as a lifetime pension, security detail, and the ability to run for office in the future: viral message   This message is generally accurate. However, it should be noted that a president is only stripped of these benefits if they are impeached and removed from office. As of this writing, Trump, who was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives in December 2019, will still receive presidential benefits as he was not convicted by the Senate and removed from office. U.S. President Bill Clinton, for example, still receives the benefits bestowed on former presidents even though he, too, was impeached.  impeached The benefits a president receives after leaving office are outlined in the Former Presidents Act of 1958. That law states that former presidents shall receive a lifetime pension (of approximately $200,000 annually), travel-related expenses up to $1 million each fiscal year, and protection from the Secret Service. It also notes that these benefits shall not be awarded to presidents whose service was terminated by removal "pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America." Former Presidents Act approximately $200,000 annually) Article II of Section 4 of the Constitution, reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." reads Mother Jones reported: reported The 1958 Former Presidents Act assures that no president leaves office without being set for lifeit guarantees a pension, access to health insurance, office space and staff. There is, however, one exception: These perks are only granted to presidents who arent removed from office in an impeachment trial. There is some debate as to whether an impeached, convicted, and removed president would also lose protection from the Secret Service. The Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012 authorizes "the Secret Service to protect former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes." This act does not state any exceptions for an impeached and removed president. As this is ahistorical territory, it's unclear how the term "former president" would be interpreted in this instance. We reached out to various historians for comment and will update this article accordingly. Former Presidents Protection Act The final item listed in the viral tweet  "loses his ability to run in 2024"  is a possibility, but not a foregone conclusion in the case of an impeachment conviction in the Senate. The U.S. Constitution states that a president "shall be removed from office if impeached and convicted. However, it is up to the Senate's judgment as to whether a removed president should be barred from holding future office.  Here's an excerpt from the U.S. Senate website (emphasis ours): website In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called managers, acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified such officials from holding public offices in the future. There is no appeal. Since 1789, about half of Senate impeachment trials have resulted in conviction and removal from office. In short, if Trump is impeached and removed from office, he would lose many of the benefits awarded to former presidents.    Updated [13 January 2021]: Article update to note that there is some debate as to whether an impeached, convicted, and removed president would also lose secret service protection. Viral recitations of politicians' achievements and failures have become standard election-year fare on social media, and, like the campaign talking points on which they appear to be based, are long on declarative statements and short on nuance.  One of many such lists devoted to President Barack Obama touts his economic accomplishments in office. While the statements it contains are basically true, it behooves the reader to bear in mind that 1.) it's a short list, and 2.) most of the items benefit, accuracy-wise, from a little added context. "Biggest job growth in manufacturing since the '90s" It's accurate, as far as it goes, to say that Obama presided over the largest spurt of manufacturing job growth since the 1990s, but how remarkable is that, really? As illustrated in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics graph below, the six-year period from 2010 to 2016 saw the largest sustained increase in manufacturing jobs since 1998 (more than 800,000 added), but what it also shows is how deep a trough manufacturing labor had fallen into over the previous decade, and how depressed it remains to this day, despite a modicum of improvement.  "Auto industry breaking sales records"  Nothing to quibble with here. According to statistics compiled by Autodata, U.S. car sales have increased steadily every year since 2009, and in 2015 set an all-time record of 17.47 million vehicles sold. statistics "Clean energy production doubled" Partly true. Certain kinds of "clean energy" production have doubled during Obama's tenure in office, but others haven't -- hydroelectric power, for example, which is our largest single source of renewable energy. U.S. Energy Information Agency statistics show that the production of hydroelectricity has actually decreased somewhat since 2010, though we do, in fact, produce twice as much clean energy from other sources such as solar, wind and biomass today (300 million megawatthours) as we did in 2009 (150 million megawatthours). statistics "Unemployment cut in half" True. Between 2010 and 2016 the unemployment rate dropped from about 10 percent to about 5 percent, as illustrated in this Bureau of Labor graph:   Which is indeed a 50 percent drop, although, once again, our starting point for comparison is the peak of the Great Recession, when the unemployment rate was at a 20-year high. Perhaps the more impressive statistic is that at 5 percent, the current unemployment rate is below the historical median since 1948 of of 5.5 percent. "Deficit cut by three-quarters" True, provided that the starting point for comparison is fiscal year 2009, when Obama's stimulus program pushed the deficit to $1.4 trillion. Given that the 2015 deficit was $439 billion, a drop of about three-quarters from what it was in 2009, the claim holds water. If, however, one compares 2015 to 2008, when the deficit was about $459 billion, the reduction is relatively inconsequential. "Stock market tripled" True, and then some. As of August 2015, the S&P 500 was up 220 percent over 2009, Nasdaq was up 313 percent and the Dow was up 185 percent from its 2009 low. up 220 percent "And he did it all with Republicans obstructing" What's in question here is not so much whether the Republicans did or did not obstruct  whether you call it "obstructing" or "opposing Obama's liberal agenda," they've done so throughout his administration  but to what extent Obama "did it all." It's standard political practice for the incumbent to claim credit for economic good news (and blame opponents for the bad), but how much credit does Obama actually deserve for this list of "accomplishments"? On balance, the answer is probably some, but not all. "After all," writes Ben Smith in Politico.com, "the $18 trillion U.S. economy is a massive beast that rises and falls on tectonic forces well beyond the reach of short-term Washington policy changes." writes Some of the early moves by the Obama administration clearly helped get us to where we are right now, especially the government being the spender of last resort after the crisis, said Beth Ann Bovino, chief U.S. economist at Standard & Poors. But the Federal Reserve also played a very big role. And this is also the natural shape of a slow recovery from a deep financial crisis and recession that is finally getting some traction.  Burden, Melissa and Wayland, Michael.  "Auto Industry Sets All-Time Sales Record in 2015."
 The Detroit News.  5 January 2016. Long, Heather. "Alarmed by Stocks? 5 Charts Break it Down."
 CNNMoney.  25 August 2015. Smith, Ben. "An Obama Boom?"
  Politico.com.  9 January 2015. "Energy in Brief."
 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 5 May 2016. In 2021, social media users began circulating photographs purporting to show "electric powered cars in boneyard" near Paris, France, that supposedly housed hundreds of derelict electric vehicles, the automobiles supposedly having been abandoned and left to decay because their battery storage cells had "given out" and were too expensive to replace:   Although the photographs are real; the accompanying description is misleading in multiple ways. This item is, in effect, an example of a failed business model rather than a failed technology. Back in 2011, the Autolib program offered the service of providing thousands of electric vehicles in the Paris area under a car-sharing program. Subscribes to the service were able to use the any of the fleet of 4,000 BlueCar cars as they wished, paying a fee each time depending upon how long they used the vehicle. At its peak in 2016, the program boasted 110,000 subscribers. However, Autolib slid from that peak into decline, due to a number of factors: Four thousand cars for over 100,000 subscribers meant many users were unable to find vehicles when they wanted them; users frequently left the cars dirty inside and damaged; and competition from ride-hailing apps such Uber eroded the customer base. By 2018, Autolib was running debts of tens of millions of euros and the program was discontinued in June of that year. running debts of tens of millions of euros program was discontinued in June In the end, most of the BlueCars in better condition were purchased and re-sold to new users or scrapped for parts. But a private company eventually stored some of the cars in not-so-good condition in a lot in an industrial area near Romorantin in Loir-et-Cher, as seen above -- not because the vehicles' storage cells had failed, but because the Autolib car-sharing program proved not to be a viable long-term business model. purchased and re-sold to new users or scrapped for parts It is also not the case that the abandoned Autolib BlueCars' batteries are "draining toxins into the ground." As noted in reports on the subject, the batteries have been removed from the pictured vehicles: reports Despite protests from the Bollor group, the multinational had to evacuate the 4,000 unwanted autolibs from the Paris region and urgently store them. They were then sold in several batches and two companies now hold most of the remaining fleet: the Breton company Autopuzz, former subcontractor of Bollor, which resells these vehicles throughout France, and the company Atis Production, whose manager Paul Aouizerate does not want to reveal his plans for the Autolib parked in Loir-et-Cher. The businessman also regrets the publication of photos of his vehicles in early March, shared by a blogger passionate about electric cars, who was amazed at such a landscape. The images became widespread on Facebook and Twitter, with internet users questioning how these cars can be reused and wondering about the potential risk of soil pollution they pose. Our vehicles are properly stored. The firefighters are aware that the construction site is well organized. All batteries have been removed, [and] the connections are isolated [said Paul Aouizerate, Atis Production Manager]. The cost of health care is a huge issue for everyone.If you have health insurance, the chances are excellent that you've seen your costs, along with co-payments and deductibles, go up significantly.If you don't have health insurance, the bill you get from your doctor or hospital is strikingly higher than what people with health insurance are charged. That's because insurance companies negotiate deep discounts that uninsured people never see.And because people who don't have insurance areseven times more likelyto skip the care they need, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that typically makes your care more expensive when you do seek it. If, on top of everything else, you can't pay for that care and a hospital provides it for free, as a hospital is obligated to do, those costs are passed on to everyone else.So it caught our attention when Marie Ghazal, chief executive officer of theRhode Island Free Clinic, the Providence nonprofit organization that treats the uninsured, beganan opinion columnin The Providence Journal by asserting that Rhode Island has the highest percentage of uninsured adults of any state in New England.She stated that between 13.9 percent and 21.4 percent of residents are not insured, which translates to 139,000 to 214,000 Rhode Islanders.We wondered if our ranking was really that poor, and why the range was so large.When we contacted Ghazal, she said she got the information froma story in the Providence Business News. The article gives no specific numbers for Rhode Island or most other states. It wasbased on a mapdeveloped by the CDC that breaks the states into three categories: those having the highest proportion of people with health insurance, those having the lowest and those in between.Rhode Island -- like New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia and most of the states in the Midwest -- is in the in-between category. Ghazal said our rate of uninsured adults was 13.9 percent to 21.4 percent because, as it turns out, that's how the CDC defined the in-between group.We asked if she had specific numbers. She said she didn't. So we went searching.When we contacted CDC, they directed us tostate-by-state numbers, as collected by Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey that counts how many people are without health insurance at the time of the call.According to the BRFSS statistics, which served as the basis for the map cited by Ghazal, the 2009 telephone survey of4,318 Rhode Islands found that the percentage of uninsured adults in Rhode Island was 14.2 percent, below the national average of 16.9 percent. Thirty-two states had a lower rate of health insurance coverage than Rhode Island. The worst rate was in Texas, where 29.1 percent of the population was not covered. In 15 states, at least 20 percent of the adult population younger than 65 was without health insurance.But we found something else while digging into the numbers. The margin of error in the survey was plus or minus 1.9 percentage points.If you ignore the margin of error, it is true that Rhode Island had the highest rate of uninsured adults in New England. Maine, where 13.7 percent were uninsured, was closest to Rhode Island. But that's a difference of only 0.5 percentage points. Massachusetts, in contrast, had the lowest rate of uninsured -- 6.2 percent -- because the Bay State has mandatory health insurance.However, if you consider the margin of error in the poll, we could rank ahead of New Hampshire (where 13.1 were uninsured) and Maine.For additional context, we looked at thepercentages going back to 1995(excluding 2001 and 2002, two years when the survey results are not on the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention & Health Promotion website).It turns out that in 2004, the level of uninsured in Rhode Island was a bit higher -- 14.4 percent; 15 years ago it was at about 13 percent. The rate did dip to 11.7 percent in the 1998 survey but, in general, the numbers have stayed consistent.By any measure, that's still a lot of people walking around without health insurance.Ultimately, if you ignore the margin of error, Ghazal is correct about our ranking compared with other New England states. But if you take that into account, its possible that her statement could be inaccurate.More importantly, she's making a selective comparison. When you compare us with the rest of the country, we're better than average.Because of those omissions, we rate her statement Mostly True. You knew it wouldn't take long for the hug to get some love during Sunday's debate between Republicans Marco Rubio and Charlie Crist. Minutes into the 40-minute Florida Senate Showdown, Rubio made a case that he'll stand up to President Barack Obama's agenda and Crist won't.Everyone knows that you won't stand up to the Obama agenda because just a year ago you were campaigning for it, the former House speaker said, referring to Feb. 10, 2009, when Crist embraced the president at a Fort Myers campaign event for the federal stimulus package.We've fact-checked several claims about Crist's support for the stimulus. Indeed, he earned a Pants on Fire rating for sayinghe didn't endorse it.So it was a Rubio comment later in the program that drew our attention.FOX News Sundayhost Chris Wallace asked Rubio, Why is $8 billion and 87,000 jobs bad for a state that has 12 percent unemployment?Well ... if it's bad for America, it can't possibly be good for your state, Rubio said. Let me tell you why the stimulus has failed. The stimulus has failed because since that famous day in February where the governor campaigned with Barack Obama on behalf of the stimulus program, 211,000 Floridians have lost their jobs.211,000 is a big number, so we wanted to check Rubio's facts.Conveniently, the state'sAgency for Workforce Innovationreleased areporton state employment figures just two days before the debate. In it, Florida's record 12.2 percent unemployment rate is announced, along with many statistics on the state's jobs picture, including year-over-year numbers from February 2009, the month Crist campaigned with Obama.The report shows Florida had 8,356,000 jobs in February 2009 and 8,125,000 in February 2010, the difference being 231,000. These are the seasonally adjusted numbers for the civilian population.However, if you look at seasonally adjusted nonagricultural employment --- a less-inclusive number --- you see the basis for Rubio's claim. There the job loss in a year's time is 211,500.It's the latter number that the Rubio campaign points to. Spokesman Alberto Martinez also shared a report from House Way and Means Republicans that seeks to highlight the stimulus as a job-killer, rather than a job creator, where Florida is said to have lost 240,400 jobs since the stimulus passed.Like any statistics, these are easily sliced and diced to make the key point. But Rubio is very close to the precise number, and in fact, he underestimates it slightly when his point is that Florida has lost a lot of jobs. So we rule this one True. Claim:  A provision of Obamacare allows federal agents to conduct forced home inspections and remove children from the custody of their parents.  Examples:  [Green, September 2013] Grassfire's Liberty News team is reporting on a little-known aspect of ObamaCare  FORCED HOME INSPECTIONS. Simply put, provisions of ObamaCare allow federal agents to activate forced home inspections. The inspections are being sold as a simple act to ensure eligibility, but upon digging deeper we find the agents will have broad authority in using the new tool to clamp down on privacy and violate American rights. Homeschool your kids? Smoke a cigar from time to time? Have a member who was at one time active duty military? ObamaCare enables agents to force a home inspection upon you. And no state will be off limits to the ObamaCare inspections.  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] DID YOU KNOW... Even your children belong to the government. Under Obamacare, on October1, 2013, CPS field agents, armed with a manual published by Human Healthand Services and codified under Obamacare will begin operating under thepower granted to them by Obamacare. Subsequently, they will be able toconduct forced home visits without a warrant. Things such as a (yetundefined) bad grade, missing more than 5 days in school in any one month,can get a parent to be declared guilty of educational neglect. Having agun or beer in your house can get your children removed from your custody.Even the traditional act of grounding your child for misbehavior will getyou declared to be guilty of "isolation neglect" and subject your childfor removal from your authority and your home. If you are a parent and youhave not heard of this provision of Obamacare, I would suggest you readthe 110 page manual that was created by the United Nations. This is theHHS/CPS field manual that goes into effect this week! Origins:  This alarmist warning about a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPACA] (commonly known as "Obamacare") supposedly authorizing federal agents to undertake "forced home inspections" under the guise of ensuring eligibility began in August 2013 as a blog post that was picked up and uncritically spread via other blogs and web sites.  The original entry claimed, in part, that: blog post According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted. The Health and Human Services' website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the "high-risk" categories below:  Families where mom is not yet 21. Families where someone is a tobacco user. Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities. Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be "eligible." In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to "help parents and children." Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to "enhance program sustainability." Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states, "This is not a 'voluntary' program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to 'intervention' in 'school readiness' and 'social-emotional developmental indicators.' A farm family may be subject to 'intervention' in order to 'prevent child injuries' The sky is the limit." No provision of the PPACA authorizes federal agents to undertake "forced home inspections."  What this item (erroneously) references is the PPACA's creation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV), which "facilitates collaboration and partnership at the federal, state, and community levels to improve health and MIECHV development outcomes for at-risk children through evidence-based home visiting programs" by awarding development grants to states that "currently have modest home visiting programs and want to build on existing efforts." The grant program is intended to assist states (not the federal government) in conducting voluntary in-home visits to high-risk households with children younger than the age of five to help match those families with government services related to issues such as maternal and child health, child development, school readiness, economic self-sufficiency, and child abuse prevention.  (These home visiting programs are not something new created by Obamacare; there were  extant home visiting programs in nearly every state prior to the passage of the PPACA.) extant  As noted in a September 2011 press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): press release "Home visiting programs play a critical role in the nation's efforts to help children get off to a strong start. Parenting is a tough job, and helping parents succeed pays big dividends in a child's well-being and healthy development," said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  Both the formula and competitive grants will be used by state agencies to support home visiting programs that bring nurses, social workers, or other health care professionals to meet with at-risk families that agree to meet with them in their homes.  They work with families to evaluate their circumstances, help parents gain the skills they need to succeed in promoting healthy development in their children, and connect families to the kinds of help that can make a real difference in a child's health, development, and ability to learn.  Research has shown that home visiting programs can improve outcomes for children and families, including improving maternal and child health, reducing child maltreatment, increasing parental employment, and improving the rate at which children reach developmental milestones. HHS undertook an exhaustive review of the research evidence on different home visiting programs to identify the models that have been shown to work. The PPACA defines high-risk households as: Low-income eligible families. Eligible families who are pregnant women who have not attained age 21. Eligible families that have a history of child abuse or neglect or have had interactions with child welfare services. Eligible families that have a history of substance abuse or need substance abuse treatment. Eligible families that have users of tobacco products in the home. Eligible families that are or have children with low student achievement. Eligible families with children with developmental delays or disabilities. Eligible families who, or that include individuals who, are serving or formerly served in the Armed Forces,including such families that have members of the Armed Forces who have had multiple deployments outside of theUnited States. However, nothing in the PPACA authorizes federal or state agents to "target" and conduct forced inspections at such households.  The PPACA requires that MIECHV grant recipients give priority to such households (because that's where the return on money spent is highest), but as stated in the press release quoted above, the MIECHV grant program brings "nurses, social workers, or other health care professionals to meet with at-risk families that agree to meet with them in their homes.  Likewise, the relevant section (p. 251) of the PPACA specifically states that MIECHV grant recipients must provide "assurances that the entity will establish procedures to ensure that the participation of each eligible family in the program is voluntary."  PPACA Last updated:  5 October 2013 If you or someone you know is experiencing a mental health, suicide or substance use crisis or emotional distress, reach out 24/7 to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline (formerly known as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline) by dialing or texting 988 or using chat services atsuicidepreventionlifeline.orgto connect to a trained crisis counselor.  suicidepreventionlifeline.org In August 2021, remarkable footage of a daring rescue re-emerged online, prompting interest from readers about its authenticity and origins.  On Aug. 12, a post on the popular forum Reddit carried the title "Firefighter snatches suicide jumper out of mid air" and included the 20-second video, which although not graphic, shows an interrupted suicide attempt and thus might be upsetting to some readers: post   The footage was entirely authentic and really did show a firefighter, leaning out of a window while being supported by his colleague, catch a suicidal woman who had fallen or jumped from the floor above. As a result, we are issuing a rating of  The incident took place in May 2018 in Riga, the capital city of the Baltic nation of Latvia. According to an official account posted by Valsts ugunsdzsbas un glbanas dienests (the national Latvian State Fire and Rescue Service or SFRS), the firefighters responded to an emergency call from the apartment building in question, about a woman on the fourth floor who appeared to be contemplating suicide.  official account Fearing that she might jump out of the window if they attempted to rescue her from inside her apartment, some of the firefighters set up on the floor below, while others went on the roof and attempted to lower mountaineering equipment in order to secure the woman. It's not entirely clear whether the woman ultimately jumped or fell from the fourth-floor window sill, and the SFRS statement noted that her fingers were observed to be "slipping." On the third floor, Tomas Jaunzems leaned out of the window while his colleague, Boriss Rutkovskis, braced Jaunzems' legs and helped stabilize him against the window ledge. As the video shows, Jaunzems ultimately caught the falling woman and, with the help of Rutkovskis, carried her inside to safety. The Latvian Interior Ministry later awarded the two men medals for "selflessness" and "heroic actions," as shown below: awarded  From left to right: Head of the SFRS Oskars boli; SFRS firefighter Tomas Jaunzems; SFRS firefighter Boriss Rutkovskis; Latvian Interior Minister Rihards Kozlovskis. Photo: SFRS  The authenticity of the video footage is further confirmed by the fact that the SFRS itself posted the clip to Facebook on May 31, 2018. posted the clip to Facebook In June 2021, as former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin faced sentencing for the murder of George Floyd, one widely-shared social media post accused Chauvin of other crimes, namely tax evasion. On June 25, @davenewworld_2 wrote on Twitter: "Derek Chauvin underreported half a million dollars in income while owing $20,000+ in taxes, and then fucking murdered George Floyd over an alleged $20 counterfeit bill..." wrote   That tweet, and the claims it contained, were further promoted in a popular Reddit post, on the following day. popular Reddit post On June 25, Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill sentenced Chauvin to 22 and a half years in prison for the murder of Floyd, a Black man who died after Chauvin kneeled on his neck for more than nine minutes, in May 2020. sentenced The claim that Chauvin "underreported half a million dollars in income" stems from an ongoing criminal case against him, and his former wife Kellie May Chauvin. However, Chauvin has not yet entered a plea in that case, and has not been tried or convicted, as of June 28, 2021. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven," for now. When the case is resolved, we will update this fact check accordingly. A brief note: Kellie May and Derek Chauvin divorced in February 2021, and during those proceedings she expressed an intention to change her last name. However, we have not been able to find any record of that name change, so this article refers to her using her last-known last name, Chauvin.  expressed an intention On July 22, 2020, the office of Washington County Attorney Pete Orput charged the Chauvins with nine counts each of felony tax evasion, claiming that they "failed to file income tax returns and pay state income taxes, underreported and underpaid taxes on income generated from various employments each year, and failed to pay proper sales tax on a vehicle purchased in Minnesota." charged The complaint against Derek Chauvin summarized the details of their alleged offenses, as follows: complaint The Chauvins did not file tax returns in 2016, 2017, and 2018. The filed tax returns for years 2014 and 2015 did not report income received from D. Chauvin's off-duty security work and K. Chauvin's photography income. Tax returns for years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 filed on June 26, 2020, did not report D. Chauvin's off-duty security work and K. Chauvin's photography income.  According to prosecutors, the Chauvins under-reported a total of $464,433 in income between 2014 and 2019, just short of the "half a million dollars" included in the widely-shared tweet from June 2021:  Source: Washington County Attorney's Office  However, the Chauvins have not yet entered pleas in this case, as of June 28, 2021. An omnibus hearing, at which the two defendants could potentially enter pleas, was scheduled for June 30, the Washington County Attorney's office told Snopes.  could potentially enter pleas Since Derek Chauvin has not yet pleaded guilty or been convicted of the charges against him, and neither might ever occur, the claim that he "under-reported half a million dollars in income" was unproven, as of June 28. When the case is resolved, we will update this fact check accordingly. In late April 2021, social media posts, like the one displayed below, Google users allegedly asked the search engine "how to a hit a woman so now one knows" more often during the first phase of lockdowns to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in 2020 than during the same time frame the previous year. COVID-19   The claim originated from media sources including Blavity (a Los Angeles-based platform serving Black millennials), UNILAD (a British media outlet), and MSNBC (an American cable network owned by NBC Universal). Blavity UNILAD We obtained an archived version of an April 26 opinion column by the latter outlet, a piece of commentary that cited peer-reviewed research analyzing Google searches from the beginning of the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak in March 2020 to the end of August that year. The MSNBC article said: archived version [Millions] of men appear to be doing some very specific research about how to assault the women around them. Published in The Journal of General Psychology, the study was led by Katerina Standish, the deputy director and senior lecturer at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago in New Zealand. 'How to hit a woman so no one knows' was typed into Google 163 million times, a 31 percent increase compared to 2019. In other words, Google users purportedly searched "how to hit a woman so no one knows" 163 million times between March and August 2020, and that number was 31 percent higher than the amount of same searches during those months the previous year. However, that was not true. One day after the MSNBC column published, onlookers identified flaws in the research's methodology, and its author confirmed the findings were inaccurate. As a result, the news outlet removed the above-transcribed section from its article citing the research. (That updated version of the story remained live online as of this writing.) updated version We looked at Google search data ourselves. By searching the phrase "how to hit a woman so no one knows," the platform produces billions of returns  or websites or posts that contain those keywords. That is not the same as the number of times users searched the question (we explain how to find that quantity below), and it appeared to grow significantly after the MSNBC article and other media coverage. appeared   By using the separate Google Trends search engine -- a tool that compiles data for Google search queries worldwide -- we learned that relatively no one used the website to look for information on "how to hit a woman so no one knows," including during the time window referenced in the study (March to August 2020).   Next, to fully explore the issue, we reached out to Standish (the author of the study called, "COVID-19, suicide, and femicide: Rapid Research using Google search phrase") to learn about her research process and its shortcomings. COVID-19, suicide, and femicide: Rapid Research using Google search phrase She responded to us via email, saying she indeed mistook the amount of search returns for the number of times Google users entered the phrase looking for answers. After the revelation, she said she alerted The Journal of General Psychology of the error and requested an assessment of the entire study. "The results are meaningless ... all I have done is demonstrate a rise in web pages over the year. Not at all what I thought I was doing," Standish said. "[The] goal of the study was to look for people who were hurting to elevate what they are going through and to help." Additionally, Standish apologized for the research's flaws on Twitter:    "The first time I googled these terms my heart skipped...I was shocked," she continued in a tweet thread. "I sincerely apologise and will make amends." In sum, we rate this claim "false"  millions of people, presumably men, did not turn to Google for help to seemingly conceal physical abuse against their female partners during the early months of the pandemic. If you or someone you know is experiencing abuse from an intimate partner, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 (SAFE) or text LOVEIS to 22522 for anonymous, confidential help. Natio nal  Domestic Violence Hotline This report was updated with comments from the researcher to Snopes.