Which Party Is More Effective at Reducing Abortions?
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 September 2020, social media users began circulating a text meme charting the decrease in abortion rates in the U.S. during previous presidential administrations, attributing the greater drop in those rates during Democratic administrations to a difference in approach (i.e., making it illegal vs. making it unnecessary):     As we noted in an earlier article on a similar topic, following the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that protected a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction, the abortion rate rose immediately afterward until it peaked in the 1980s, and it has fairly consistently declined since that peak through presidential administrations of both parties: article Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace.     Although it is true that the abortion rate has experienced greater declines during Democratic administrations than Republican ones, we can't draw any definitive conclusion that, as the meme tries to suggest, this difference is primarily due to varying approaches by the two main political parties. The simple idea presented by the meme has a number of flaws, chief among them that political factors that might influence the abortion rate (e.g., policies, legislation, judicial appointments and rulings) do not neatly conform to presidential terms of office -- what takes place during one administration generally continues to have an effect throughout subsequent administrations. As well, events occurring at state and local levels (not necessarily directly tied to federal actions) can have a substantial impact on the availability and prevalence of abortions. More important, though, is that we cannot definitively determine to what extent political factors influence the abortion rate. As the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion-rights research organization) observed, recent declines in the abortion rate appear to have been driven not primarily by abortion restrictions but by a broader decline in pregnancies: observed Abortion restrictions target either individuals ability to access the procedure (such as by imposing coercive waiting periods and counseling requirements) or providers ability to offer it (such as through unnecessary and intentionally burdensome regulations). Any one of these restrictions could result in some people being forced to continue pregnancies they were seeking to end; this could, in theory, lower the abortion rate. With the available evidence, it is impossible to pinpoint exactly which factors drove recent declines, and to what degree. However, previous Guttmacher analyses have documented that abortion restrictions, while incredibly harmful at an individual level, were not the main driver of national declines in the abortion rate ... Rather, the decline in abortions appears to be part of a broader decline in pregnancies, as evidenced by fewer births over the same period. What's driving that decline in pregnancies, then? We don't know that for sure, either, but likely a combination of social, cultural, economic, medical, and political factors: combination Experts say the decline isnt due to a single cause, but rather a combination of several factors, including changing economics, delays in childbirth by women pursuing jobs and education, the greater availability of contraception, and a decline in teen pregnancies. The trend seen in the United States is also seen in much of the developed world, including Western Europe, said Dr. John Rowe, a professor at Columbia Universitys Mailman School of Public Health. One important factor driving this is the changing roles of women in society, Rowe said. In general women are getting married later in life, he explained. They are leaving the home and launching their families later. [Dr. Helen Kim, an associate professor at Northwestern Universitys Feinberg School of Medicine] said the concept of the ideal family size may be changing. There are shifts where having smaller families is a trend, she added. I cant speak on this as a sociologist, but this is what Ive seen among my peers and colleagues. One of the biggest factors is the decline in teen pregnancies, Rowe said. Thats good news ... And that makes a huge difference to their lives. The Guttmacher Institute posited a similar mix of factors to explain the decline in the abortion rate: Because both abortions and births [have] declined, it is clear that there were fewer pregnancies overall in the United States ... The big question is why. One possible contributing factor is contraceptive access and use. Since 2011, contraception has become more accessible, as most private health insurance plans are now required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket costs. In addition, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and private insurance coverage under the ACA, the proportion of women aged 1544 nationwide who were uninsured dropped more than 40% between 2013 and 2017. There is evidence that use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods -- specifically IUDs and implants -- increased through at least 2014, especially among women in their early 20s, a population that accounts for a significant proportion of all abortions Another possible contributing factor might be a decline in sexual activity. Findings from one national survey suggest a long-term increase in the number of people in the United States -- mostly younger men -- reporting not having sex in the past year. Yet another possibility is that infertility is increasing in the United States, thereby reducing the chances of getting pregnant and subsequently seeking to obtain an abortion. More generally, there are a host of other potential factors that could be driving declines in pregnancy rates, from individuals evolving desires about whether and when to become parents to peoples changing economic and social circumstances. Finally, it is possible that ... there could have been an increase in self-managed abortions happening outside of medical facilities, which the census would be unable to capture. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also offered a combination of potential explanations for lower abortion rates: combination Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. As we stated four years ago, "causation between the presidency and abortion rates [is] difficult to demonstrate in any case, because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement." That observation remains true today. Carroll, Linda and Shamard Charles, M.D.  "Americans Aren't Making Enough Babies to Replace Ourselves."
  NBC News.  13 January 2019. Nash, Elizabeth and Joerg Dreweke.  "The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver."
  Guttmacher Institute.  18 September 2019. Kasprak, Alex.  "Abortion Rates Fall During Democratic Administrations and Rise During Republican Ones."
  Snopes.com.  11 November 2016.
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 During his 2020 presidential campaign, U.S. President Donald Trump on multiple occasions claimed his Democratic opponent Joe Biden would impose the "biggest tax increase in history" if voters elected him. In an August interview on Fox News, for instance, Trump said of Democrats: said They want to tax $4 trillion, going to be the biggest tax increase in history by far. It will triple up records, and they're big taxers. It's just something that won't work. We'll have  you will see a depression, the likes of which you have never seen. In the following weeks, he reiterated the claim  that "you are going to have the tax increase of your life" if Biden wins the 2020 election  in social media posts and during campaign events, without explaining who would bear the brunt of the alleged hike. Trump tweeted on Oct. 5: tweeted   Below is an analysis of Biden's tax proposal assessing whether it would indeed raise taxes by an amount never seen before in modern U.S. history, and who would most feel its impact. According to his campaign website, Biden ran for president on the promise that he would change multiple aspects of the country's tax system  specifically in regards to individual income and payroll taxes, business taxes, and tax expenditures. campaign website promise The proposed changes would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which the Trump administration and Republicans framed as a solution to fuel economic growth ,and Democrats saw as a gift to the country's richest individuals and large corporations at the expense of low-to-middle-class Americans. 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Specifically, Biden's tax plan would roll back the act's income tax reductions for the country's top bracket of taxpayers, as well as expand that category to include Americans with incomes over $400,000 annually, rather than just those who earn more than $518,400. $518,400 His proposal would also require that group of top earners to limit deductions and pay an additional Social Security payroll tax, per an analysis by Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow with the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Millionaires and billionaires would be subject to taxes on long-term capital gains at ordinary  not preferential  income tax rates. analysis long-term capital gains Additionally, Biden's plan would increase the top tax rate for corporations from 21% to 28% and impose a 15% minimum tax on companies' book income, according to his campaign website. It would also reduce tax subsidies for commercial real estate and fossil fuels and incentivize renewable energy investments, among other changes. All of that said, the country's richest taxpayers and corporations would cover the majority of Biden's proposed tax increases  not average Americans  both in dollar amounts and as a share of their incomes. But let's look at the anticipated impact at a granular level. All income levels would face some sort of tax burden in 2021 under Biden's plan (we explain more below), though the highest-income households would pay higher income taxes directly and see substantially larger increases than anyone else. Gleckman made the following estimations: His plan would raise taxes on households in the top 1% of the income distribution (those with income more than $837,000) by an average of about $299,000. [...] By contrast, taxpayers in the middle-income quintile (those with income between $52,000 and $93,000) would experience an average tax increase of just $260. [...] Taxpayers in the bottom quintile (those with income less than $26,000) would see an average tax increase of only $30. That added burden on low- and middle-income households representing about 2% of the proposed change  would be an indirect result of employers shifting the cost of the higher corporate tax rate to some workers. Corporations on a grand scale would slightly lower wages and investment income, which would, on average, more than offset the effects of Biden's new tax credits, the center concluded. Alicyn McLeod, a tax adviser and writer for Accounting Today, said in October 2020: Accounting Today Bidens proposal is primarily motivated by fairness. Many U.S. taxpayers are concerned that large corporations arent paying their fair share. While understandable, this position ignores the belief among many tax and economic policy experts that a significant portion of corporate taxes are ultimately paid by workers, shareholders, and consumers as opposed to companies themselves.  In sum, the overwhelming majority of Americans  those who earn $400,000 or less annually  would not see their taxes increase as a direct result of Biden's tax proposal, and the top 1% earners would shoulder the brunt of his proposed hike. But low-to-middle-class workers would see slightly lower investment returns and wages as a result of corporate tax increases, according to economists' analysis including a a budgetary model by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. budgetary model Biden's plan would raise about $3.38 trillion in additional tax revenue over 10 years, according to the university's model. Concurrently, per Gleckman's analysis, that would amount to an increase in federal revenue by about 1.5% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). GDP is the economy's total output of goods and services, and economists rely on it greatly to measure the economy's health and how fiscal or regulatory policies could impact it  not raw dollar amounts that don't consider inflation and population changes. To determine the legitimacy of Trump's claim, we considered federal tax proposals and their impact on GDP over decades. Of almost two dozen congressional tax bills that increased federal tax revenues between 1940 and 2012, for example, the five largest tax increases raised annual revenue between 1.33% and 5.04% of GDP, according to a 2013 compilation of such records by the U.S. Department of Treasury. the U.S. Department of Treasury The following table compiled by the Tax Foundation, another independent public policy think tank, showed where Biden's plan would stand in comparison to those other proposals: Tax Foundation   According to those findings, Biden's tax proposal, if enacted by Congress, would amount to the fifth-largest tax increase since the 1940s  not the biggest hike in modern U.S. history.  Biden-Harris.  "Tale Of Two Tax Policies: Trump Rewards Wealth, Biden Rewards Work."
  Accessed 15 October 2020. Adamczyk, Alicia.  "Here's Who Would Pay More Under Joe Biden's Tax Plan."
 CNBC. 7 October 2020. Penn Wharton University of Pennsylvania.  "PWBM Analysis of The Biden Platform."
  14 September 2020. DePietro, Andrew.  "Here's How Much The Top 5% Earns In America's Largest Cities."
 Forbes.  30 June 2019. McLeod, Alicyn.  "Trump vs. Biden: Whose Tax Plan Makes For Good Tax Law?"
 AccountingToday.  14 October 2020. Frank, Robert. "Biden Defines $400,000 a Year as 'Wealthy': Here's What That Buys In A Big City."
 CNBC. 6 October 2020. Wilson, Garrett, and Erica York.  "Reviewing Joe Biden's Tax Vision."
 Tax Foundation. 20 August 2020. Fordham, Evie. "Trump Tells 'Mornings with Maria' Biden Presidency Would Bring 'Biggest Tax Increase In History'."
 FoxBusiness.  13 August 2020. Wilson, Garrett and Erica York.  "Placing Joe Biden's Tax Increases In Historical Context."
 Tax Foundation.  3 September 2020. Mermin, Gordon, et. al.  "An Analysis of Former Vice President Biden's Tax Proposals."
 Tax Policy Center.  5 March 2020. As memes of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wearing hand-crafted mittens at Joe Biden's presidential inauguration plastered the Internet in early 2021, rumors surfaced alleging that the creator of the mittens had stopped selling recycled wool products because of high federal taxes. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders Snopes received numerous inquiries to investigate the validity of the claim, which attempted to expose hypocrisy of people who support the Vermont senator's goals of imposing new taxes to pay for various proposals, including free universal health care. imposing new taxes   Here's some background: Jen Ellis, a Vermont elementary school teacher, said she made the mittens out of discarded wool sweaters and gifted them to the senator after he lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. "I sent him these mittens kind of as a shoutout to who he is, and I put a note in that said something to the effect of, 'I hope you run again,'" she told Slate. Hillary Clinton Slate  (Photo by JONATHAN ERNST/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)  The viral image of Sanders wearing Ellis' gift and sitting with his arms and legs crossed made the teacher famous by the viral standards of 2021. She gave multiple interviews to news outlets including NPR and Slate in which she discussed her support for Sanders and reaction to the memes; social media users and other websites republished those comments, in part to harness the virality of the moment. teacher famous NPR Slate republished those comments Among the latter group was The Federalist, an online hub of articles with a conservative bent. Two days after the inauguration, the website published a page with the headline, "Woman Behind Bernie Sanders' Iconic Mittens Quit Making Them Because High Taxes Killed Her Business," reading: page The Vermont school teacher who made Bernie Sanders mittens, featured in the most recent viral meme, said she had to stop making them after the federal government taxed her too much. viral meme To support the claim, The Federalist cited a portion of Ellis' interview with Slate. According to a transcribed version of that conversation, which Slate published on Jan. 21, the elementary school teacher indeed told writer Rachelle Hampton: interview with Slate Hampton: Speaking of bittersweet, you supported Bernie. How did you feel about watching Biden be sworn in as president? Ellis: Oh my gosh, I cried. Im 42 and Ive waited four decades of my life  Im tearing up just thinking about it to see a woman be vice president. I wish that she was president, although I think Biden is pretty great. [...] And then there was this little side nagging thing of every five minutes I was getting several hundred more emails about the mittens. A year ago, when Bernie was on the campaign trail, he was wearing those mittens and Twitter buzzed about it then. Im not really on TwitterI have an account, but I dont really participate  but a lot of my younger colleagues do and they were like, 'Youve gotta check this out.' [...] So I put it out there that I made the mittens, they were a gift, and theyre not knitted, theyre sewn from repurposed and up-cycled sweaters. At that time, I had 30 or 40 mittens for sale and being a little nave about Twitter, I put my Gmail account on that, which someone picked up yesterday and retweeted it. People have been contacting me thinking that they can get mittens, and actually they cant. I dont have any more, and I dont have much of a mitten business anymore because it really wasnt worth it. Independent crafters get really taken for a ride by the federal government. We get taxed to the nth degree, and it wasnt really worth it pursuing that as a business, even as a side hustle. I mostly just make them as gifts. 30 or 40 mittens for sale In other words, Ellis said she did not "have much of a mitten business anymore," or that she previously sold the handmade items for a price and then mostly stopped. She implied that federal taxes were a leading factor in her decision to make that change. On Jan. 20, as social media lit up with the memes following the inauguration, she confirmed on Twitter that she was not selling mittens like the senator's. confirmed on Twitter   Snopes reached out to Ellis to learn more about her history of trying to sell mittens for profit and paying federal taxes as a self-described independent crafter. We have not yet received a response, but we'll update this report when or if we do. All of that said, the size of Ellis' former business was unknown, as well as how long or via what methods she sold the handmade mittens. U.S. tax code requires all independent contractors  no matter if they use online marketplaces such as Etsy to sell handmade products  to pay local and federal taxes based on net profits. U.S. tax code Etsy Also, we should note here: Sanders' proposed changes to the country's tax system would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act so that taxpayers who earn between about $9,500 and $250,000 would pay about 4% more, and taxes on the country's top earners would generate the majority of revenue. Additionally, he wants to impose a new payroll on businesses that earn more than $2 million annually, a change that intends to protect ventures like Ellis' from paying more. (See here for a detailed breakdown of Sanders' tax proposal by Forbes.) 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act here So while it was true that taxes played a role in Ellis' decision to stop charging people money for mittens prior to her viral fame, it was false to claim that she "quit" making them all together, like The Federalist headline alleged. Between Jan. 23 and 24, she said in a series of tweets that she made three more pairs of "Bernie mittens," two of which she donated to Passion 4 Paws Vermont and Outright Vermont for fundraising and one that she was auctioning off to benefit her daughters college fund. Passion 4 Paws Vermont Outright Vermont daughters college fund   After that, Sanders' official campaign began selling merchandise with the senator's meme-worthy image that Ellis made possible. The so-called "Chairman Sanders" sweatshirts, T-shirts, stickers, etc. helped raise $1.8 million for charitable organizations in Vermont over the course of five days, The Associated Press reported. The Associated Press reported On Jan. 24, Ellis tweeted that the senator called her to tell her that "the mitten frenzy" had raised "an enormous amount of money" for the charities. Besides that evidence, it was unclear how, or to what extent, the teacher was involved in the making or selling of the campaign-official products featuring her mittens. tweeted campaign-official products   As further proof to debunk claims that she had ceased all mitten-making, the teacher on Jan. 27 announced that she had partnered with entities including Darn Tough Socks to make socks inspired by the viral mittens, and the following day she said she was in the process of another project "to get Bernie Mittens for ALL." announced Darn Tough Socks she was "Im not opening a mitten factory or quitting my job as a second grade teacher! However, I am going to choose a new adventure on the side," Ellis said on her official website and GoFundMe page. "Never fear  I will make more mittens, but I won't be selling them for myself. I will be donating them to Vermont Charities to help them fundraise and make up for the funds lost due to the pandemic." official website GoFundMe page In sum, while it was true that, prior to her viral fame, Ellis mostly stopped charging people for handmade mittens due to costs including federal taxes, she was still creating the recycled wool products and people were spending money on them, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truthful and misleading information. Claim: The McDonald's fast food chain will be closing 17,000 locations due to an increase in the minimum wage.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2015] Is McDonald's closing 17,000 stores because of the $15.00 minimum wage? Origins: On 28 October 2015, the web site Now 8 News published an article reporting that 17,000 McDonald's locations would be closing by 1 April 2016 due to a recent increase in the minimum wage: The largest chain of fast food restaurants in the world has announced that the minimum wage increase from $8.75 an hour to $15 an hour has caused them to schedule the close 17,000 restaurants in the United States.With already decreasing profits, McDonald says this is the "straw that broke the camels back." The above-quoted story is a piece of fiction. The United States minimum wage, as established by federal law, is still $7.25 per hour (although some cities have approved a gradual raising of their minimum wages to $15 an hour), and McDonald's has not announced that they will be closing 17,000 stores due to any wage increases.Now 8 News is one of many fake news sites that attempts to attract traffic through the frequent publication of false rumors under clickbait headlines. frequent false rumors This isn't the first time that a fake news story has used "McDonald's response to a$15 minimum wage" as its basis. The equally disreputableNews Examiner posted a fake news story claiming that the restaurant chain would start using a robotic staff to avoid paying their employees $15 per hour. robotic   Last updated: 4 November 2015 Originally published: 4 November 2015 Claim:   Airlines will not pair Christian pilots and co-pilots out of fear that the Rapture will snatch away both crew members capable of landing the flight.  Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] I just heard for the third time in as many years that some airlines will not put a whole flight crew of "Christian believers" in the same plane, just in case the "rapture theory" is true. I guess the thought is that the plane would be left unmanned and crash into whatever and kill thousands (like 9/11) if the rapture theory turns out to be correct Bible doctrine.  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] I was raised a Southern Baptist and twice now a preacher has made reference to airlines pairing their pilots with one Christian (or saved)and one non-Christian (or un-saved). This is done on the pre-text that if and when the 2nd coming of Christ happens and the one Christian pilot is taken into the clouds with Christ, leaving the non-Christian pilot to supposedly land the plane safely alone.  One preacher specifically mentioned American Airlines as having this policy. Origins:   While many of those of the Christian faith may be unfamiliar with the concept of the faithful suddenly disappearing from the face of the Earth, this belief permeates a number of fundamentalist branches of Christianity. Known as "The Rapture," it refers to a time when Jesus will return to claim the faithful, drawing Christians (both the still living and the already dead) up into the clouds to meet Him. It is said this event will be followed by seven years of famine, plagues, pestilence, and three world wars before the Savior returns, an interval often referred to as "The Tribulation." The basis for belief in the Rapture lies in the Bible, specifically in this passage from 1 Thessalonians: this passage For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words. Those who believe in the Rapture hold as a tenet of faith the sudden celestial appearance of Christ at some future unknowable date, immediatelyfollowed by the irresistible summoning heavenward of all who follow His teachings.  The   faithful will be pulled towards the Christ the way iron filings are pulled towards a magnet, rendering the Earth depopulated of the godly and leaving the godless (or at least the Christ-rejecting) to battle their way through the horrors of this world's final seven years.  The Rapture interpretation of 1 Thessalonians is not shared by the majority of Christians and appears to date to 1909, when the Scofield Reference Bible (King James Version) was published. Prior to that time, this parsing of 1 Thessalonians' "caught up in the air" passage was unknown, although in the 19th century theologian J.N. Darby popularized the idea that there would be a "secret rapture" seven years before the Christ really returned, and the non-Christians who didn't disappear into the air would be left to face the anti-Christ.  Rapture believers envision a time when the faithful will be abruptly swept into the safety and calm of Heaven, even as their less stalwart human brethren live on to battle great evil and suffering that will culminate in the end of the world. Part of that envisioning process is imagining not just the nightmare of the post-Rapture earthly existence their faith will spare them from knowing, but also the immediate effect their departure will have on those fated to remain behind. From this visualization springs the belief about airline or FAA regulations restricting Christian flight crews from serving together lest the Rapture snatch away everyone who can keep a plane in the air.  Because those who accept the Rapture as an article of faith plan their lives with this event in mind, they project others must be doing so as well. The presumption is further fueled by Rev. Tim LaHaye's and Jerry Jenkins' Left Behind series of novels, in the first of which Pan-Continental Airlines' Capt. Rayford Steele weathers the disappearance of many of his passengers during an overnight flight to England.  Left Behind How far the "Christian pilots and co-pilots barred from serving together" supposition dates back is anyone's guess, but we have recorded sightings of it from 1993, so it certainly has been part of the canon of widely-held beliefs for some time. The rumor has come to us variously as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or "the airlines" restricting flight crew composition on religious basis out of concern that the Rapture will  FAA otherwise bring planes crashing to the ground. (Actually, if the FAA or "the airlines" were concerned about guarding against the Rapture's snatching away key personnel, they should also fret over air traffic controllers, because in their hands lies the safety of all who are in the air at any given time. A Raptured flight crew would result in the downing of one plane; Raptured air traffic control centers would endanger multiple planes attempting to take off or land.) We asked the FAA about the possibility of its having a policy that barred the Raptureable from serving with each other, only to be told by one of its representatives: "The FAA does not have any regulations referencing religious beliefs." Likewise, our query in this vein to American Airlines was met with the assurance that AA does not now have such a policy, nor has it ever had one. Ergo, since neither airline nor FAA policy covers this event, if you're unsure of your state of salvation, pray for an atheist on the flight deck. The Rapture stars in another bit of well-traveled lore involving a supposed freakish fatality. In "Leap of Faith," a woman who believes she sees the Rapture taking place jumps out of her car in traffic. Leap of Faith Barbara "jump for joy" Mikkelson Additional information:    Definition of The Rapture  (BibleBell Chronicles)      Preparing for The Rapture  (Free Gospel Bible Institute)   Last updated:  12 May 2005    Wineke, William.  "Giving Wings to Rapture."    Wisconsin State Journal.  10 February 2001  (p. C1). Appearing at a rally with President Donald Trump in Charleston, W.Va., Patrick Morrisey -- the Republican challenger to Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin -- riled up the crowd by invoking a particularly embarrassing remark by Hillary Clinton, the 2016 presidential nominee of Manchins party. Joe Manchin strongly supported and voted for Hillary Clinton after she said, Were going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of work, Morriseytold the crowdafter Trump turned over the podium on Aug. 21, 2018. Morrissey's statement has a basis in truth, but it glosses over some context. (We're not addressing the portion of Morrisey's remark about how Manchin voted, since ballots are cast privately, making it impossible for us to verify independently.) On March 13, 2016, as she was running for president, Clinton appeared at a televised town hall in Columbus, Ohio. At one point during the event,Clinton said, Im the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity  using clean, renewable energy as the key  into coal country. Because were going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business. She continued, And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on. While the latter portion of her comments communicated empathy for coal-mining families, her remark that were going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business drew intense criticism, not only from Americans in coal country but also with her allies, who said Clintons phrasing seemed to trivialize the seriousness of coal workers economic dilemma. So how did this episode affect Manchins support for Clinton? Lets review. Manchin and Clinton had known each other for years, and he endorsed her on CBSsFace the Nationon April 19, 2015. I support Hillary Clinton. I know Hillary Clinton, and I find her to be warm and engaging, compassionate and tough. All of the above,  Manchin said. After the town hall remark,MetroNewsreported that a senior advisor to Manchin was troubled and concerned by the comments and reached out directly to the Secretary and her senior advisor for energy. In June 2018, Manchin toldPoliticothat he repeatedly threatened to revoke his support for Clinton after her remark. First, Manchin told Bill Clinton that he would withdraw his support, as the former president pleaded with him not to, Politico reported, Then Hillary Clinton called him. She said, Please dont. Let me come to West Virginia, I need to explain. I said, Thats a bad idea, you shouldnt come, Manchin recounted. But the two sides reconciled, and on March 15 -- two days after the town hall -- Clinton formally reacted to the fallout from her remark, sending aletterto Manchin. Simply put, I was mistaken in my remarks, she wrote. I wanted to make the point that, as you know too well, while coal will be part of the energy mix for years to come, both in the U.S. and around the world, we have already seen a long-term decline in American coal jobs and a recent wave of bankruptcies as a result of a changing energy market  and we need to do more to support the workers and families facing these challenges. She also said in the letter that she supported the Miners Protection Act backed by Manchin, which would provide health benefits and pensions for former miners and family members. I pledge to you that I will focus my team and my Administration on bringing jobs to Appalachia, especially jobs producing the carbon capture technology we need for the future, Clinton wrote. About six weeks later, on May 2, Clinton came to West Virginia for aroundtableat the Williamson Health and Wellness Center. At that event, she talked with Manchin and a former coal miner, Bo Copley. I don't know how to explain it, other than what I said was totally out of context from what I meant because I have been talking about helping coal country for a very long time and I did put out a plan last summer, Clinton said. It was a misstatement, because what I was saying is that the way things are going now we are going to continue to lose jobs. What I said was that is going to happen unless we take action to try to help and prevent it. At the roundtable, Manchin also expressed his discomfort with Clintons initial statement. I have two ways to go when that statement came out, Manchin said. I could have said, 'I thought she was my friend, by golly I'm done, I'm gone.' Now that's not the way we were raised, I wasn't raised that way. So, I said I'm going to call her instead. He added, If I thought that was in her heart, if I thought she wanted to eliminate one job in West Virginia, I wouldnt be sitting here, and she wouldnt be sitting here if she felt that way.. Manchins office did not respond to an inquiry, butCNNreported on June 17, 2016, that Manchin remained one of the Democratic Senators who were backing Clinton for president. And in the 2018 Politico interview, Manchin called his decision to stick by Clinton a mistake. It was a mistake politically. But the article added that to Manchin, her $20 billion commitment to his state was too much to pass up. Is this about me? Or trying to help a part of my state thats never recovered and is having a tough time? Morrisey said Manchin strongly supported and voted for Hillary Clinton after she said, Were going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of work. Its worth noting some of the context that Morrisey left out -- that Clinton had also expressed empathy for coal miners economic challenges in her initial remark, that she later clarified what she had meant to say, and that Manchin had worked to convince Clinton of why her remarks had been unacceptable. Still, none of that changes the gist of Morriseys assertion -- that Clinton said the remark, and that Manchin remained in her camp through the election (while we know he endorsed her, we do not know for sure he voted for her, as ballots are secret). We rate the statement Mostly True. Its the number that keeps on giving.Assembly Minority Leader Jon Bramnick is the latest public official to get mileage from a claim about an $11 billion albatross that was hanging around Chris Christies neck when he became governor in 2010.Bramnick, a Republican representing parts of Union, Somerset and Morris counties, mentioned the number during a roundtable discussion Feb. 8 for NJTVs On The Record with Michael Aron. PolitiFact New Jersey has checked the existence of such a deficit on several occasions when Christie made similar claims.Why did Bramnick bring up the number?Bramnick and several other legislators were discussing the concept of the state returning money to municipalities that utilities pay towns for hosting utility poles, facilities and more. That money is paid to the state, which is supposed to then send the money  estimated in the hundreds of millions -- to the municipalities. That hasnt happened, however, as the state grapples with various economic issues. Bramnick said the theory of returning the money is an idea no one would disagree with, but he questioned where the millions would come from.When this governor came to office, he had (an) 11 billion dollar  -- I call it mismanagement  deficit, Bramnick said, adding that Christie has been working to improve the states finances.Bramnicks right that Christie took office with an $11 billion deficit, but that number is a theoretical figure only.Lets explain the deficit.The $11 billion refers to a $10.7 billion structural deficit the states nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services projected for the fiscal 2011 budget year. That budget was put together under then-Gov. Jon Corzine. Christies first budget was for fiscal year 2012.A structural deficit measures how much money the state would need if current services and revenues remained the same and all statutory spending obligations were fully funded.The state, however, does not have to meet all of its obligations since the budget supersedes statute.That means that while a state statute may require certain levels of spending on different programs, the governor can sign a budget that does otherwise.And like his predecessor, thats basically what Christie did when it was his turn to craft a spending plan. In Christies case, he skipped a $3 billion pension payment and didnt fully fund the school-aid formula or the states property tax rebate program.The result? New Jersey still had a projected structural deficit for the fiscal 2012 budget year, but slightly smaller. It was $10.5 billion, according to the OLS.So there was an approximate $11 billion deficit when Christie took office, but in theory only.Bramnick acknowledged that the deficit in place when Christie took office was a structural deficit, and said he cited it during the discussion to illustrate the states financial woes.Our rulingBramnick said during a roundtable discussion on NJTVs On The Record with Michael Aron that when this governor came to office, he had (an) 11 billion dollar  -- I call it mismanagement -- deficit.The OLS projected a nearly $11 billion structural deficit for the fiscal year 2011 budget created under Corzine, but its the type of deficit that measures how much money the state would need to maintain funding for services, if all required spending was fully funded and revenues stayed the same.Bramnicks right that a deficit existed when Christie came into office, but it was a theoretical one that resulted because administrations prior to Christies didnt spend all of the money needed to fully fund required expenses -- a move Christie repeated for his first budget as governor. We rate Bramnick's claim Mostly True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. 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 On Inauguration Day, Kamala Harris made history several times over. In being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2021, the outgoing California senator became the first Black person, first woman, and first person of South Asian heritage to be elevated to the vice presidency.  Inauguration Day The historic nature of her achievement was placed in stark context in a viral meme that showed Harris, whose parents immigrated to the United States from India and Jamaica, respectively, juxtaposed with a long list of official portraits of white men. (Charles Curtis, who served with Herbert Hoover from 1929 to 1933, had some Native American heritage and was therefore the first person of color to hold the office of vice president). Charles Curtis The meme also highlighted several purported landmarks in the slow progress of women's rights and racial desegregation in the United States, as follows: Dont understand why its a big deal that Kamala Harris is VP? Until Red box? She would have been enslaved. Until Blue box? She couldnt vote. Until Yellow box? She had to attend a segregated school. Until Green one? She couldnt have her own bank account.   The following screenshot shows a selection of instances of the meme on Facebook and demonstrates its popularity on social media in January 2021: popularity   The vice presidents highlighted in various colors were as follows (along with the dates of their tenure as vice president): Red: Andrew Johnson, March 4 to April 15,1865 Andrew Johnson Blue: Calvin Coolidge, March 4, 1921, to Aug. 3, 1923 Calvin Coolidge Yellow: Richard Nixon, Jan. 20, 1953, to Jan. 20, 1961 Richard Nixon Green: Spiro Agnew, Jan. 20, 1969, to Oct. 10, 1973 Spiro Agnew The claims made in the meme were therefore that: until Johnson's tenure as vice president (in 1865), Harris would have been enslaved due to her racial heritage; until Coolidge's tenure as vice president (1921 to 1923), she would have been denied the right to vote due to her gender; until Nixon's tenure as vice president (1953 to 1961), she would have been forced to attend a segregated school due to her racial heritage; and until Agnew's tenure as vice president (1969 to 1973), she would have been denied the right to her own bank account, due to her status as a married woman.  On the whole, the claims contained a high degree of historical accuracy, though in some cases they over-simplified certain discriminatory practices and made some relatively minor errors in identifying the vice president in office during certain major reforms. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "true." The following is our assessment of each of those claims.   The creator of the meme appears to have chosen the year 1865, and therefore the tenure of Johnson, because that is the year in which the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery, was passed. The text of the amendment reads as follows:  text Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress passed the amendment in January 1865, while Johnson was vice president-elect to President-elect Abraham Lincoln, but it was not ratified by the states until December 1865, by which time Johnson had ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, leaving the vice presidency vacant for the duration of his presidency. So the sequence of events is a bit muddled, but it is certainly reasonable to place the 13th Amendment, and the abolition of slavery, during the Johnson era.  Until the passing of the 13th Amendment, Black people in the United States lacked legal protection against enslavement. That doesn't mean that all Black people before 1865 were slaves, but the vast majority were. Based on figures included in the 1860 U.S. Census (page 14), some 89% of Black people in the country at that time were slaves. page 14 Slavery was far more prevalent in the southern states, but on average, a Black woman in the U.S. shortly before the 13th Amendment had close to a 90% likelihood of being enslaved. From a human rights perspective, Black people had no legal or constitutional protection from slavery, which is likely the thrust of the point made in the meme.   The 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, was passed by Congress in June 1919 and ratified by the states in August 1920. The text of the amendment read: text The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. On both those dates, Thomas Riley Marshall was vice president, under President Woodrow Wilson. So the meme was incorrect in stating that women could not vote until the vice presidency of Calvin Coolidge. In fact, women voted for the first time in the November 1920 election, which saw Warren Harding and his running mate Coolidge elected president and vice president, respectively.  Thomas Riley Marshall That inaccuracy does not impinge upon the truth of the broader point being made in the meme, namely that Harris, as a woman, would not have been able to vote in the United States until the early 1920s. However, the meme does miss an important additional barrier to voting rights that Harris, as a Black woman, could have faced even after the passage of the 19th Amendment.  While the 15th Amendment in principle gave Black men the right to vote, and the 19th Amendment gave all women the right to vote, states continued to discriminate against Black voters by imposing obstacles such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and "grandfather clauses"  all of which were designed to suppress Black voters. 15th Amendment obstacles It wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that such practices were prohibited by federal law, although many activists argue that present-day voter-ID rules continue the legacy of electoral restrictions that have a disproportionate impact on voters of color. Voting Rights Act argue   The creator of the meme appears to have selected the vice presidency of Nixon (1953 to 1961) because that was the period during which the U.S. Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools constituted a violation of the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown vs. the Board of Education. In a follow-up ruling in 1955, the court ordered school districts to arrange for the desegregation of public schools "with all deliberate speed."  declared follow-up ruling Most, though not all, schools were racially segregated in the 19th and early-20th centuries in the United States. So a Black student, such as Harris, would very likely have been forced to "attend a segregated school," as the meme claims. Brown vs. the Board of Education marked the beginning of the end of school segregation, but it did not bring about integration overnight. Over the course of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, state lawmakers and local authorities fought protracted and often bitter battles to resist the Supreme Court's clear mandate. battles So while the meme was right to point out that Black students would be very likely forced to attend segregated schools before the decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education, it's also the case that many Black students were forced to attend segregated schools for many years after the ruling, as well. What changed in 1954 was that the nation's highest court clearly declared that system of racial segregation to be unconstitutional.   The meme appears to refer to the enactment of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) in the early 1970s, which made it illegal for financial services companies to discriminate against customers on the basis of anything other than their creditworthiness. The legislation stated that: stated It shall be unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction(1) on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract)... However, the law wasn't enacted until October 1974, when the office of vice president was vacant. Spiro Agnew resigned in late 1973, after he was charged with bribery and tax fraud, and his replacement, Gerald Ford, ascended to the presidency in August 1974, after Nixon resigned. So the meme is again mistaken on the precise sequence of events. While Agnew was vice president, banks could (and did) legally deny credit to a woman on the basis of extraneous considerations such as her marital status, her husband's income and credit history, and so on. and did The meme also somewhat overstated the restrictions in place before 1974. Women, including married women, could open their own bank accounts before the ECOA was passed, but often faced difficulty and discrimination in doing so. It was particularly difficult for women to obtain a line of credit or a credit card, in her own name. In 1972, the National Commission on Consumer Finance published a report that found the following common discriminatory practices in lending: report What the ECOA changed in 1974, and what the meme appears to allude to, is that banks and lenders could no longer legally engage in such discriminatory practices. In late May 2016, Twitter users were circulating a rumor that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump had derisively referred to Canadians as "Snow Mexicans": @ViewFromWise Did you happen to sew his post about Canadians the other day? He called them "Snow Mexicans". No lie, total truth. Wow!!! @ViewFromWise  Stephanie Barrett (@imfrog2) May 31, 2016 May 31, 2016  @GaryRayBetz @ViewFromWise Well he recently called Canadians "Snow Mexicans". I came across that on Twitter about 2 weeks ago. Wow.  Stephanie Barrett (@imfrog2) June 6, 2016 @GaryRayBetz @ViewFromWise June 6, 2016  Documentation for this rumor eventually appeared in the form of a purported screenshot of a tweet from Donald Trump's official Twitter account bearing a 22 February 2016 date stamp:  However, some elements of that screenshot didn't match Twitter's interface, suggesting it had been fabricated.  Indeed, Donald Trump's Twitter account issued a tweet at the very same time shown on the screenshot (6:31 PM Eastern Standard Time on 22 February 2016), but it had nothing to do with Canadians and made no mention of "snow Mexicans": tweet  It is fairly obvious the "snow Mexicans" comment was not an authentic Trump tweet, but rather an altered version of a tweet that referenced sending "illegals" out of the U.S.  And given the news media's intense coverage of Trump's sometimes incendiary remarks (on Twitter and elsewhere), it's exceedingly unlikely the GOP candidate could have issued such a comment without its having generated widespread media interest. As President Barack Obama and Republicans in Congress continued their high-stakes stand-off over raising the debt ceiling and other budget issues, Obama held a press conference to press his case that he's a reasonable guy. One of the main points of contention is whether an agreement should include tax increases of any kind, such as closing tax loopholes or tax increases on the wealthy. Republicans oppose raising taxes.During a press conference on July 15, 2011, Obama was asked if the negotiations would be going better if he had started making his case to the public months ago, pushing a proposal that included tax increases and spending cuts. Obama rejected the premise. You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren't sold is not the problem, he said. The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically into various positions because they boxed themselves in with previous statements. We won't weigh in on Obama's diagnosis of being dug in, but we were interested in the poll numbers on whether the public supports a balanced approach or not.The most recent poll we found largely supported Obama's statement. A Gallup poll conducted July 7-10, 2011 posed the question this way:As you may know, Congress can reduce the federal budget deficit by cutting spending, raising taxes, or a combination of the two. Ideally, how would you prefer to see Congress attempt to reduce the federal budget deficit: only with spending cuts, mostly with spending cuts, equally with spending cuts and tax increases, mostly with tax increases, or only with tax increases?The answer only spending cuts got 20 percent. The other answers were mostly spending cuts, 30 percent; equal spending cuts and tax increases, 32 percent; mostly tax increases, 7 percent; only tax increases, 4 percent; unsure/other, 6 percent.We'll note that Obama counted in his favor people who favored only tax increases or who weren't sure, so he wasn't completely accurate. If you deduct those groups, only 70 percent support the balanced approach. But the poll did support his overall point.Other polls also showed support for Obama's statement, but not quite at an 80-percent level.A poll from Quinnipiac University conducted July 5-11, 2011, asked: Do you think any agreement to raise the national debt ceiling should include only spending cuts, or should it also include an increase in taxes for the wealthy and corporations?In this case, 67 percent favored including tax increases, while 25 percent favored spending cuts only. Another 8 percent were unsure.In June, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that most people, 46 percent, favored a combination of cuts and tax increases, compared with 26 percent who said cuts alone and 13 percent who said raise taxes. An ABC/Washington Postpoll from April found the number was higher, at 59 percent. We reviewed polls and consulted experts a few weeks ago for a fact-check onwhether people support tax increasesor not. Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who studies polls on taxation, told us polls usually show support for balanced approaches, particularly if people don't have to pay the higher taxes themselves. Generally, combinations of tax hikes and spending cuts are most popular. It seems fair to most people. Spending cuts are favored in the abstract. Tax hikes are favored as long as they don't affect me. Generally, people don't think anybody should have to pay more than a quarter of their income in total taxes, she said. Finally, a few other cautions on poll numbers.Pollsters have long noted that when you ask questions with different wording, you get different results. All the polls we looked at phrased the question slightly differently.A few recent polls also suggested that people find the whole debt ceiling debate confusing, or they aren't following it very closely. A Pew Research Center/Washington Postpoll from May asked people how well they felt they understood what would happen if the government does not raise the federal debt limit; 47 percent said not too well or not at all well. And the July Gallup poll found that 42 percent of respondents were following the issue not too closely or not at all. Getting back to Obama's statement, he said, You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. Even the best poll doesn't show support quite that high -- he would more accurately have accounted for the small numbers that support only tax increases or were unsure, putting the number at 70 percent. But his overall point is correct that polls show most Americans support a balanced approach when given a choice between cutting spending or raising taxes. So we rate his statement Mostly True. On 23 November 2016, the Facebook page "I Am Proud To Be English" shared a photograph of a bacon sandwich alongside a meme implying the image was banned because it was offensive to Muslims: shared   The meme read: I actually had this reported on my timeline as been offensive!! Is it? How many people dare to like and share it? Tens of thousands answered the call, though many of the post's top comments expressed skepticism about the claim on several levels: At least one person noticed that claims that the bacon sandwich was reported as offensive did not mesh with the wide circulation of the photograph after it was posted:  Doubters were correct in suspecting the bacon sandwich picture was unlikely to be flagged by Facebook. The social network's Community Standards held that only the following content is subject to review and removal: Direct Threats, Self-Injury, Dangerous Organizations, Bullying and Harassment, Attacks on Public Figures, Criminal Activity, Sexual Violence and Exploitation, and Regulated Goods. We could find no appropriate category under which the image would be restricted via a report. held In response to an earlier but similar rumor, a representative for Facebook told us that images which do not violate Facebook's Community Standards would not be removed from their platform. The "share this bacon sandwich" meme was one of several that suggested that Muslims are offended by the mere sight of  pork, or simply offended in manners that were rumored to affect citizens of the UK or United States. Similar claims often circulate about disabled veterans, poppies, and Nativity scenes, but all versions are very likely to forms of likebait (or like-farming), aiming to appeal to the emotional responses of social media users in order to promote or popularize unrelated companies or Facebook interests in a bait and switch. several offended mere sight of  pork affect citizens disabled veterans poppies Nativity likebait like-farming Facebook Help Center.  "Community Standards."
  Accessed 8 November 2016.