Nobel prize honors breakthroughs on lithium-ion batteries.

Explanation: If you’re reading this on a cellphone or laptop computer, you might thank the three winners of this year’s Nobel Prize in chemistry for their work on lithium-ion batteries.

Laptop computers, AP Top News, Science, General News, Business, International News, Nobel Prizes, Binghamton, New York, Asia Pacific, Japan, Technology, Chemistry, Europe, Stockholm

The batteries power cellphones, laptops, electric cars and countless other devices of modern life, and could become the foundation for a greener future. Batteries that economically store energy from renewable sources like the wind and sun open up new possibilities to curb global warming. “This is a highly charged story of tremendous potential,” quipped Olof Ramstrom of the Nobel committee for chemistry. The prize announced Wednesday went to John B. Goodenough, 97, an engineering professor at the University of Texas; M. Stanley Whittingham, 77, a chemistry professor at the State University of New York at Binghamton; and Akira Yoshino, 71, of chemical company Asahi Kasei Corp. and Meijo University in Japan. “The heart of the phone is the rechargeable battery. The heart of the electric vehicle is the rechargeable battery. The success and failure of so many new technologies depends on the batteries,” said Alexej Jerschow, a chemist at New York University, whose research focuses on the lithium-ion battery. Goodenough, who is considered an intellectual giant of solid state chemistry and physics, is the oldest person to ever win a Nobel Prize — edging out Arthur Ashkin, who was 96 when he was awarded the Nobel for physics last year. Goodenough said he is grateful he was not forced to retire at age 65. “So I’ve had an extra 33 years to keep working,” he told reporters in London, where he was to accept another prize. In an interview with The Associated Press, Whittingham said he had no inkling that his work decades ago would have such a profound impact. “We thought it would be nice and help in a few things, but never dreamed it would revolutionize electronics and everything else,” he said. And in Japan, Yoshino said he hoped the technology could enable greater adoption of renewable energy sources. “We must create a society where electricity is generated by renewables in order to resolve the climate change problem,” he said. The three scientists each had unique breakthroughs that laid the foundation for the development of a commercial rechargeable battery, an alternative to older alkaline batteries containing lead, nickel or zinc that had their origins in the 19th century. All batteries store chemical energy that can be converted into electricity. But earlier batteries were unsafe, too heavy or not rechargeable — limiting their practical use In the 1970s, Whittingham, who had researched superconductors at Stanford University, was hired by Exxon at a time when the petroleum giant was investing in research on energy storage. Whittingham harnessed the tendency of lithium — the lightest metal — to give away its electrons to make a lightweight battery capable of generating just over two volts. By 1980, building on Whittingham’s work, Goodenough had doubled the capacity of the battery to four volts by using cobalt oxide in the cathode — one of two electrodes, along with the anode, that make up the ends of a battery. But that battery remained too unstable for general commercial use. That’s where Yoshino’s work in the 1980s came in. He eliminated the volatile pure lithium from the battery, and instead opted for lithium ions that are safer. He added another material in one electrode that reduced the potential for fires. This step paved the way for the first lightweight, safe, durable and rechargeable commercial batteries to be built and enter the market in 1991. Whittingham called the prize a “recognition for the whole field,” adding that “hundreds of people have worked on lithium-ion batteries.” Building on this foundation could enable broader use of renewable energy sources that generate power at variable times. “Batteries are the bridge between when the sun is shining and when people need to use the energy,” said Amanda Morris, a chemist at Virginia Tech University. The three winners will share a 9-million kronor ($918,000) cash award. Their gold medals and diplomas will be conferred in Stockholm on Dec. 10 — the anniversary of prize founder Alfred Nobel’s death in 1896. The announcement came on the third day of Nobel week. On Tuesday, Canadian American James Peebles won the Nobel physics prize for his theoretical discoveries in cosmology together with Swiss scientists Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz, who were honored for finding an exoplanet —  a planet outside our solar system — that orbits a solar-type star. Americans William G. Kaelin Jr. and Gregg L. Semenza and Britain’s Peter J. Ratcliffe won the Nobel for advances in physiology or medicine on Monday. They were cited for their discoveries of “how cells sense and adapt to oxygen availability.” Two Nobel literature laureates are to be announced Thursday — one for 2018 and one for 2019 — because last year’s award was suspended after a sex-abuse scandal rocked the Swedish Academy. The coveted Nobel Peace Prize is Friday and the economics award will be announced on Monday. The chemistry laureates said the field and its applications are still a work in progress. “Lithium-ion itself is still full of unknowns,” said Yoshino. He said he visits Goodenough nearly every year in Texas. “For him, I’m like his son,” he said. “He takes very good care of me.” Goodenough, in his own way, seemed to return the favor, telling reporters that in all of his 97 years: “What am I most proud of? I don’t know, I would say all my friends.” ___ Keaten reported from Geneva and Larson from Washington. Associated Press writers Jan M. Olsen in Copenhagen, Denmark; Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo; Jill Lawless in London and Michael Hill in Albany, New York, contributed to this report. ___ Read more stories on the 2019 Nobel Prizes by The Associated Press at https://www.apnews.com/NobelPrizes


Amid tighter race, Clinton and Trump trade barbs over health.

Explanation: Hillary Clinton returned to campaigning without offering apologies for keeping her pneumonia a secret, focusing on criticizing opponent Donald Trump instead of how she handled her health problem and the three-day rest ordered by her doctor.

Hillary Clinton, Campaign 2016, James Brown, North Carolina, AP Politics, Pneumonia, Health, Events, Greensboro, Donald Trump

To the strains of James Brown’s “I Feel Good,” the Democratic presidential candidate returned to the campaign trail Thursday at a rally in North Carolina. It was her first public outing since she stumbled and needed support from aides while leaving a 9/11 memorial in New York last Sunday. The episode, caught on video, was attributed to dizziness and dehydration. And it led to an acknowledgment by the Clinton campaign that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia two days earlier. Clinton told supporters Thursday that while sitting at home this week was “pretty much the last place I wanted to be,” the time away from campaign events helped clarify how she wants to close her race against the billionaire real estate mogul Trump. “We’re offering ideas, not insults,” she said in a jab at her Republican rival. “A plan that will make a real difference in people’s lives, not prejudice and paranoia.” In New York, Trump laid out plans to lower taxes by $4.4 trillion over a decade and cut regulations, including some of those currently intended to protect the food Americans eat and the air they breathe. The Republican said his plans would bolster economic growth by at least a 3.5 percent annual rate, well above its current rate of about 2 percent. He also said his plan would create 25 million new jobs over the next 10 years — a pace already being achieved. The heart of Trump’s plan is a revised tax code, which includes a pledge that no business should pay more than 15 percent of its income in taxes, down from the current 35 percent top corporate tax rate. Few businesses now pay the full 35 percent rate, however, taking advantage instead of many deductions allowed under the existing tax code Amid questions about both candidates’ openness regarding their health, Trump released a new letter from his doctor detailing his blood pressure, cholesterol and medications. That came a day after Clinton made public a letter from her physician with similar information. Both candidates’ doctors declared them fit to serve as president. Trump’s letter said the Republican is 6-foot-3 and 236 pounds — giving him a body mass index falling into the “overweight” range. The 70-year-old has blood pressure of 116 over 70, and his total cholesterol is 169, his doctor says. Clinton, 68, has blood pressure of 100 over 70, and her total cholesterol is 189, according to her doctor. Her letter made no mention of her weight, a key part of a medical exam; nor did a similar letter released last year. Until Thursday, the only information on Trump’s health had come in a widely ridiculed letter from his doctor declaring he would be the healthiest person to ever serve as president. Before releasing the new details to the public, Trump turned over a copy to Dr. Mehmet Oz while taping an episode of Oz’s TV show. The campaigns traded barbs on the health question, with Clinton’s organization mocking her opponent’s “showmanship” and Trump’s campaign pointing to his stamina to endure “uninterrupted” the rigors of campaigning. With two months until Election Day, the race between Clinton and Trump is far tighter than many in both parties expected. Clinton continues to be dragged down by voters’ mistrust, but she still maintains more pathways than Trump to the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the White House. Clinton’s confidence in the electoral map was underscored in her decision to make her first stop this week in North Carolina, the only battleground state President Barack Obama lost in 2012. Trump almost certainly needs to carry the state in order to win the White House, while Clinton’s team is eager to block his path. Clinton slammed North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory for signing a law to prevent transgender people from using restrooms in schools and state government buildings that do not correspond to the gender on their birth certificates. The decision has angered businesses in the state, and this week the NCAA announced it was pulling seven sports championships from North Carolina. “This is where bigotry leads, and we can’t afford it, not here or anywhere else,” Clinton said. Later Thursday, Clinton and Obama separately addressed the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute gala in Washington. Clinton ripped Trump for his refusal, in an interview with The Washington Post, to say Obama was born in the United States. “When will he stop this ugliness, this bigotry?” Clinton asked. The Trump campaign issued a statement Thursday night saying Trump now believes Obama was born in the United States. ___ Chart the path Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton must take on the Road to 270 to reach the White House with AP’s Electoral College interactive map: http://elections.ap.org/content/road-270-0 ___ Associated Press writers Jonathan Lemire in New York and Jill Colvin in Washington contributed to this report. ___ AP writers Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC and Lisa Lerer at http://twitter.com/llerer


2 measles cases from exposure at Portland, Oregon airport.

Explanation: Two people have been diagnosed with measles after coming into contact with a passenger on an international flight at Portland International Airport who was contagious with the viral illness.

Immunizations, Health, Measles, Oregon, Portland

The Oregon Health Authority said Monday that one resident of Lane County and one visitor to Washington County were on the same flight on Oct. 12. Neither person had been fully vaccinated against the highly contagious disease. Health authorities in April declared a measles outbreak in the Pacific Northwest finished after there had not been any new cases in six weeks. That outbreak sickened more than 70 people in Oregon and southwest Washington. Since then, there have been scattered cases in both states and in the Idaho Panhandle. Routine childhood immunizations include a series of two shots to provide measles immunity.


Balkan drought highlights years of farm neglect.

Explanation: As crops wilt and die in the Balkans, farmers struck down by a particularly harsh drought this year are ruing the region’s failure to upgrade irrigation networks and invest in a long-term agricultural strategy.

Hot, dry weather in eastern and southern Europe has piled pressure on world grain markets already reeling from huge drought damage in the United States. The toll in Bosnia, where surface soil temperatures in the south have hit 47 degrees Celsius (116 Fahrenheit), is estimated at almost $1 billion - a huge blow to a country where the farming sector accounts for 20 percent of employment and about 10 percent of economic output. The cost to neighboring Serbia, where agriculture last year accounted for about 12 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), is around $2 billion, and up to $250 million in Croatia, where yields have also been halved. “It’s a disaster,” said Zoltan Pinkert, a farmer in the fertile flatlands of Baranja in north-east Croatia. “Everything was top-notch, and then the drought came. We’ve had less than 10 percent of the rain compared to normal years, and the damage to corn crops is 100 percent.”  The region is no stranger to drought and farmers usually get by until the next growing season. But producers in Bosnia say things have not been so bad since the end of the country’s 1992-95 war and are threatening to block major roads and border crossings from early September unless the government pays outstanding subsidies and acts to protect domestic production. The future looks bleak. Cash-strapped governments in the region, all facing recession, say the money is not there to invest in modern farming methods. The former Yugoslavia is still plagued by weak governance and a tradition of wholesale change in policy and personnel with each change of government, impeding the creation of a long-term strategy to develop farming. Bosnia does not have an agriculture ministry at the state level but only at the level of its two autonomous regions - the Muslim-Croat federation and the Serb Republic. Policy-making is hostage to a complex system of power-sharing since the war, based on ethnic quotas, slowing the adoption of myriad laws and regulations needed for the country to catch up with the European mainstream. This institutional inertia already threatens to deprive Bosnia of its main export market for milk and meat in Croatia when Zagreb joins the EU next year. Critics argue the problem has been years in the making. “We are paying for the lack of systematic agricultural policy over the past 20 or even 50 years,” said Damir Kovacic, agricultural marketing lecturer at Zagreb University. “We’re always surprised when the drought hits in the summer,” he said. The World Bank, which in May approved a $40 million loan to improve the irrigation system in Bosnia, said the countries of the Balkans had huge agricultural potential, but lacked the infrastructure and strategy. “Former Yugoslavia used to have one of the most advanced irrigation and drainage systems,” said Holger Kray, the World Bank’s lead officer for agriculture and rural development in Europe and Central Asia. “Unfortunately, these systems have degraded, eroded,” Kray told Reuters by telephone from Washington. “This is not only about functional budgetary shortages but also frequent turnover in the management of these systems.”  Mate Brlosic, head of the Croatian Agriculture Chamber, said corn would be “as rare as gold” in Croatia this year. “The recovery will last several years for vineyards and orchards, and livestock farming will also feel the impact for years, due to lack of cattle food,” he told Reuters on Monday. “We’ve not had a clear agricultural strategy for 20 years. Regulations change with every change of power.”  The difference upgraded farming methods can make is illustrated by a few green fields in Bosnia’s breadbasket Kalesija region. “We have used modern technology to improve the water regime in some fields and switched to a new animal feeding mix,” Dzenadin Veispahic, general manager of the privately owned Spreca dairy farm, told Reuters. Even then, the drought will cost the farm more than $300,000 this year. “We are on yellow alert regime when it comes to cattle watering,” he said, meaning the farm was negotiating with local authorities to tap river water and enlist the help of the fire brigade. Vladimir Usorac, head of the farmers’ association in Bosnia’s Serb Republic, said the effects of bad harvests were cumulative. “This is the fourth consecutive year that agriculture has suffered enormous losses because of bad weather, and many producers will not have the means to start the production cycle next year,” he said. Experts estimate it would cost about $2.5 billion to overhaul irrigation networks in Serbia, the biggest agricultural producer in the former Yugoslavia. But there is little sign of such a long-term strategy emerging. The focus, instead, is on emergency remedies. In Serbia, where the corn yield is expected to be half the projected 7 million metric tons, trade officials last week called on the government to ban the export of grain, in particular corn, soybean, sunflower seed and wheat. Such a move would spell additional uncertainty for regional markets, particularly Bosnia, which have traditionally relied on Serbia in the event of shortages. Croatian unions want tax on food cut so producers are not priced out of the market, but the government is resisting. Agriculture Minister Tihomir Jakovina said the Croatian government was considering a partial lifting of fees on the lease of agricultural land and increasing customs fees on exports of grain and corn to avoid shortages. The only glimmer of hope for Croatia is the EU funds that will become available when it becomes the bloc’s 28th member in July next year, money that could be invested in a long-term strategy to revive farming. Deputy Prime Minister Radimir Cacic has compared the country’s approach to agriculture to that of “primitive tribes”. “If there is rain, there will be crops, there will be electricity,” he said in the run-up to last year’s election. “If there is drought, there’ll be nothing. This has to change.”


US drinking more now than just before Prohibition.

Explanation: Americans are drinking more now than when Prohibition was enacted. What’s more, it’s been rising for two decades, and it’s not clear when it will fall again.

AP Top News, Health, General News, Health statistics, U.S. News, Public health

That’s the picture painted by federal health statistics, which show a rise in per-person consumption and increases in emergency room visits, hospitalizations and deaths tied to drinking. The stats aren’t all bad. Drinking among teenagers is down. And there are signs that some people are taking alcohol seriously — such as the “Dry January” movement making the rounds on social media. But overall, public health experts say America still has a drinking problem. “Consumption has been going up. Harms (from alcohol) have been going up,” said Dr. Tim Naimi, an alcohol researcher at Boston University. “And there’s not been a policy response to match it.” HOW MUCH DO AMERICANS DRINK? In the late 1910s, just before Congress banned the sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages, each American teen and adult was downing just under 2 gallons of alcohol a year on average. These days it’s about 2.3 gallons, according to federal calculations. That works out to nearly 500 drinks, or about nine per week. Historians say drinking was heaviest in the early 1800s, with estimates that in 1830 the average U.S. adult downed the equivalent of 7 gallons a year. That waned as the temperance movement pushed for moderation, abstinence and, later, a national ban on the manufacture and sale of alcohol. In 1919, Congress passed the 18th Amendment, instituting the ban. It went into effect on January 17, 1920 — 100 years ago, this Friday — and lasted 13 years. In 1934, a year after Prohibition was repealed, per-capita consumption was under 1 gallon. It’s been up and down since then. The apex was a heavy-drinking spell in the 1970s and 1980s, when U.S. per-person alcohol consumption was 2.75 gallons. It went down in the mid-1980s, amid growing attention to deaths from drunken driving and after Congress passed a law raising the drinking age to 21. But it began climbing again in the mid-1990s. “I think people sort of forgot all the problems (with alcohol),” said William Kerr, senior scientist at the California-based Public Health Institute’s Alcohol Research Group. WHY IS ALCOHOL CONSIDERED A PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM? Excessive drinking is associated with chronic dangers such as liver cancer, high blood pressure, stroke and heart disease. Drinking by pregnant women can lead to miscarriage, stillbirth or birth defects. And health officials say alcohol is a factor in as many as one-third of serious falls among the elderly. It’s also a risk to others — through drunken driving or alcohol-fueled violence. And research based on surveys suggests that more than half of the alcohol sold in the U.S. is consumed during episodes of binge drinking. More than 88,000 Americans die each year as a result of excessive drinking, a figure higher than the opioid-related deaths seen in a current drug overdose epidemic, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This month, researchers at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism released a different calculation of alcohol-related deaths. They scanned death certificates from over two decades to search for mention of alcohol. The numbers were lower, at a little under 73,000 in 2017. The researchers said death certificates can be incomplete, and their number is likely an undercount. The more important finding, other researchers said, was that the number of alcohol-related deaths had doubled since 1999, and the death rate had risen 50%. Some or much of that may be related to the increasingly deadly drugs used in the overdose epidemic, since many people drink while taking drugs, said Aaron White, the study’s lead researcher. WHAT’S DRIVING THE INCREASES? About three-quarters of alcohol-related deaths are in men. But drinking among women — particularly binge drinking — has been a major driver of the increases in alcohol statistics. White’s study found that the female death rate jumped 85%, while the male rate rose 39%. The highest alcohol-related death rates for women were among those ages 55 to 74, that research found. But increases were seen in younger women, too. Binge drinking is swinging up most dramatically among women, other research has found. Researchers say there’s been a change in cultural attitudes toward drinking, including among many women. Internet memes popular with stressed-out moms call wine “mommy juice” and joke about it being “wine o’clock.”  ISN’T A LITTLE BIT OF WINE GOOD FOR YOU? Wine acquired a bit of a halo after some researchers observed that French people had lower rates of heart disease despite generally consuming high levels of saturated fat. This “French Paradox” triggered studies that suggested drinking a glass or two of red wine may have some benefits for heart health. But increasingly, other researchers have poked holes in the hypothesis, arguing that lifestyle, diet and other factors probably deserve far more credit. After climbing for 24 years, U.S. wine consumption dipped last year, according to the research firm IWSR Drinks Market Analysis. “I think the halo has tilted or fallen off,” Naimi said. “But,” he added, “for most people who drink alcohol, health is not their primary consideration.” This week marks the 100th anniverary of the start of prohibition. While prohibition was meant to stop the sale and production of alcohol, McSorley's Old Ale House in New York's East Village kept the pints coming in prohibition and it still does so today. (Jan. 14) ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support  from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


National, Disability, Retirement, Social Security, Guns, Bloggers,

After the shooting in Charleston, S.C., that left nine African-American worshippers dead, President Barack Obama made it clear where he directs the blame. "Every country has violent, hateful, or mentally unstable people," Obama said. "What’s different is not every country is awash with easily accessible guns." Though efforts to enact comprehensive gun control legislation through Congress withered amid intense opposition from gun rights supporters, Obama has done what he can to use executive orders to curb access to guns. One potential policy for his administration would have the Social Security Administration share information with the national background check system that is used to conduct background checks of gun purchasers. Adding names from the Social Security list would potentially increase the number of people barred from purchasing a gun. After this possibility emerged, gun-rights advocates reacted quickly and aggressively. "SPREAD THIS: Obama Makes Huge Move to BAN Social Security Recipients From Owning Guns," read the headline in the Conservative Tribune. Breitbart, another conservative website, declared: "Obama’s Secret Plan to Block Seniors on Social Security from Owning Guns." Other websites qualified their message by referring to "some Social Security recipients," and some cited a specific figure -- 4.2 million -- as the number of people that would be unable to own guns. We were curious to see how all these claims stacked up, so we dug into the evidence. The background check system Under existing federal law, several factors can prevent someone from buying a gun. Most of these have to do with law enforcement issues, such as a prior felony conviction or a record of domestic abuse. Mental-health issues can be another factor, such as involuntary commitment to a mental institution. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is supposed to streamline the process of gun purchasing by quickly weeding out those who cannot legally buy a gun. In 36 states or territories, the FBI performs all background checks, whereas the remaining 25 states set up their own state agencies to either conduct full or partial background checks. But such a system is only as good as the databases it’s linked to -- and several analyses have shown that these databases are far from complete. If someone is ineligible to purchase a gun but their information didn’t get into the right database, then the background check won’t stop the purchase. For instance, suspected Charleston shooter Dylann Roof should have been ineligible to buy a gun because of a prior felony on a drug charge, but errors in paperwork, and a mistake by the FBI examiner in charge of the background check, meant that Roof passed the check. The Los Angeles Times article The source that every site we found linked back to was a July 18 Los Angeles Times article, headlined, "Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security." The article reports that the Social Security Administration is crafting a new policy that would prevent gun purchases by certain types of beneficiaries. The ineligible beneficiaries would be those who were deemed mentally incompetent. In this instance, a mentally incompetent person would be categorized as someone who has their finances handled by another party, known as a "representative payee." The Social Security change did not emerge suddenly. It stems from an executive order by Obama in January 2013 that required "require federal agencies to make data available to the federal background check system." The idea behind the executive order was to make the background check database more complete and prevent gun purchases by people who, under the law, are ineligible. We found several problems with the websites’ claims. • The new policy would not ban all Social Security recipients from owning guns. Rather, it would only affect the small fraction who are deemed mentally incompetent, and who are thus are barred from purchasing guns under the law. • The policy is not yet in force. When we reached out to the Social Security Administration, a spokesman responded, "We are still developing our policy." In developing the plan, the Social Security Administration is following the lead of another federal agency, the Veterans Administration, which is already sharing names with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The Social Security Administration’s policy is expected to be similar. • The policy would not take away guns from people who already own them. There is no indication that this policy would take guns away from people who already own guns. Rather, the policy would affect the ability of some mentally incompetent people from buying new guns. "There is nothing in the policy that would change the definition of who may possess a gun, nor anything that extends the federal government’s authority to take guns away from those who already have them," said Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology at Florida State University. There is one exception to this: California currently tracks and disarms ineligible gun owners. In addition to seizing the guns of those people determined to be mentally unstable, California law enforcement also disarms people with felonies or a domestic violence restraining order. The new policy, once it’s instituted, could marginally increase the number of mentally incompetent individuals living in California who are disarmed under that 2013 law. What about the charge that 4.2 million people would be affected by the policy? There’s some truth to it, but there’s an important caveat: 2.7 million of the beneficiaries who have their finances managed by others receive Social Security because of a mental disability, not just because of their age, according to LaVenia LaVelle, a spokeswoman for the Social Security Administration. So it’s not really accurate to say, as Breitbart did, that the plan is "to block seniors" from buying guns, since a large number of those affected would not be seniors. Data from December 2013 shows that about 1.2 million disabled workers with mental disorders who were receiving Social Security disability were under 50. Finally, some of these people may already be in the database for another reason. Our ruling Bloggers such as the Conservative Tribune wrote headlines like this one: "SPREAD THIS: Obama Makes Huge Move to BAN Social Security Recipients From Owning Guns." This is a vast exaggeration of the actual policy under consideration. It would not affect all Social Security recipients, but rather those who have already been declared mentally incompetent, and thus ineligible under current law from purchasing a gun. And it is targeted at blocking gun purchases, not taking away guns from people who already have them. Only in California could the policy lead to increased gun seizures, and only -- potentially -- for mentally incompetent residents of the state who would be newly added to the background check database. Obama has not made a sweeping move to disarm gun-owning senior citizens, as these websites claim. We rate the claim .


Pakistan study blames HIV outbreak in kids on bad healthcare.

Explanation: A group of Pakistani doctors blames a recent outbreak of HIV among children in a southern city on poor healthcare practices such as using dirty needles and contaminated blood, according to a statement released Friday.

Health, Asia Pacific, General News, Medication, Pakistan

The doctors are also urging Pakistan’s government to do more to understand how the virus went from high-risk groups such as drug users and sex workers to the general population. They also warned that there isn’t enough medication in the city of Ratodero, in southern Sindh province, where 591 children need medical treatment. The outbreak is extremely worrying, said the doctors, calling it “one of the worst” in Pakistan. They studied medical data of 31,239 people in Ratodero, where the HIV outbreak took place and who agreed to the study. Out of that group, 930 were positive for HIV, with 604 of them being younger than 5 years of age and 763 younger than 16 years, according to the study published the international Lancet Infectious Disease Journal. By the end of July when the study was being completed, only one in three children had started antiretroviral treatment “due to an inadequate supply of drugs and a lack of trained staff,” the statement said. The study said 50 of the children examined are showing signs of “severe immunodeficiency” but did not specify if they have full-blown AIDS. “The results, which are the first scientific report on the outbreak, appear to confirm observations ... that HIV was mostly transmitted to children as a result of health care providers using contaminated needles and blood products,” said the statement. “Pakistan has experienced a series of HIV outbreaks over the past two decades, but we’ve never before seen this many young children infected or so many health facilities involved,” said Dr Fatima Mir from The Aga Khan University in Karachi, the Sindh provincial capital, one of the authors of the study quoted in the statement. About 70% of Pakistan’s 220 million people use private health care sector, which is mostly unregulated and rarely monitored for cleanliness and safety. Among many Pakistanis, popular belief holds that intravenous or intramuscular injections are more effective that medicine taken by mouth, which has increased the use of syringes across the country — and the likelihood of dirty needles being used. In the immediate aftermath of the HIV outbreak in Ratodero, the government did act quickly, closing three blood banks as well as 300 clinics run by untrained medical staff, the statement said.


Person with measles passed through Portland airport.

Explanation: The Multnomah County Health Department says a person who passed through the Portland International Airport on Saturday has become sick with measles.

The Oregonian/OregonLive reports the health department said people who were in the airport during that time may have been exposed to the virus. Communicable diseases manager for the health department Lisa Ferguson says the person passed through international arrivals, and went through customs and immigration between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on Oct. 12. Officials said this is the 15th person affected with measles in Multnomah County this year, the most since 1991. Health department officials said anyone who was in those areas of the airport at the same time as the patient, especially those with a compromised immune system, or people not vaccinated against measles, can get a “just-in-time” shot of medicine called immunoglobulin. Officials said people needing “just in time” shots should call their health care providers to schedule treatment by the end of Friday, Oct. 18. The patient, an adult, had been traveling out of the country, in areas where measles is common, and had not been vaccinated. ___ Information from: The Oregonian/OregonLive, http://www.oregonlive.com


Gaza resumes coronavirus testing amid shortages.

Explanation: Coronavirus testing has resumed in the Gaza Strip after Israel allowed five testing kits purchased by the World Health Organization (WHO) into the enclave, a Gaza health ministry spokesman said on Monday.

But the spokesman, Ashraf al-Qidra, said the kits would be of “limited immediate help” because they could be used to test only about 500 people in a densely populated territory of two million. “We began testing immediately after receiving the kits late (Sunday) night,” Qidra said. “We need to carry out these tests all the time and therefore, we are in need of thousands of testing kits.”   On April 8, health officials in Gaza said they had run out of testing kits and voiced concern that a shortage of medical supplies could lead to the rapid spread of infection in the territory. Gaza has 13 confirmed cases of the new coronavirus, all in quarantine. Israel has maintained a blockade of the enclave for more than a decade, saying the measure is necessary to stop weapons and funds from reaching its enemy Hamas, an Islamist group that runs Gaza. But Colonel Sharon Biton of COGAT, an Israeli defence ministry office that liaises with the Palestinians, said it was cooperating with “representatives of the international community” to maintain public health in Gaza. Israeli and Palestinian officials said that in addition to the testing kits, Israel has allowed a PCR machine into the territory. The equipment analyses testing samples to determine whether they contain the genetic fingerprint of the coronavirus. The machine was donated by a U.S.-based charity, Qidra said. “During the next week we aspire to be able to buy a good quantity of testing kits to bring into Gaza,” said Abdelnaser Soboh, director of the World Health Organization’s sub-office in the territory. Qidra said that on Monday, hundreds of Palestinians stranded outside Gaza will begin arriving home and would require tests. Upon arrival, they will be sent to quarantine facilities in the southern Gaza Strip for three weeks. Hamas has closed schools, mosques and wedding halls and banned large street gatherings in Gaza to try to stem contagion. It has not moved to impose a lockdown, saying the measure was not yet necessary.


Modified Pap tests can show early warning signs of other gynecological cancers

Explanation: This story by the LA Times covers a study of PapSeek, which is a new three-prong genetic test for Pap smear, inner-uterus smear, and blood samples. The test aims to detect endometrial and ovarian cancers, which typically aren’t found until they’re advanced, limiting effective treatments options and contributing to the lethality. The story takes care to note the shortfalls of the alternatives, and how an effective early-detection screening could help thousands of women per year in the US alone. However, the story falters in very important ways. There’s no mention that 27% of the study’s authors could benefit financially from the administration and sale of PapSeek tests, doesn’t appear to incorporate independent experts’ perspectives on the study and its significance, and skips over any discussion of costs or potential harms. Pap smears have slashed cervical cancer death rates by more than 60% since their inception in 1955, bringing the death rate to about 4,000 American women per year. But endometrial cancers kill roughly 10,000 women and ovarian cancer nearly 14,000 women per year — and there’s no widely accepted or effective screening method for early detection. This is especially important for ovarian cancer, as the lack of screening options have meant the numbers haven’t nudged much. Even if a screening test is not as sensitive as direct biopsies of cancerous tissues, any test at all for endometrial or ovarian cancers may catch more cases earlier, help patients begin treatment sooner, and see longer remissions and lifespan.

No costs are discussed, though the US National Library of Medicine says individual genetic tests “can range from under $100 to more than $2,000” — and PapSeek appears to use three genetic tests (on Pap smear, Tao brush, and blood tissues). The story explains how adding a genetic test to a routine (though uncomfortable) gynecological procedure for women — i.e. Pap smears — could help doctors catch endometrial and ovarian cancers at an early stage, for which there is not yet a standard test. The article also does a nice job showing how layer-caking genetic tests on other tissues (inner uterus and blood) can nearly double the detection rate of ovarian cancer, from 33% (Pap-smear genetic test) to 63% (a full PapSeek test), and improve endometrial cancer detection from 81% to 93%. This was a close call. On one hand, the story does address harms from false-positive tests: “Just as important, the tests were remarkably good at avoiding false-positive signals, which would needlessly alarm women and lead to riskier and more-invasive tests to confirm a diagnosis. For both types of cancer, the PapSeek test’s “specificity” — its ability to accurately recognize the absence of disease — approached 100%.” Yet the story glossed over the high false-negative rates and how a patient might (incorrectly) interpret a result — i.e. by testing negative, they may wrongly believe they do not have a uterine or ovarian cancer. The story describes the difference between test sensitivity (i.e. ability to detect a cancer) and specificity (i.e. ability to avoid false-positives), and explaining the significance of the data in those terms. It also lists the study’s sample size and describes how it was done in broad strokes, including how 656 of the 1,658 women who participated had ovarian or endometrial cancer. One shortfall is that it doesn’t dig into how small some of the sample sizes were for endometrial cancer (382) and ovarian cancer (245) — in a larger study population, the conclusions of this study may not hold up. It also doesn’t state how the tissues were blindly analyzed by the researchers. But the biggest limitation here is that this study uses already-confirmed cancer cases to test against. The story needed some caveats about how the accuracy may change when tested on a population of people where their cancer status is unknown. Cancers noted in this story are described as “killers” and “deadly.” Though most cancers are eventually lethal if untreated, the mortality rate of uterine cancer (and primarily endometrial cancer) is about 18.7% of women within five years of diagnosis; for ovarian cancer, the death rate within five years of diagnosis is far higher, around 53.5%. The story didn’t disease-monger, but it would have been stronger had it actually described burden of disease of the two cancers, though. For example, while ovarian cancer is more lethal, it’s also more rare. This is the story’s biggest shortcoming, as there are no independent sources, and it fails to note a number of significant financial conflicts of interest. The research funding appears to be spread among a number of foundations that wouldn’t necessarily profit from PapSeek tests. However, the “competing interests” section details how 10 of the 37 authors stand to profit from the genes and tests used, including through patents, royalties, and equity — including five of the six corresponding authors. Scientists having a financial stake in study is not uncommon, and doesn’t necessarily weaken a study’s results, but it should serve as a red flag to journalists to seek more outside expert opinions than normal. But the LA Times does not appear to have interviewed even one researcher not involved in the work, let alone without financial stakes in it. (Dr. Nickolas Papadopoulos, the only person quoted in the piece, is listed under several areas of stated competing interests in the study’s notes.) This information was easily found in the news release. The story describes standard Pap smear tests, adding that they do a “poor job” of detecting endometrial and ovarian cancer. Blood testing for cancer-related biomarkers, such as CA-125, is also noted as well as ultrasound tests of the uterus. The story also notes these are most commonly late-stage tests. The story doesn’t discuss if women can get this test — a vital piece of information for those with a high risk of endometrial or ovarian cancers. While individual parts of the PapSeek test are FDA-approved, e.g. Pap smears and Tao brushes, the PapSeek genetic analysis does not yet appear to be approved (though approval criteria for medical devices are not as strict as they are for medications). Also, there’s been a reduction in frequency of Pap testing in recent years. It’d be good to have a discussion of how implementing a new screening test in this environment muddies a message that’s already been disseminating about how frequently women should be getting pelvic exams and Pap smears (i.e., less often, with some stopping altogether after a certain age). How would a test like this have to work upstream to be reincorporated into gynecological screening? The story notes that Pap smears rely on using a microscope to hunt for cancer cells, whereas the newer methods described use genetic testing. The story also notes how ultrasound and genetic blood tests for uterine cancers typically are used only when symptoms arise — an advanced stage of the cancers — since the those tests “fail to detect many cancers, and also send up a lot of false alarms.” The article places extra emphasis on so-called “liquid biopsies,” saying thy “hold the promise of revolutionizing cancer screening” due to a lack of early screenings for these cancers. (That remains to be seen.) We didn’t detect any copy-pasted quotations from a Johns Hopkins Medicine news release, nor other obvious signs of reliance on a press release.


The number of Britons drinking to harmful levels has fallen sharply.

Explanation: 21% of adults aged 16+ in England reported to an NHS Digital survey that they usually drank more than the recommended 14 units of alcohol a week in 2017. This level has been falling since at least 2012.

One in five people are drinking too much alcohol. 21% of adults aged 16+ in England reported to an NHS Digital survey that they usually drank more than the recommended 14 units of alcohol a week in 2017. Alcohol deaths in England at record high after 6% rise in a year. Correct, in terms of deaths that are a direct result of alcohol misuse. However, the number of alcohol-specific deaths per 100,000 people has remained virtually the same over the last ten years. Claim 1 of 3


Law enforcement agencies recommend that people wash the handle on shopping carts before using them to avoid potential exposure to fentanyl.

Explanation: Because everything used to create this claim has later been walked back, we rank it as false.

As public health officials and politicians raise alarms over a growing opioid epidemic in the United States, concern over the potential for accidental contact with the extremely potent drug fentanyl have become a prominent fixture on the Internet. Illustrative of this point is a chain e-mail that has hit our inbox multiple times: You know when you go to Wal-Mart and they have the wipes to clean your cart handle? Well, I use them and always thought of the germs only. I read today that the police chief also suggests you do it also because of the dangerous side effects of drugs nowadays. If someone has Fentanyl still on their hands and they touch the cart you are touching, it can get into your system. Scary but worth taking the time to clean the handle. All you’d have to do to get it into your system is rub your nose or a mother touch her child’s mouth. I never even considered this happening but here in the tri-state area there have been officers exposed and even children exposed to the residue from the powder. There are two aspects of this story to note. The first is that the original claim has its origins in a Facebook post by the Leachville Police Department in Arkansas which they have now removed and apologized for. The second is that the ability for an overdose to occur through incidental skin contact is extremely unlikely. While it’s true that fentanyl can legally be prescribed in the United States in the form of a transdermal patch, which regulates a controlled release of the drug into the system via the skin, such a system is specifically engineered to penetrate the top layer of the skin. Much of the concern over accidental fentanyl contact, however, comes not from legally prescribed fentanyl, but black-market fentanyl in the form of a white powder. While the risk of overdose from this powder (which is potentially 80 times as potent as morphine and which can cause death in doses as low as 2 to 3 milligrams) via oral consumption is both acute and increasingly prevalent, experts have cast doubt on the reality of the risk of overdose from skin contact with this power or its residue. A high-profile incident in May 2017, in which a police officer potentially came into contact with fentanyl residue while searching a suspected drug dealers car in Ohio brought those fears to the forefront, was reported by NBC News at the time in the following way: Patrolman Chris Green of the East Liverpool Police Department had just finished searching the car of two suspected drug dealers and was back at the police station when another officer spotted some white powder on his shirt. […] Without thinking, he brushed it off with his bare hand — and passed out about an hour later […]. It took four doses of Narcan to revive him. However, experts later questioned this account. Jeremy Samuel Faust, an emergency medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School, wrote in a piece for Slate that while it is possible that Green inhaled or accidentally ingested the powder, he found the account of its effects to be dubious, at best: Neither fentanyl nor even its uber-potent cousin carfentanil (two of the most powerful opioids known to humanity) can cause clinically significant effects, let alone near-death experiences, from mere skin exposure. If Green’s story is true, it would be the first reported case of an overdose caused solely by unintentional skin contact with an opioid. In that same piece, Faust cites Ed Boyer, a medical toxicologist at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who explains how crucial the differences between the powder and the patch form of the drug are: Fentanyl, applied dry to the skin, will not be absorbed. There is a reason that the fentanyl patches took years [for pharmaceutical companies] to develop. Further confusion on this issue can be attributed to a June 2017 document from the Drug Enforcement Administration briefing first responders on the risk of fentanyl. That document makes numerous references to the risk of overdose from skin contact with powdered fentanyl, and at the time of that document’s release, this was also the position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. However, these organizations have since revised that stance due to lack of research on the topic, a position in agreement with a recent position statement by the American College of Medical Toxicology. As reported by Vice News: Stephanie Stevens, a spokesperson for the CDC and NIOSH, said the change was made after the agency’s staff determined “there was not enough evidence to validate the statement that dermal exposure to fentanyl is deadly.” Stevens noted that there is “limited research” on the subject, and said the CDC is “actively looking to study and better understand” the health risks of skin exposure to fentanyl. On [12 July 2017], the American College of Medical Toxicology issued a new position statement on the drug, stating that “incidental dermal absorption is unlikely to cause opioid toxicity.” It called the risk of first responders overdosing from touch alone “extremely low.” It should also be noted that the DEA briefing document from which the Leachville Police Department’s claim appears to have its origins also explicitly warns against using alcohol based sanitizers (which applies to shopping cart wipes) to remove fentanyl, for fear that this could make skin more susceptible to absorbing the drug: Do NOT use hand sanitizer. Hand sanitizers may contain alcohol, a skin penetrant, which may increase the absorption of fentanyl through the skin. Therefore, even if this document were based on the most recent science, the police departments interpretation of it would still be flawed. While accidental ingestion would in theory be a possibility, the scientific plausibility of overdose through skin contact alone has been called into question.


There were 3,700 drug-related deaths in England and Wales last year.

Explanation: Roughly correct, there were 3,756 registered in 2017. Around half of these will have happened in 2016 because of the time it takes to hold an inquest and then register the death.

There were nearly 1,000 drug-related deaths in Scotland last year. Correct, there were 934 registered in 2017. The UK has the highest death rate in the EU from drugs. Estonia had the highest rate of drug-related deaths per million people aged 15 to 64 in the EU, based on research using data from 2015 and 2016. The UK placed joint-third alongside Ireland. Scotland’s drug-related death rate is the highest in the EU. Correct if you compare Scotland to a league table of EU sovereign countries. This is based on a comparison of the drug-related death rate per million people aged 15 to 64 in 2015 and 2016. Claim 1 of 4


“Why did the state do that with COVID patients in nursing homes? It’s because the state followed President Trump’s CDC guidance.”

Explanation: The Cuomo administration issued an advisory March 25 that stated that nursing homes "must comply with the expedited receipt of residents” coming from hospitals, regardless of whether they are infected with the new coronavirus. The CDC warned nursing homes to keep COVID-19 out of their facilities and said nursing homes can admit coronavirus patients, but only if they are able to properly care for them. The Cuomo administration says that regulations that predate the pandemic require nursing homes to admit only those patients for which they can care. However, in the month following the March 25 advisory, nursing home operators felt that they had no choice but to accept these patients.

Public Health, New York, Coronavirus, Andrew Cuomo,

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, facing criticism for how the state handled COVID-19 in nursing homes, has said his administration followed guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Approximately 6,000 nursing home residents in New York have died from the virus, and Cuomo was asked on May 20 about calls for a federal probe into how the state handled nursing homes, and in particular, a March advisory that sent COVID-19 patients from hospitals to nursing homes. "I’m not going to get into the political back and forth, but anyone who wants to ask, why did the state do that with COVID patients in nursing homes? It’s because the state followed President Trump’s CDC guidance," Cuomo said. Is Cuomo correct? We looked at federal guidance at the time of the state's March 25 order, as well as other state Health Department actions at that time. Before the state Health Department sent its controversial March 25 advisory, which has since been withdrawn, the CDC released guidance for nursing homes. The CDC cited two "key factors" to consider when deciding whether to discharge a patient with COVID-19 to a long-term care facility, said Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson. First, is the patient medically ready for discharge to a long-term care facility? And second, is the selected long-term care facility able to safely care for a patient recovering from the virus by implementing all recommended infection control procedures? These directives were in place on or before March 23, two days before the state issued its advisory. One week before the state's advisory was released, the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Report looked at a facility in Washington State. The report’s authors recommended that "in the context of rapidly escalating COVID-19 outbreaks in much of the United States, it is critical that long-term care facilities implement active measures to prevent introduction of COVID-19." The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal regulator of nursing homes known as CMS, also issued COVID-19 guidance. The top administrator at CMS, Seema Verma, pushed back on Cuomo’s claim that the state followed federal guidance. She  cited a March 13 CMS document, which says that nursing homes should only accept those patients for which they can care. The CMS memo also states: "Per CDC, prompt detection, triage and isolation of potentially infectious residents are essential to prevent unnecessary exposures among residents, healthcare personnel, and visitors at the facility. Therefore, facilities should continue to be vigilant in identifying any possible infected individuals." It was a week after the Cuomo order, on April 2, that the CMS said new long-term care patients and residents "should be screened for COVID-19 through testing, if available." CMS guidance also states that if possible, nursing homes should dedicate a unit or wing exclusively to residents returning from the hospital, where they can remain for 14 days without symptoms. The state was clear about why it issued its March 25 advisory to nursing home administrators, directors of nursing and hospital discharge planners: There was an "urgent need" to free up space in hospitals for seriously ill coronavirus patients. The advisory said all nursing homes "must comply with the expedited receipt of residents returning from hospitals to" nursing homes, and that hospitals must declare residents medically stable before they are sent back to the nursing homes. The next directive, where "NH" is "nursing home" (emphasis by the Department of Health): "No resident shall be denied re-admission or admission to the NH solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19. NHs are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission." It also stated: "As always, standard precautions must be maintained, and environmental cleaning made a priority, during this public health emergency." In other communications in March, the state told nursing homes to isolate infected residents in their rooms or to consider grouping them in a dedicated unit, as well as to stay current with CDC guidelines in preventing the spread of the disease. To support Cuomo’s claim, the administration pointed us to longstanding state and federal regulations that predate the pandemic, which require nursing homes to only accept patients for which they can care. "This is business in a nursing home: Take them if you can care for them," said state Department of Health spokesperson Gary Holmes. Holmes also pointed us to the March 13 CMS memo, which states that when a resident who was diagnosed with COVID-19 is coming from a hospital, nursing homes "can accept" them, as long as the facility can follow CDC infection control measures. The CMS memo also states: "Nursing homes should admit any individuals that they would normally admit to their facility, including individuals from hospitals where a case of COVID-19 was/is present." Nursing homes felt pressure to accept coronavirus patients following the March 25 order. The AMDA-Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine issued a statement on March 26 opposing the order: "We find the New York State Advisory to be over-reaching, not consistent with science, unenforceable, and beyond all, not in the least consistent with patient safety principles." A joint statement by that organization and others in long-term care three days later reinforced their objections: "a blanket order for every nursing home in the state to accept all admissions from hospitals is not sound policy." On April 9, the head of a Brooklyn nursing home asked state health officials if COVID-19 patients could be transfered to the Javits Center or the Navy hospital ship, and was denied permission, the Associated Press reported. In late April, when reporters questioned Cuomo about the directive that nursing homes accept coronavirus patients, Cuomo repeatedly said that nursing homes should find other beds for these patients if they cannot care for them, or turn to the state to do so. He also said that the facilities "don’t have the right to object" to the state’s policy. On April 23, State Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker said no nursing home had asked the state to take any patients it couldn’t handle. On April 29, after the state's policy had been under intense scrutiny, Zucker wrote a letter to nursing homes, telling them to alert the state if they have patients for which they cannot care. In recent weeks, three facilities have asked the state for help, Holmes said. The March 25 advisory has been removed from the state website, and the state’s directive to nursing homes is now much different. Cuomo issued an executive order on May 10, which states that hospitals "shall not discharge a patient to a nursing home, unless the nursing home operator or administrator has first certified that it is able to properly care for such a patient." The order also requires that a patient must be tested for COVID-19, and the test must be negative. Though the state's actions have been criticized, it’s unclear what was the biggest source of infection in nursing homes, whether it was incoming residents, or health care workers and visitors unaware they had the virus. The CDC's guidance at the time of the March 25 state order was that COVID-19 patients who are medically stable can be discharged from a hospital to a nursing home, but only if the nursing home can implement all recommended infection control procedures. CMS, a federal agency that regulates nursing homes, issued similar guidance, and also said that preferably, coronoavirus patients should be cared for in a dedicated unit. Like CDC and CMS, the state Health Department said only those patients who are medically stable can be discharged, and also recommended that nursing homes consider dedicated units, if possible. The Health Department prohibited nursing homes from requiring a COVID-19 test before admitting a resident, while CMS said new residents should be tested, but did not require it. The Cuomo administration points to state and federal regulations that predate the pandemic, which require facilities to accept only those patients they can care for. In addition, earlier state communications encouraged nursing homes to stay current with CDC guidance. But once the state issued its March 25 advisory, nursing home operators said that they felt they had no choice but to accept residents who were either known to be infected or suspected to be. That’s because the March 25 memo did not say anything about making sure that a nursing home can care for a patient before making an admission decision, and said they "must comply with the expedited receipt of residents." In the month following the memo, nursing homes pleaded for relief from the order.


The state of New York has passed a bill legalizing abortion up to birth.

Explanation: What's true: The New York state legislature passed a law allowing abortions after 24 weeks if the mother's health is at risk or there is an absence of fetal viability. What's false: The law does not allow for unrestricted abortion up through the normal term of pregnancy.

One of the fears of pro-choice advocates is that a conservative-majority Supreme Court might someday accept a case challenging the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, overturning it in part or in whole. Should that happen, the legality of abortion would once again be governed on a state-by-state basis, with states potentially choosing to maintain the status quo under Roe v. Wade, ban abortion entirely, or impose various restrictions on it. In anticipation of that possibility, in January 2019 the state of New York enacted the Reproductive Health Act (RHA) to bring state laws in line with current federal law guaranteeing abortion rights, and to preserve access to abortion services should Roe v. Wade be overturned. In a nutshell, the RHA does three things: 1)  It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk. 2)  It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants. 3)  It removes abortion from the criminal code and places it entirely within the realm of public health law. Performing a late-term abortion had previously been a felony in New York, which as the Syracuse Post-Standard observed, “had a chilling effect on doctors in New York who were reluctant to provide abortions after 24 weeks when the mother’s life was in danger or the fetus was no longer viable. In a widely reported case, one New York woman had to travel to Colorado to terminate her pregnancy when she found out after 31 weeks that the baby she was carrying would not survive outside the womb.” The enactment of the RHA was characterized by some pro-life outlets, such as the website LifeNews as “a radical pro-abortion bill that would allow unborn babies to be aborted for basically any reason up to birth.”   How did such outlets arrive at that characterization? The RHA states that “A health care practitioner, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” Pro-life critics contended that provision would essentially “authorize abortion up until the moment of birth” because its health exception might be broadly interpreted beyond just issues of physical health:  Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother’s life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a “health” exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of “health” that normally comes to mind. Pro-choice advocates, on the other hand, contended that such assertions were based on unrealistic, extreme interpretations of the law:  This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don’t want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures? A Democratic-led New York state legislature passed the Reproductive Health Care Act by a margin of 38 to 24, and Governor Andrew Cuomo  signed it into law on 22 January 2019. Although LifeNews reported that the Reproductive Healthcare Act “redefines a ‘person’ as ‘a human being who has been born and is alive,'” and describes abortion as a “fundamental right,” that change applies to language in the penal code, as the new legislation now regulates abortion as part of public health law instead of criminal law in New York.


Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in 2018 that a woman could not win a presidential election.

Explanation: Did Bernie Sanders Tell Elizabeth Warren a Woman Couldn’t Win a Presidential Election?

On January 13 2020, CNN published an article with the headline, “Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in private 2018 meeting that a woman can’t win, sources say.” It began:The stakes were high when Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren met at Warren’s apartment in Washington, DC, one evening in December 2018. The longtime friends knew that they could soon be running against each other for president.The two agreed that if they ultimately faced each other as presidential candidates, they should remain civil and avoid attacking one another, so as not to hurt the progressive movement. They also discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump, and Warren laid out two main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate: She could make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters.Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win.Immediately thereafter, the article noted the claim was secondhand and attributed to several sources. CNN indicated “four people” provided accounts to the network for their reporting, none of whom could attest to witnessing the encounter.Two of the people interviewed by CNN claimed to have spoken to Warren “soon” after the encounter. The second two were nebulously “familiar with the meeting,” possibly having obtained their information from the first two. It was not clear how the second two bolstered the credibility of the first two, as none of the four were present for or heard the supposed conversation:The description of that meeting is based on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting.In an apparent update to the story (not clearly marked), both Warren and Sanders are quoted responding to the allegation. Warren paraphrased Sanders, and Sanders denied saying that a woman couldn’t be elected. Sanders also pointed out that Hillary Clinton received over three million more votes than President Trump in 2016:After publication of this story, Warren herself backed up this account of the meeting, saying in part in a statement [on January 13 2020], “I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.”That evening in 2018, Sanders expressed frustration at what he saw as a growing focus among Democrats on identity politics, according to one of the people familiar with the conversation. Warren told Sanders she disagreed with his assessment that a woman could not win, three of the four sources said.Sanders denied the characterization of the meeting in a statement to CNN.“It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn’t win,” Sanders said. “It’s sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren’t in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.”CNN’s publication of the claim just ahead of the January 14 2020 debate was predictably divisive, leading to heated discourse on and off social media. Among ancillary claims around the discussion was one that Sanders’ campaign held a “Bern the Witch” event in 2016 and circulated an image of Hillary Clinton burning at the stake. We examined that claim here, finding that it was partly false and partly misleading.Social media users emphasized that the number of sources (four) was secondary to the relevance of their claims; none were present for the purported conversation:None of the sources were in the meeting.How can CNN publish this? https://t.co/mS2cDQcFgB— Emma Vigeland (@EmmaVigeland) January 13, 2020direct denial from the accused source and a "no comment" from the camp it comes from… four anonymous sources, none of whom were in the room… haven't been an editor in a while but that's gonna be a "yikes, let's hold this" from me https://t.co/bILlzcCLrn— Jack Crosbie (@jscros) January 13, 2020The claim was aggregated by outlets like the New York Times, citing CNN as a source:Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in a private meeting that a woman could not be elected president, according to people familiar with the conversation. He has denied making the remark. https://t.co/UxYvQbSCoJ— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) January 13, 2020Others maintained that Sanders had suggested U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign would employ “sexist tactics,” not that a woman was unable to win:Two interesting details from Washington Post's version of the Sanders/Warren story.1) They have a source w/knowledge of the convo saying Sanders did not deny woman could win2) Two people say Warren is one who broached question https://t.co/ovPoneZgdR pic.twitter.com/2kGvdG81sS— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) January 14, 2020I hate to break hearts but how about neither Bernie or Warren are lying. His comment likely had a particular context, and she heard it in a particular way. This is literally how human interaction often works when people end up with misunderstandings.— rabia O'chaudry (@rabiasquared) January 15, 2020Another common commentary involved the plausibility of any politician making such a remark:If Bernie Sanders said anything remotely close to “a woman can’t beat Donald Trump in 2020” in a conversation with Elizabeth Warren, he’s the dumbest person on the face of the earth.I just struggle to believe that’s the case.— Christopher J. Hale (@chrisjollyhale) January 14, 2020People also pointed out that Sanders attempted to “draft Warren” in 2016, running only when she declined to accept:Bernie Sanders tried to get Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016. He clearly, obviously thinks a woman can win the presidency. He TRIED TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.— John Iadarola (@johniadarola) January 13, 2020Before the debate, two clips of Sanders speaking in 1987 and 1988 circulated. In the earlier video, Sanders tells a classroom of schoolchildren that women can and should be involved in electoral politics. In the second, Sanders said “a woman could be elected president”:“In my view a woman could be elected president of the United States.” — Bernie Sanders, 1988 pic.twitter.com/WJd847DdmA— Meagan Day (@meaganmday) January 13, 2020A January 14 2020 BuzzFeed report about the pre-debate controversy published before the debate aired obtained direct messages from Warren staffers on Twitter. BuzzFeed said the staffer’s characterization of the conversation “hewed closer” to Sanders’ version than Warren’s, but the organization did not share the entire conversation:“I would be careful with the ‘sexism’ angle when it comes to the Bernie/Warren exchange individually — that’s not what this is about and I think it’ll be really bad news for us if that becomes what this is about (i.e. press asking her if she thinks Bernie is sexist),” the staffer told the group. “Is that what this is about broadly? Absolutely. But no one here is actually claiming Bernie himself is sexist (regardless of your own personal beliefs on that topic).”[…]At one point in a lengthy DM to the Twitter group on Tuesday morning, the Warren staffer’s description of the controversy hewed closer to Sanders’s description than Warren’s. “Claiming you’re worried a woman can’t win/flagging that she’ll receive sexist attacks is something many, many people feel,” the campaign official wrote.As noted in our earlier fact check, CNN moderators raised the question to first Sanders and then Warren during the January 14 2020 debate:Sen. Sanders denies telling Sen. Warren in 2018 that a woman couldn’t be elected President.“Well as a matter of fact I didn’t say it, and I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time on this because this is what Donald Trump… would want.” https://t.co/4dWmzu2vWF #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/Lt9Y8n2SaP— CNN (@CNN) January 15, 2020Moderators did not address the secondhand sourcing of the question. Sanders responded:MODERATOR: Let’s now turn to — let’s now turn to an issue that’s come up in the last 48 hours. Sen. Sanders, CNN reported yesterday that — and Sen. Sanders, Sen. Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?SANDERS: Well, as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it. And I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want. Anybody knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States.Go to YouTube today. There’s a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States. In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Sen. Warren. There was a movement to draft Sen. Warren to run for president. And you know what, I said — stayed back. Sen. Warren decided not to run, and I then — I did run afterwards.Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States? And let me be very clear. If any of the women on this stage or any of the men on this stage win the nomination, I hope that’s not the case, I hope it’s me. (LAUGHTER)But if they do, I will do everything in my power to make sure that they are elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country. (APPLAUSE)MODERATOR: So Sen. Sanders — Sen. Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman could not win the election?SANDERS: That is correct.After Sanders said “that is correct,” the same moderator asked Warren what she thought “when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election”:[MODERATOR]: Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election? (LAUGHTER)WARREN: I disagreed. Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie. But, look, this question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised, and it’s time for us to attack it head-on.Although the juxtaposition of Sanders’ answer and the moderator’s next question caused laughter in the Des Moines crowd, the moment caused further irritation on social media. On January 15 2020, three of the top posts on Reddit’s r/all (in r/politics) were about that moment, and two referenced the trending hashtag #CNNisTrash:‘CNN Is Truly a Terrible Influence on This Country’: Democratic Debate Moderators Pilloried for Centrist Talking Points and Anti-Sanders Bias from politics#CNNisTrash trending after Dem. debate for biased questions against Bernie Sanders from politicsThe third involved the 1988 video seemingly conflicting with Sanders’ supposed statement:Video emerges of Sanders saying in 1988 a woman could be elected president from politicsThat thread’s top comment referenced Sanders’ attempts to draft Warren to run in 2015:Not long after the debate, commentator Jess McIntosh claimed that Warren’s assertion was not a “he said/she said” debate, as it was reported out:“I think what Bernie forgot is that this *isn’t* a he said she said story, this is a reported out story that CNN was part of breaking…”(WTF!?!) pic.twitter.com/e1DNhQXFMf— wideofthepost (@wideofthepost) January 15, 2020Anderson Cooper interjected to point out that none of CNN’s sources were present for the purported conversation between Sanders and Warren. As such, Cooper said, the claim was, in fact, a “he said/she said” scenario. Twitter users noted that McIntosh was a Clinton campaign staffer not long after the segment aired; McIntosh was apparently identified before the debate, but not during the post-debate panel discussion:Naturally, the @CNN paid political analyst who insisted the Warren claim about Sanders was "reported out" and not she said/he said was @jess_mc. CNN will never tell viewers her background. But I will. Jess McIntosh was a communications director in '16 for Hillary Clinton. https://t.co/Mj6aXzMhx7— David Shuster (@DavidShuster) January 15, 2020That portion of the post-debate panel led to discussion of whether the phrase “reported out” had a firm meaning; McIntosh used that particular wording on Twitter during the debate:What does “reported out” mean https://t.co/AO9mk7QjG0— jack allison (@jackallisonLOL) January 15, 2020“Reported out” is not a thing. A story based on anonymous indirect sources is gossip, period.— Medium Dark Gently (@DarkGently) January 15, 2020It’s not a “he said/she said” story. It was reported out by politico. And Elizabeth Warren confirmed it. And do we know they were the only two in the room? They could easily have had assistants with them.— Lisa Glass (@LMplusG) January 15, 2020This is exactly like the “debate” about whether Warren was really fired for being pregnant. There are people who believe the woman *and the reported out story* and WAY FEWER people who just don’t want to.— jess mcintosh (@jess_mc) January 15, 2020To recap, a day before CNN aired the January 14 2020 debate, the network’s website carried a piece titled “Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in private 2018 meeting that a woman can’t win, sources say”; social media users engaged in intense debate over the claim’s veracity. During the debate, a moderator asked Sanders if the claim was true and he denied it, and the same moderator immediately reiterated the claim as if it were independently verified. CNN cited four sources, two of whom heard the story secondhand, and the other two being further from it. Sanders maintained he told Warren the Trump campaign would engage in sexist attacks, and Warren paraphrased his comments as a “woman can’t win.” The only verified element of the 2018 conversation is that Warren and Sanders met to discuss their respective runs. Sanders maintained he did not say a woman could not be elected president, and Warren said he did. Ultimately, the claim was hearsay based on statements made by people not party to the conversation.However, the way these claims are already being used to create new divides and exacerbate existing issues leads us to believe that the issue is being used as corrosive disinformation regardless of its veracity.


The Obama administration gave Iran "$400 million in ransom payment cash.

National, Foreign Policy, Nuclear, Terrorism, Donald Trump,

Back in January, Iran released five American prisoners back to the United States. On the same day, the United States transferred $400 million in cash to Iran, holding onto the money until three of the freed Americans were in the air, on their way home. Some critics of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy -- including Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump -- are putting the two happenings together and calling it a "ransom" payment. The administration denies that characterization. "Iran, the world's top state sponsor of terrorism, has been put on the path to nuclear weapons, was given $400 million in ransom payment cash, where they just yesterday caught Obama in yet another lie," Trump said in an Aug. 21 speech in Michigan. While some in the national security community might consider the transaction unsavory, ineffectual, or legally questionable, calling it "ransom" isn’t quite accurate. The word "ransom" implies that Iran refused to release the prisoners unless the United States turned over $400 million of its own money to Iran, and American officials capitulated. In reality, the United States owed Iran $400 million as part of a longstanding dispute, and negotiators used that pending settlement as leverage to release the detained Americans. Experts said this kind of exchange is standard issue in U.S.-Iran relations over the past few decades. The important but subtle nuance is this: While settling the $400 million helped ensure that the prisoners got home, it wasn’t an illicit payment. Iran, according to the claim adjudicators, had a legitimate right to the money. ‘Business as usual’ In 1979, Iran’s then-monarch Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi paid $400 million to the United States government to purchase military parts. But that year’s revolution toppled the shah, and the military parts were never delivered. To regain its funds, Iran filed a claim against the United States in 1981 in the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, which adjudicates disputes between the two nations. The body, located at the Hague, was established amid negotiations to end the 1979-81 Iran hostage crisis, in which pro-revolution students took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran. The tribunal's first priority was to address claims from private individuals, including 4,700 now-resolved U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran. Over the past several years, the tribunal has focused more of its attention on claims the two governments have made against each other, including this dispute over the $400 million weapons deal. The State Department announced its settlement in the dispute — the United States would pay Iran $400 million plus $1.3 billion in interest — on Jan. 17, the same day Obama announced the return of the Americans detained in Iran, as well as the formal implementation of the nuclear deal. The first installment of the settlement was also transferred that day, via an unmarked cargo plane, as first reported by the Wall Street Journal in early August. The administration paid the funds using various European currencies because U.S. law bars financial transactions with Iran in U.S. dollars, and Iran’s access to banking is limited because of international sanctions. The administration has explained that the $400 million settlement and the prisoner release were negotiated in separate channels and coincidentally reached their resolutions near the same time. Negotiators took advantage of the convergence in order to ensure that Iran returned the prisoners by withholding the payment until the American detainees were in the air and headed out of Iran. "While there is no connection between the $400 million and the return of our American citizens, we did, however, in those endgame hours, hold back that payment until we knew that our Americans were safe and sound and on their way out of Iran, because, in the very last few hours, Iran was playing a few games here on us," said State Department spokesman John Kirby in an Aug. 19 PBS interview. We may never truly know how intertwined these two negotiation channels were, but two experts personally familiar with the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal told us that the administration’s explanation is plausible. "As for the timing of this particular settlement, the Obama administration’s account is entirely consistent with my experience," said Nancy Combs, who was a legal adviser to the tribunal until becoming a professor at William and Mary Law School in 2004. Combs said this particular claim was massive in size, complexity and value, so it is likely that lawyers had been working on this case prior to and separate from the prisoner issue, as well as the nuclear deal talks. Given that these cases are hashed out by career lawyers over many years, it’s likely that the lawyers approached the administration with the news that they were in a position to settle, as opposed to the administration directing them to settle, said John Bellinger, who served as the State Department’s chief legal adviser under President George W. Bush. (Bellinger has publicly opposed Trump.) "I suspect that these two negotiations, the claims settlement and detained persons, were completely separate and happened to come together at the same time," Bellinger added. "I don’t think it’s appropriate to call this ransom, and the intent of the money was not to gain the return of these detainees." We should note that some have pointed out an article Bellinger wrote for the Washington Post in 2009, in which he seemed to say the tribunal had already dismissed this claim. Bellinger told us that it is his understanding that the January 2016 settlement involved a different dispute. We talked to five people who study national security and Iran. The only one willing to call the payment "ransom" was Clare Lopez,  vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy, a right-leaning think tank. Lopez has called the broader Iran deal unconstitutional and has written for conservative websites. "There's simply no other way to call an unmarked cargo plane delivery of pallets of shrink-wrapped European currency in the middle of the night to the foremost state sponsor of terror in the world that remains under U.S. financial sanctions for terrorism," Lopez said. The majority of experts said the ransom label was inaccurate. "In no sense can this payment be considered ransom," Combs said. "A ransom is a payment made to secure the release of a detained person. This sum, by contrast, was made to satisfy a legitimate debt that the U.S. owed to Iran." Gary Samore, executive director for research at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and a former White House coordinator for arms control and weapons of mass destruction under Obama, said it's not "technically ransom in that the money that was returned was Iran’s money." Samore said he was not surprised by the exchange because there’s a history of using financial tools to settle deals with Iran. He specifically noted that in 2011, the nation of Oman paid Iran $1 million on the United States’ behalf for the release of two American hikers who had been jailed in Iran for two years. "It’s business as usual," he said. "I don’t think the Iranians are going to release prisoners if they don’t get something." Our ruling Trump said the Obama administration gave Iran "$400 million in ransom payment cash." On the same day in January, the United States paid Iran $400 million dollars, and Iran released several American prisoners. While there appears to be a quid pro quo — the United States would not give Iran the cash until the prisoners were on their way home — this does not equate to ransom, experts told us. Iran had a legitimate claim to the money, as the United States owed it to Iran as part of a resolution to a decades-long financial dispute. It’s unclear whether the prisoner and financial disputes were connected in just the final hours of the prisoner transfer or if there was more advance coordination. Trump’s statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it .


Obamacare will provide coverage for abortions, despite the president’s commitment that it would not.

Explanation: Karen Handel lays out case against Obama, others in new book

In her new book, former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel said she was the target of a left-wing conspiracy that cost Handel her job last year at Susan G. Komen for the Cure, one of the nation’s leading breast cancer prevention organizations. The main conspirators, Handel wrote, were top officials at Planned Parenthood, who blamed her for Komen’s plans to end funding to their organization. She also claimed the White House was a co-conspirator for a few reasons, such as Handel’s claim that Planned Parenthood’s political arm is a major fundraising source for the Democratic Party. The book, "Planned Bullyhood," lays out Handel’s case, including a claim PolitiFact Georgia found interesting. Handel wrote that Planned Parenthood will receive millions of dollars in grants under the federal government’s health care law, which conservatives derisively call "Obamacare." "[M]ost disturbing, is the fact that Obamacare will provide coverage for abortions, despite the president’s commitment that it would not," Handel, a Republican, wrote on page 161 of the book. "Under a rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, insurance plans within the state health exchanges are required to cover abortions," wrote Handel, the former chairwoman of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, who narrowly lost the GOP gubernatorial runoff in 2010. Handel resigned her position as vice president of policy at Komen earlier this year. Handel’s statement contained two claims we wanted to fact-check: Does the health care law provide a means for coverage for abortions, and does the law provide such coverage despite President Barack Obama’s commitment that it would not? Handel surrogates sent us several documents to support her claim. A National Right to Life official also sent us materials on her behalf to argue her statement is accurate. "I think the gist of what she’s saying is correct," said Douglas Johnson, the Washington-based organization’s legislative director. A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services weblink, though, contradicts Handel’s claim that the law provides coverage for abortions. It says the health care law does not pay for abortions, citing a decades-old federal policy called the Hyde Amendment. Obama signed an executive order in the health care law including language from the amendment stating "federal funds are not used for abortion services [except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered]." If a state chooses to, it can use its own funds to cover abortions in certain other circumstances, and states will continue to have this option under the health care law. The health care law creates exchanges: new organizations designed to create a more organized and competitive market for buying health insurance. Starting in 2014, exchanges will serve primarily individuals buying insurance on their own and small businesses with up to 100 employees, though states can choose to include larger employers in the future. So, can women get abortions through the exchanges? It depends. State governments can restrict insurance coverage for abortion in the health care exchanges. Some states have already made plans to do so. "That’s about the only positive thing that came out of [the health care law]," Johnson said. If the state does not bar coverage of abortions, private insurers can offer a plan that covers abortions beyond the federal limitations within an exchange. No private insurer will be forced to cover abortion, our partners at PolitiFact have noted. The health care law outlines a methodology for states to follow to ensure that no federal funds are used toward coverage for abortions beyond the Hyde Amendment. Any plan that covers abortions beyond Hyde limitations must estimate the actuarial value of such coverage by taking into account the cost of the abortion benefit (valued at $1 or more per enrollee per month). "Before choosing a health plan, consumers will know whether the plan covers these services," Erin Shields, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, was quoted as saying in The Huffington Post. "And if it does, payments will be made into a separate account to ensure no federal dollars fund these services." Handel has a different description of how this works. "The new rule requires that an individual enrolled in one of these plans pay a separate fee of at least one dollar — an abortion surcharge. The abortion surcharge is paid directly to the abortion fund, going to an account that is separate from the monthly insurance premium. Why two separate accounts? It’s the Obama administration’s cunning and deceptive way to circumvent the prohibition of federal funds going to abortion — and no doubt, Planned Parenthood," she wrote. Johnson said he and other organizations agree with Handel’s interpretation of this funding provision. As for whether the president had committed to prohibiting abortion coverage in the health care law, that part is clearer. PolitiFact reported that Obama told some conservative Democrats in Congress uneasy about voting for the health care law "there will be no public funding of abortion in this legislation." He also signed an executive order on March 24, 2010, that "federal funds are not used for abortion services [except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered]." Several leading abortion rights organizations were disappointed with the plan to include the Hyde Amendment into the health care law. Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, put out a statement opposing the deal. "Planned Parenthood strongly opposes the new abortion language offered by Senator Ben Nelson in the manager's amendment," she said. "[I]t is a sad day when women’s health is traded away for one vote." Obama did say and signed an executive order that committed to no federal funding for abortion in the health care law. Handel’s claim that the law will provide coverage for abortions could have been made more precisely. States can bar all plans participating in the state exchanges from covering abortions. That’s not mentioned in Handel’s book. Basically, abortions can be performed under the health care law, depending on which state you reside in. Because that bit of detail was not mentioned.


Explanation: Fabric and medical face masks should not affect breathing and the NHS says they are safe for anyone over the age of three who can manage them correctly. Certain types of masks called respirators can affect gas exchange, but can still be safely worn for several hours in a row in healthcare environments. There’s no evidence masks harm the immune system.

You cannot catch Covid-19 from touching surfaces. Viruses are dead material expelled from healing cells. Everyone has thousands of viruses inside their body. There is debate about whether viruses are technically alive. The human body does contain a number of viruses that don’t do harm. Covid-19 is caused by a virus that is potentially very harmful though. Masks decrease oxygen intake, increase carbon dioxide intake, increase toxin intake, increase stress levels which directly impacts the immune system in a negative way making us more susceptible to illness. Claim 1 of 4