Delaware Child Support Card could be rephrased as "Card for Child Support in Delaware".
On 8 January 2016, the entertainment web site The Reporterz published an article reporting that Delaware had created a new "child support card" that controlled "what mothers can and cannot buy" with their child support funds: This measure was taken to prevent parents from misusing funds that are meant to help with costs associated with raising children, such as school related expenses, food, etc. This card will not be allow the parent to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or pay car payments the card will be used exactly like a food stamp card. We spoke to Tasha Brown who was upset after she couldn't purchase a bottle of Hennessy at her local liquor store. she says "Its' [sic] unfair its [sic] my money I should be able to do what i want with it how will I pay for my new weave?"   The article was ambiguous about whether the card would apply to all funds received for the care of children (such as support monies paid by former spouses) or funds made available through government assistance programs. It didn't matter either way, though, as the story was a complete fabrication that originated with a fake news web site that does not publish factual stories. A disclaimer on The Reporterz states that "every article is based on a true story, only the facts have been changed." In this case, Delaware really does have a card that makes it easier for single parents and guardians to receive funds. The First State Family Card is a pre-paid debit card that does not require bank account: The First State Family Card is a pre-paid VISA card that is credited whenever a payment is posted to any/all of a client's child support case(s). Benefits to the debit VISA card include: While Delaware does have a card that makes it easier for parents to collect child support, the handbook for the First State Family Card (not the "Child Support Card") does not mention any restrictions on how the funds may be utilized. mention
As is the case for many Western democracies, the Canadian government's formal efforts to help refugees settle in the country have been the subject of much speculation, criticism and misinformation in recent years. In the fall of 2017, a viral Facebook post spread yet more misinformation about the benefits received by refugees in Canada.  On 1 September 2017, Facebook user Mike Marcoux posted what appears to be a photograph of an itemized breakdown of benefits associated with the Resettlement Assistance Program, along with the message: "This is what 1 illegal refugee gets with the federal assistance program $3874 per month." posted We have modified the image to obscure the name of the recipient, which was included in the original photograph:   Although this document appears to be authentic, according to the Canadian Council for Refugees, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting and advocating for refugees, its representation on Facebook was highly misleading: The document details payments to a family of five (not a single person) who were refugees accepted by Canada (and therefore are not in the country "illegally"), and most of the listed payments are one-time only resettlement assistance payments and not monthly benefits. A spokesperson for the Council told us the document showed "a start up breakdown of costs for a newly arrived Government-Assisted Refugee (GAR) family" and that the amounts shown were consistent with benefit rates in the province of British Columbia. Despite the apparent authenticity of the document, Marcoux's post grossly misrepresents the contents. Firstly, contrary to Mike Marcoux's post, there is no such thing as an "illegal" refugee in this context. By definition, beneficiaries of the Canadian government's Resettlement Assistance Program are individuals and families formally recognized by the Canadian government as refugees before they travel to Canada. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, Government-Assisted Refugees such as those to whom this document appears to relate are "referred by the [U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees] to Canada because they have been identified as being in need of resettlement." recognized refugees Secondly, the document does not relate to one refugee, as the Facebook post falsely claims. The document clearly shows that these benefits are for a family of five people:   Third, the grand total value of the benefits ($3,874 CAD or $2,748 USD as of 28 January 2016) is not a recurring monthly payment, as the Facebook post falsely claims. The document clearly shows that the majority of benefits listed are one-off "start-up" benefits. The only regular monthly benefits are conveniently labelled "Regular Monthly Benefits," and consist of payments for food, rent and transportation, which, because of the size of the family, total $1,399 CAD per month ($1,094 USD as of 15 November 2017). These monthly benefits work out to $16,788 CAD ($13,132 USD) a year for a family of five (in addition to "start-up" benefits). Unless there are exceptional circumstances, these Resettlement Assistance Program benefits are only payable to refugees for one year. The amounts of benefits depend on the size of the family that receives them. If this document did relate to a single individual (as the Facebook post claims), the overall monthly payments could be expected to be significantly lower. The one-off start-up benefits which bring the total in this particular document to $3,874 also include a $375 loan for a security deposit for housing. Being a loan, that amount will have to be repaid to the federal government. Furthermore, depending on when this particular family arrived in Canada, they may be required to pay the Canadian government for the cost of their transportation into the country, which takes the form of loan debt. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, the average loan debt between 2008 and 2012 was $3,090 CAD. transportation loan debt So while the document in the photograph does appear to be authentic, Mike Marcoux's Facebook post constitutes a gross misrepresentation of what's actually in it. The same document formed the basis of a similarly-outraged post on the right-wing blog "90 Miles from Tyranny" in December 2016. That blog post cited an earlier article by the now-defunct Magafeed web site, which is listed in the Fake News Codex as a "clickbait site with misleading, poorly [sourced], and outright false stories." post Codex It's hardly the first time that Canada's refugee policy has been the subject of false claims. For example, a factual error in a 2004 letter to the editor of the Toronto Star spawned a chain email and online memes falsely claiming that refugees in Canada receive more benefits each month than do Canadian pensioners. The rumor persisted for years. Toronto Star falsely Similar false rumors have been spread in the country's southern neighbor, the United States, often with the headline "INSANITY IS WHEN ILLEGAL REFUGEES GET $3,874 A MONTH IN FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WHILE SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS AVERAGE $1,200 A MONTH." false rumors English, Kathy.  "A Mistake That Travelled Around the World and Back Again: Public Editor."
  Toronto Star.  11 December 2015. Canadian Council for Refugees.  "Refugees and Income Assistance - Rebutting the Chain Email ("Pensioners' Myth.")
   Canadian Council for Refugees.  July 2013.  Citizenship and Immigration Canada.  "IP 3: In Canada Processing of Convention Refugees Abroad and Members of the Humanitarian Protected Persons Abroad Classes - Part 2 [Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP.)]
  Government of Canada.  13 January 2015. Claim:  President Obama signed an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company, with no financial gain for the U.S. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] This is a perfect example why many refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC. Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following: "Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil!  The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA! Now here's the real clincher... the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil". We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! Wait, it gets more interesting. Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks! Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this. Is this the kind of "transparency" you want from your government? Below is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this. Wall Street Journal editorial Wall Street Journal editorial Origins:  The above-quoted article references a segment attributed to Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck criticizing President Obama for signing an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company to finance offshore drilling, all without securing reciprocal oil exports from Brazil or any other benefit to the U.S.   Nearly all of the substantive claims made in that article are false, as detailed below:  [President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order.  On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development. Ex-Im preliminary approval The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush. Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime."    We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! This statement is also false, one predicated on the mistaken assumption that the only tangible financial benefit of lending money to Petrobras was to guarantee a supply of Brazilian oil for the United States.  The Ex-Im's mission statement declares: mission statement The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States. Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. companies  large and small  to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy. Accordingly, as set forth in a 29 July 2009 press release, Ex-Im's chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, declared that the bank approved the $2 billion preliminary commitment not as a downpayment to ensure future oil purchases from Brazil by the U.S., but "to encourage purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras": press release I chose Brazil as my first international destination for good reason: Brazil is a powerhouse among South American economies and offers tremendous opportunities for U.S. exporters in many sectors. I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services. (Although Fred P. Hochberg is an Obama appointee, the President did not nominate Hochberg for the position of Ex-Im president until 20 April 2009, a week after the board approved the loan to Petrobras.) nominate    The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. China does have an agreement to buy Brazilian oil from Petrobras, but not literally to purchase the entire output of Brazilian offshore oil fields.  In May 2009, the China Development Bank (CDB) agreed to lend Petrobras $10 billion (five times the amount of the Ex-Im loan); in exchange, "the two sides agreed to increase actual crude oil exports from Brazil to China." At the same time, Petrobras and Sinopec (the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation) signed a separate long-term export agreement providing for  Petrobras to export 200,000 barrels of oil to China per day from 2010 to 2019. agreed    Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. Billionaire financier George Soros has donated large sums of money to groups that support the goals of the Democratic Party (including an estimated $23.5 million towards defeating the re-election effort of President George W. Bush in 2004),  and his hedge fund (Soros Fund Management LLC) does hold stock in Petrobras.  However, the implication that President Obama unilaterally directed the issuance of a loan to Petrobras as quid pro quo repayment to George Soros is erroneous since, as noted above, the loan was approved and made by a Republican-majority board of Ex-Im officials who had been appointed by  George W. Bush. Soros' hedge-fund firm  sold off 5 million of its 37 million Petrobras shares in May 2009, and the firm sold off another 22 million shares in August 2009, before Petrobras received any loan funds from Ex-Im. sold sold   In a letter published by the Wall Street Journal on 21 August 2009, Ex-Im president Fred P. Hochberg refuted the criticisms expressed in that newspapers' editorial of three days earlier: Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that. That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that  American  not foreign   workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years. Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards. We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer. Additional information:  Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans  Last updated:  10 February 2010 Claim:  Gary Heavin, founder and CEO of the fitness chain Curves, supports pro-life causes. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Just so you know: Gary Heavin, the founder of the Waco, Texas-based chain of exercise studios called Curves, is a heavy contributor to several organizations allied with Operation Save America, the rather more muscular successor to Operation Rescue, the anti-choice group. The organizations he funds are spreading the lie that abortions lead to an increased risk of breast cancer. Planned Parenthood says its operations in Texas are being threatened by Heavin-funded clinics based on the old therapeutic model "you must carry your child to term." In an article in Christianity Today, Heavin expressed pride in his involvement with anti-choice groups, to which he donates 10 percent of Curves' profits. You may do with this information what you will. Origins:   With more than 7,000 fitness and weight loss centers around the globe, Curves is the largest fitness franchise in the world. One in four health clubs in the U.S. is a Curves, a stupendous feat given that the company has only been around since 1992. Yet, for the utterly amazing, consider this: Prior to January 2004, Curves didn't have a national ad campaign. Almost all of its customers found out about the chain through word of mouth. You wouldn't think one exercise club could be that different from any other, but Curves are, and that difference accounts for the success of the chain. Curves exercise clubs are strictly for women. Their stripped-down no-frills look will likely come as a shock to those who   have been conditioned to believe proper fitness palaces should be fashioned of glass and gleaming chrome and populated by herds of designer-garbed hard-bodied 20-somethings setting new land speed records on treadmills and exercise bikes. At Curves, there are no lockers or showers, and the clientele is predominently middle-aged and overweight. The equipment members use is set up in a circle. Every 30 seconds those working out are told to move to the next station, which is either another machine that works different muscle groups or a space between two machines where exercisers run or walk in place. A typical Curves workout regimen is 30 minutes a day, three times a week. Because the equipment is hydraulic, it adapts to each user's level of fitness, making these workouts suitable for anyone regardless of physical conditioning. Women like the Curves program for its "30 minutes and you're on your way" aspect, but also for the camaraderie that comes from exercising with others, which appears to be spurred on by the arrangement of the workout stations in a circle. Friendships form. Encouragement is given. A sense of "We're all in this together" pervades. More than 7,000 outlets since 1992. Obviously, they're doing something  right. This highly successful chain is the brainchild of Gary Heavin, a Texas businessman who earlier in his life had a 17-location fitness center chain before filing bankruptcy, divorcing, losing custody of his two children, and serving a six-month jail sentence for failure to pay child support. Although a Christian from his teen years, he re-committed his life to Christ while in jail, after which he and his new wife (whom he married just before his incarceration) opened the first Curves in Harlingen, Texas, in 1992. The text of the e-mail quoted above was written by Jon Carroll, a columnist with the San Francisco Chronicle. It appeared in that paper on 20 April 2004. The statements made by Carroll in those three short paragraphs about Gary Heavin, the founder and CEO of Curves, hold water for the most part. Heavin (pronounced "Haven"), is a born-again Christian who is strongly pro-life and, according to an Operation Save America's web site (a pro-life group of a more radical orientation than Operation Rescue, and one that asserts there is a connection between abortion and increased risk of breast cancer), is one of their supporters: Operation Save America Operation Rescue We then contacted Mr. Gary Heavin, Founder and CEO of Curves International. Mr. Heavin is a wealthy man who is a committed Pro-life Christian. He is the premier customer of the bank that sponsors Komen. He graciously returned our phone call and promised to use his influence to convince the bank to give some of the funding to Carenet, so they could take care of the women, instead of Planned Parenthood. Several months passed and, lo and behold, on Tuesday, September 23rd, in the year of our Lord 2003, Carenet, our local CPC, held their annual banquet. It was the most attended, and as far as I was concerned, the best one to date. At the end, a major announcement and press statement was issued for Central Texas. Gary Heavin made a five million dollar grant to Family Practice, Carenet, and McCap. These groups and ministries would receive one million dollars a year for the next five years. Granted, some shortcuts were taken by Jon Carroll in his heads-up about Heavin. If Heavin does support Operation Save America, his "support" is of a non-financial nature. The "article in Christianity Today" was actually published in Today's Christian (formerly Christian Reader), a magazine put out by Christianity Today. Also, the "donates 10 percent of Curves' profits" is a misleading way of saying Heavin gave away that much money in 2003  the wording implies he donates that percentage of Curves' profits on an ongoing basis, yet the source material this information was drawn from speaks only to one particular year (2003), not to any year before it, and not to any plans by Heavin to gift at a similar level in future years.  Moreover, the  Today's Christian article stated that Heavin donated an amount equal to 10 percent of Curves' profits to "charities," which Jon Carroll has represented solely as "anti-choice groups"  though Heavin does financially support pro-life organizations and might well give only to them, he might also donate to other manner of charitable groups as well, with the 10 percent figure representing the total of what he doled out in charitable contributions in 2003 to various causes, both pro-life and otherwise. Ergo, either Carroll mischaracterized or misunderstood what he read, or he based his statement on information outside that Today's Christian article: Servanthood may not be today's normal model for business success, but that hasn't stopped the Heavins. In 2003, the couple gave away $10 million  10 percent of their company's gross revenues and 80 percent of Gary's net income  to charities. Heavin matches the first $1,000 that each franchise raises for community causes such as walkathons to benefit pro-life pregnancy-care centers. Such controversial stances have led to criticism, but Heavin is unfazed. "There's nothing healthy about abortion," he says. "I'm not afraid to tell the truth." In a correction published 4 May 2004, The San Francisco Chronicle said: "A Ruth Rosen column Thursday  'What's wrong with curves?'  stated that three 'pregnancy crisis centers' that received $5 million from Curves owner Gary Heavin were 'supported by Operation Save America.' The column was referring to Operation Save America's verbal endorsement of the centers, not financial support." On 13 May 2004, The San Francisco Chronicle published a further correction to information contained in both the Rosen and Carroll pieces: Two recent columns contained errors involving contributions made by Gary Heavin, founder and CEO of Curves, the women's fitness chain.  Ruth Rosen's April 29 opinion-page column stated that Heavin "has given at least $5 million of his profits to some of the most militant anti-abortion groups in the country." That characterization is not accurate.  The column specified that the money went to "three Texas organizations to fund 'pregnancy crisis centers.'" Only one of the recipients, Care Net, operates pregnancy crisis centers that are designed to dissuade pregnant women from having abortions while offering other support services to encourage adoption. Heavin has pledged to give Care Net $1 million over the next five years, according to a Curves spokeswoman.  The largest of the pledges  $3.75 million over five years  goes to the Family Practice Center of McLennan County, which provides a variety of health-care services to Central Texas residents, many of whom are uninsured, according to the Curves spokeswoman. The Catholic-run center does not provide abortions but is not actively involved in the anti-abortion movement, the center's CEO said.  The other recipient of Heavin's pledge, $250,000 over five years, was the McLennan County Collaborative Abstinence Project, which promotes sexual abstinence among teens. Its director said that, as a matter of policy, its staff would not discuss abortion when making presentations.  The column presented the contributions as a percentage of the company's annual gross revenues. But the Curves spokeswoman said that those pledges, as well as millions of dollars in donations to a wide range of charities, came from Heavin's personal wealth.  The column also referred to Heavin's comments in a "recent Christianity Today" article that he "is proud to support these organizations." In fact, the interview was published in the January-February issue of Today's Christian, a magazine affiliated with Christianity Today. In it, Heavin expressed his anti-abortion views but did not talk about his support for any specific organization.  In addition, Jon Carroll, in his April 20 Datebook column, erred in referring to Heavin's comments as appearing in "Christianity Today" and by stating that Heavin "donates 10 percent of Curves profits" to "anti-choice groups." He also wrote that Heavin's recipients were allied with Operation Save America, a radical anti-abortion group. As stated in a May 4 clarification on Rosen's column, Operation Save America has praised those recipients on its Web site but does not provide financial support, nor does it have a formal alliance with them.  The Chronicle regrets the errors. Gary Heavin is far from the first successful businessman to underwrite reproductive causes  Tom Monaghan of Domino's Pizza and Carl Karcher, founder of the California-based hamburger chain Carl's Jr., have been very open and public regarding their support of the pro-life philosophy, just as Warren Buffett, ranked by Forbes magazine as the second-richest man in the world, has been forthcoming about his backing of pro-choice programs. In each instance, these men are acting as private citizens who choose to bestow parts of their fortunes on the causes they believe in, not as officers of their corporations. The money is theirs to do with as they please, just as anyone's paycheck belongs to the person who earns it and stops being the employer's money at the moment it is paid out. That a spendthrift employee might choose to gamble away his earnings doesn't mean the company he works for supports gambling; likewise, that a wealthy man financially supports particular causes doesn't mean the corporation that paid him the money favors those movements.  Domino's Pizza Warren Buffett All this is by way of saying that while it's correct to identify Gary Heavin as a patron of pro-life endeavors, it would not be right to point to Curves as a supporter of those same causes.  Barbara "cause and effect" Mikkelson Additional information:     Curves International web site  Last updated:  19 November 2006    Sources:   Carroll, Jon.  "Jon Carroll."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  20 April 2004  (p. E12).    Chan, Vera H-C.  "Gary Heavin Creates Sanctuaries for Women."   San Jose Mercury News.  16 April 2004.    Kennedy, John W.  "Rolling with the Curves."   Today's Christian.  January 2004  (p. 30).    Lawrence, Elana.  "Curves, Without Frills."   The Washington Post.  27 May 2003  (p. F1).    Reimer, Susan.  "The Mature Are Ready to Go Around These Curves."   The Baltimore Sun.  8 February 2004  (p. N1).    Rosen, Ruth.  "What's Wrong With Curves?"   The San Francisco Chronicle.  29 April 2004  (p. B9).    The San Francisco Chronicle.  "Corrections."   4 May 2004  (p. A2).    The San Francisco Chronicle.  "Corrections."   13 May 2004  (p. A2). Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In mid-December 2020, a copy-pasted ("copypasta") meme spread on social media platforms warning "patriots" that U.S. President Donald Trump was about to "tactically" implement elements of an executive order on election security signed in 2018, telling them to have weapons "at the ready":   copypasta The incendiary meme appears to reference an executive order signed by Trump on Sept. 12, 2018, ahead of the midterm elections. The meme claimed that Trump was to implement parts of the order at some point between Dec. 18 and Dec. 24, 2020. executive order Here is a portion of the text: This will freeze the money and assets of people and entities to include Facebook, Twitter, the Fake News Corp, AND Chinese U.S. financial accounts. Be prepared to assist the National Guard and the military commands in defense of Our nation. Make sure that you have your weapons at the ready. But DO NOT interfere with the operations of the military. During this time, local law enforcement will have no authority. So, assemble small Patriot teams to patrol and secure your own and surrounding neighbors Trump's 2018 executive order has nothing to do with military or National Guard deployment domestically, nor does it mention the broad suspension of financial assets of social media platforms and "Chinese U.S. financial accounts." The meme appears to actually be referencing extreme calls by some of Trump's supporters, echoing his false claims that the November 2020 election was beset by mass-scale fraud and advocating that Trump impose martial law in response. extreme calls The 2018 executive order  signed less than a month before the 2018 midterm elections  was meant as a deterrent against foreign election interference. The order stated that the Trump administration was ready to implement sanctions against any foreign entity that interfered in the election process. stated It's noteworthy that the order was signed ahead of the first national election since 2016, during which the Russian government interfered in an effort to sow chaos in the U.S. and help Trump's electoral efforts. Trump was under political pressure at that time to stem similar interference in 2018. effort pressure Notably, Facebook and Twitter are American companies, not foreign entities. It's unclear to us what exactly "Fake News Corp" refers to, but unsurprisingly, no such company exists. Sanctions can't be imposed on a fictional entity. The 2018 executive order relies on various department heads to make determinations about foreign election interference and potential sanctions  in other words, it doesn't give Trump unilateral authority to take action. For example, it gives the director of national intelligence 45 days to determine whether foreign interference in an election had occurred, at which point the assessment must be delivered to "the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security." After further consultation between these department heads, the executive order then leaves the secretary of treasury, who is currently Steve Mnuchin, to lead in the implementation of economic sanctions. The departments of Treasury and State would then assess whether additional sanctions were necessary and present their findings to the White House. The copypasta meme appears to be inflammatory fear mongering that plays on a disinformation campaign carried out by Trump and his supporters that the election was stolen by way of a massive-fraud conspiracy. Trump's own U.S. Department of Homeland Security debunked this conspiracy theory by stating that the November 2020 election was in fact "the most secure in American history." stating In the wake of the November 2018 midterm election, in which Democrats wrested the governors office from Republicans, the political divide in Wisconsin continues. Republicans are proposing to move Wisconsin's presidential primary in 2020, which would improve the chances of conservative Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly retaining his seat. Kelly was appointed to the seat by soon-to-be-former Gov. Scott Walker. Assembly Minority Leader Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, is crying foul -- and hypocrisy. One year ago, (Republicans) would not fill seats vacated for people who went to the administration because of the cost of those elections, said Hintz, in a Nov. 18, 2018, interview on WISN-TVs UpFront with Mike Gousha. Now, theyre talking about changing the rules to add additional elections that will cost millions of dollars of taxpayer expense. Lets take a look at both parts of Hintzs claim. Legislative elections Walker did initially decline to call special elections after two GOP lawmakers stepped down in December 2017 to join his administration. At the time, Walker argued for leaving the seats open until the regularly scheduled Nov. 6, 2018, election. Democrats countered it was not fair to leave residents of those districts without representation for that long, noting the law requires elections to be held promptly. Walker himself cited cost as a factor, speaking to reporters in Pewaukee: Its just awaste of taxpayersmoney. The Legislature would be adjourned before a special election was held so (candidates would) ... have to be running for the fall election for a state legislative seat at the same time there would be a special election for a seat that wouldnt get to vote on anything until after the fall election anyway. The seats had belonged to former state Sen. Frank Lasee of De Pere and former state Rep. Keith Ripp of Lodi. The two Republicans stepped down inDecember 2017to join Walker's administration. Voters in those areas took Walker to court with the help of a group headed by Eric Holder, the first attorney general under Democratic President Barack Obama. On March 22, 2018, Dane County Circuit Judge Josann Reynolds held Walker had a dutyunder state lawto hold special elections. A second Dane Countyjudge denied a delay. Sodid an appellate judge. Ultimately, Walker and the GOP dropped the matter instead of taking it to the state Supreme Court, and the elections were held. So, Walker and Republicans did describe scheduling the elections as a waste of money, though they also cited other reasons. Chiefly, that the Legislature would be adjourned before a special election was held. Presidential election Now to the second part of Hintzs claim -- that Republicans are now talking about changing the rules to add additional elections that will cost millions of dollars of taxpayer expense. On Nov. 15, 2018, theMilwaukee Journal Sentinel reportedRepublicans are considering using the lame-duck session -- while they still hold the governors office -- to help keep a conservative on the state Supreme Court and give GOP lawmakers greater control of two state boards. Republicans have been concerned about the 2020 state Supreme Court race because it is scheduled to be held alongside Wisconsin's presidential primary  when Democratic turnout is expected to far outpace Republican turnout, since Democrats will be deciding who will challenge President Donald Trump. A turnout imbalance could spell trouble for Kelly, whom Walker appointed in 2016. Republican legislative leaders, the Journal Sentinel reported, are looking at moving the 2020 presidential primary from April, possibly to March of that year. The GOP plan would require voters to go to the pollsthree timesin the spring of 2020  likely in February, March and April. Holding the extra election would indeed cost millions. Nearly30 of Wisconsin's 72county clerks have come out against the proposal, noting -- among other issues -- the statewide cost of holding a standard spring election is around $7 million. Hintzs statement was a bit off, however, in that he said the GOP was considering holding multiple extra elections. Only one is being considered. Our rating Hintz said, One year ago, (Republicans) would not fill seats vacated for people who went to the administration because of the cost of those elections. Now, theyre talking about changing the rules to add additional elections that will cost millions of dollars of taxpayer expense. Hintz is generally on target: Republicans did cite cost as one factor -- among several -- when they initially planned to hold off on calling special elections to fill seats vacated by Walker appointees. And they are considering adding a single -- not multiple -- additional election in 2020, which by one estimate could cost taxpayers about $7 million. We rate the claim Mostly True. Claim:  The "real McCoy" refers to a type of automatic oiler invented by a black man.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2000] Railroading was vital to the development of our economy and culture in the 19th century.  An example: the real McCoy refers to McCoys automated oilier and not his many imitators that where not nearly as good.  [Collected via e-mail, April 2005] Curiously, an invention left off [a list of black inventors] is perhaps the most distinctive of its kind, the McCoy Automatic Lubricator (US Pat #129,843).  Elijah McCoy invented an entirely new class of machinery improvement, being the very first time a railroad locomotive could be continuously lubricated while in motion.  Variations were used on virtually every steam locomotive built since.  The McCoy device was so popular that a number of inferior knockoffs appeared on the market - leading master mechanics of the railroads to specify the genuine article - the "Real McCoy." Origins:  While most folks instinctively grasp the meaning of the phrase "the real McCoy" (the genuine article, as opposed to an imitation), no one has the definitive answer as to where that peculiar expression came from. There are a number of competing theories as to who or what was "the real McCoy":  Elijah McCoy, inventor of a device that lubricated the moving parts of a railway locomotive, or his invention itself.  Someone from the Hatfield-McCoy family feud of the 1880s.   Products of the Nelson McCoy Pottery company in Ohio.  Booze supplied by Prohibition-era rum-runner named Bill McCoy, whose product was said to always be of the highest quality.  Joseph G. McCoy, the cattleman who laid out the Chisholm Trail.   A Pennsylvania wildcatter of the name of McCoy who diverted nitroglycerin from job sites to safecrackers, who in turn dubbed the explosives he supplied "the real McCoy" (to distinguish them from the homemade less reliable concoctions they sometimes used).  Mrs. McCoy of a 19th century Irish ballad wherein she thrashes her husband, thereby proving herself "the real McCoy."  The products of a British pharmaceutical company that were much in demand by addicts in the U.S. after passage of the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914, with the appellation spreading to any commercially produced drug product (to differentiate it from blackmarket drugs of dubious origin).  Arising from rivalry among branches of the Mackay clan in Scotland as to which was the most valid, with the name of one clan's leader (Reay Mackay) over time morphing into "real McCoy."  A corruption of "the real Macao," slang for pure heroin, the best of which supposedly came from Macao.  A corruption of "the real McKay," a slogan used to advertise the products of whisky distillers A & M McKay of Glasgow.  American welterweight champion Norman Selby, known as Kid McCoy. The saying's recorded history is murky, but while there is no indisputable origin for the term, one theory (which actually combines two of the above elements) does stand far above the rest. While the earliest verified print sighting of "the real McCoy" dates to 1908, the first surfacing of the phrase it likely stemmed from was noted in 1856: "A drappie o' the real McKay," referring to a brand of whisky produced in Scotland. Said brand of hooch subsequently came to be advertised under the slogan "the real McKay" in 1870, thereby exposing an even greater number of Scots to its existence. Over time, other sightings into which misspellings had crept were noted:   1865: The ceremony being concluded, Bacchus was worshipped to a most satisfactory extent - the supply of "the real MacKay" being unlimited - capital in quality, and accompanied with tempting viands.  1908: I took a good-size snort out of that big bottle [of furniture polish] in the middle.... Have you none of the clear McCoy handy around the house? (The item being described as "McCoy" in this sighting was whisky.)  1934: There's something very attractive about the real McKie when you meet it. These two points (misspellings creeping in plus the first McCoy sighting being about whisky) somewhat work to support the theory that the Scottish advertising slogan "the real McKay" became a tad garbled as it crossed the ocean into the U.S.   Yet however it got there, once it had arrived in the new land, it subsequently came to be associated with a boxer of some fame, thereby greatly increasing its spread. Norman Selby, better known  Norman Selby as Kid McCoy, was the American welterweight champion in 1896. As he gained weight, he moved up into the middleweight class, and during his career fought many notable heavyweights. Selby's life outside the ring was every bit as interesting as it was within it: he was married eight times (thrice to the same woman), served a nine-year prison sentence for the murder of a married lover, and ended his life by his own hand.  It is not known how he came by his "Kid McCoy" sobriquet. (Another nickname attached to him was "The Corkscrew Kid," in reference to his signature "corkscrew" punch.) But however he came by the McCoy handle, he did fight under it.  An apocryphal tale ties Norman Selby to the origin of  "the real McCoy." By its lights, he encountered a drunk in a bar who was skeptical of his claims to be the great fighter Kid McCoy. The boxer settled all doubt with one punch that flattened the sot. Upon regaining his feet, the now thoroughly convinced lush loudly announced to all present that the one who'd decked him was "the real McCoy."  Similarly, another legend states that McCoy had so many imitators that he eventually had to bill himself as Kid "The Real" McCoy. No reason exists to believe either tale; they appear more fanciful lore than anything else. However, the boxer's fame likely contributed to the popularity of the expression, as potentially did the fame of another pugilist who bore the actual surname: Al McCoy, middleweight title holder from 1914 to 1917.  That's the long way around to this most likely of explanations of the origin of "the real McCoy": a Scottish whisky slogan came to the U.S., with its "McKay" becoming "McCoy" in the process, with the saying subsequently further popularized through confusion between a popular boxer of the day (Kid McCoy) and the saying (the real McCoy). Of the many other potential origins for the phrase, while some contain elements that are rooted in history (there was a black inventor by name of Elijah McCoy who did invent a revolutionary device that allowed for the oiling of machines while in operation, and there was a famous cattle baron of the name of Joseph G. McCoy), most are not. If addicts ever referred to heroin as "the real Macao," we've yet to encounter an instance of it. Likewise, there's little reason to suppose that a Pennsylvania wildcatter named McCoy was selling nitroglycerin swiped from job sites to safecrackers.  Nelson McCoy Pottery wasn't founded until 1910 which, given the 1908 "real McCoy" sighting, puts it out of the running. 1910 Of the three less credible purported explanations that involve real people, although there was a famous cattle baron called Joseph G. McCoy, it's unlikely he was confused with anyone else, thereby requiring him to self-identify as "the real McCoy." Joseph G. McCoy Likewise, while the oiler invented by Elijah McCoy amounted to a startling development in its time, it does not appear to have been competing with copycats, thereby leaving buyers clamoring for "the real McCoy." Also, it was a specialized piece of equipment, which means its pool of potential purchasers was very small. It is therefore not believable that widespread consumer insistence upon having the McCoy oiler and no other created the phrase. Elijah McCoy Similarly, while there was a Prohibition-era rum runner named Bill McCoy, even if the booze he had been vending had been of the highest quality, he could not have been the McCoy celebrated in the saying, given that the line has been documented back to 1908, whereas Prohibition did not begin in the U.S. until 1920. Bill McCoy For the saying to not only have taken root but survived for more than a century, it had to have caught the public's imagination in its infancy rather than been merely a catchphrase within a small specialized area. A phrase first recorded as used in reference to whisky in 1856 then enshrined as a particular brand of firewater's official slogan in 1870 fits the bill in ways the other proffered explanations do not, especially if it were given a further boost via being confused with the nickname of a well-known boxer in its new homeland.  Barbara "boxer rebellion" Mikkelson Last updated:  19 February 2011   Rawson, Hugh.  Devious Derivations.   New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1994.  ISBN 0-517-88128-4  (pp. 173-175).   The Compact Oxford English Dictionary.  Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.  ISBN 0-19-861258-3. A meme circulating on social media in late February 2017 attributed a quote about paying taxes to actor Bill Murray, but it was originally shared by a parody Twitter account. The parodyquotestated that "The best way to teach your kids about taxes is by eating 30% of their ice cream":  The twitter account from which it was posted, however, bore this disclaimer: I AM NOT BILL MURRAY. This is a parody account. This account is not in any way affiliated with the actor Bill Murray. Before it was finally suspended by Twitter, the Murray parody account posted mostly benign jokes in the casual tone and pithy humor associated with Murray, such as "Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&Ms with obstacles" and "When one door closes another one opens. Or you could jut re-open the closed door. Because thats how doors work." The fact the Twitter account was not real, as usual, did not prevent its tweets from being widely shared. For example, in November 2015, the disreputable site PoliticalInsider.com shared the above meme as fact, as did TheFederalistPapers.org. shared TheFederalistPapers.org We were unable to find any genuine comments made by the actor Bill Murray about his feelings on taxes. He also does not have an official Twitter account.  Kasperowics, Pete."Actor Bill Murray to CNBC: 'I Think We Ought to Be Personally Responsible.'"
The Hill.10 February 2012. Shoard, Catherine."The Gospel According to Bill Murray: Impending Apocalypse, Seatbelt Safety and His Favourite Saint."
The Guardian.20 November 2014. Read, Max."Bill Murray on the Bill Murray 'No One Will Ever Believe You' Urban Legend."
Gawker.com.20 July 2010. 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 6 September 2016, the Thug Life Videos web site published an article reporting that an Arizona woman named Shania Jones was arrested for cutting off the tip of her partner's penis after he refused to look at her during sex:  A woman in Scottsdale, Arizona, has been arrested after she cut off her partners penis in a fit of fury. Shania Jones, 34, told detectives that she was sick of the man  who has been named locally as Bruce Fox  refusing to make eye contact with her during sex. Fox is currently in intensive care at Scottsdale Liberty Hospital, where he is expected to make a recovery. There was no truth to this report.  Thug Life Videos is an entertainment web site that frequently publishes "satire" (i.e., fake news) articles, as noted in their disclaimer: "As well as more serious content, we sometimes share the odd satire stories for your entertainment." In addition to this story's dubious source, the image accompanying the article was merely a doctored version of a mug shot taken in 2013 by the Ada County Sheriff's Department in Idaho of a woman who was arrested for shoplifting: mug shot Forget taking candy away from children. Blue Oregon, a liberal political website, is accusing one Republican candidate of trying to take health care away from 80,000 of Oregons youth.In apostlooking for political contributions, Kari Chisholm of Blue Oregon describes the race in House District 24 as follows: Susan Sokol Blosser (the Democrat) is one of the founders of Oregon's world-renowned wine industry where shes a leader on environmental sustainability. Her opponent,Rep. JimWeidnerproposed a bill taking away health care for 80,000 of Oregon's children.Ouch. Not exactly the sort of thing that wins you votes.Naturally, PolitiFact Oregon wondered if Weidner, who has four kids himself, really has it out for Oregons children.The claim on Blue Oregon was in reference toHouse Bill 3603, a bill that Weidner sponsored during the February 2010 special session. The bill, according to the summary, repeals (the) health insurance premium assessment.That was nice and vague, so we did some more sleuthing and ended up with the staff measure summary forHouse Bill 2116. Why House Bill 2116? Well, that was the bill that, in part, instituted the health insurance premium assessment or, to put it comprehensible English, a 1 percent tax on health insurance premiums paid by the insurance companies but passed on to the customers.According to thestaff measure summary, that 1 percent tax would be used to provide funding for health care for 80,000 children during the 2009-2011 biennium through Oregon Healthy Kids. Those 80,000 were in addition to the the children already covered by the state-run plan.So, it seems, Weidner does want to eliminate a tax that is being used to provide health care to children. We checked in with Weidner to see if he could explain his position. As it turns out, hes not so much against health care for children as he is against the 1 percent tax. He says the tax disproportionately hurts small businesses. Weidner sponsored the bill, he says, because he wanted to bring attention to this and other issues. I knew the bill wasnt going to go anywhere.Before we settled on a ruling we wanted to check one other thing: Even if Weidners bill had gone through, are there really 80,000 children who would lose health insurance? We called Oregon Healthy Kids to find out.As it happens, since the bill passed, about 57,000 children have been enrolled in the program, according to Cathy Kaufmann, manager of the Healthy Kids Office. Thats as of August. Kaufmann expects that the full 80,000 will be enrolled before the end of the 2009-2011 biennium.So where does that leave us? Well, while were feeling pretty confident that Weidner isnt anti-health care for kids, he did, as the website alleges, propose a bill that would have eliminated the funding for health care for 80,000 children. Whether he thought it would pass or not doesnt much change things. And some context about how he was really targeting a tax would have been nice. Still, we rate this claim True.