Texas: Evangelical women’s health group owes state $1.5M.

Explanation: An anti-abortion group that has come under fire for failing to fulfill its promise to provide health services to thousands of low-income Texas women owes the state more than $1.5 million for reimbursement payments that were either inflated or that the state shouldn’t have paid at all, according to state investigators.

Legislature, General News, Abortion, Womens health, U.S. News, Texas

The office of the health inspector general announced Thursday that it had uncovered “serious contractual violations” and was expanding its probe of the Heidi Group, an evangelical nonprofit that started promoting alternatives to abortion in the 1990s, the Houston Chronicle reported. It was founded by Carol Everett, an influential conservative activist in the Texas Legislature, which has passed some of the country’s toughest anti-abortion laws in recent years. A copy of the investigation report obtained by the newspaper shows that forensic accountants found the group had paid medical providers hundreds of thousands in extra fees, had overspent on payroll and fringe benefits, and had expensed thousands of dollars in prohibited costs on things such as food, gift cards, clothing and retail membership fees. The inquiry covered a seven-month period, from September 2017 to March 2018. “It’s a travesty when you look at all the women who should have been receiving services and were not because of this,” said state Rep. Donna Howard. “We’re talking about women who don’t have means to afford health care like many of us do.” Texas hired the group in 2016 to help strengthen small clinics that specialize in women’s health but do not offer abortions after Republican lawmakers cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Initially, the Health and Human Services Commission gave the Heidi Group $6.7 million, despite apprehensions because the group hadn’t previously contracted with the state and had no experience serving women in clinical settings. An Associated Press investigation found that the group came nowhere close to meeting its promise to serve 50,000 women. When the group’s clinics started falling short of their goals, officials were slow to move money to higher performing providers. Representatives for the Heidi Group swiftly disputed the findings, contending that the payments had been permitted and budgeted from the start by the Health and Human Services Commission. “Everything we did was according to the contract,” CEO Carol Everett said. Last year, Texas canceled millions of dollars in troubled contracts with the organization. ___ Information from: Houston Chronicle, http://www.houstonchronicle.com


Explanation: This story notes that using growth hormone to counteract the effects of aging is controversial and that it is not FDA approved for this use, yet the story mentions growth hormone is available in “anti-aging” clinics. The term ‘anti-aging’ is a misnomer, as there are no proven medical interventions to stop or reverse the process of aging. Federal law states that distributing or administering human growth hormone for age-related health problems or for cosmetic use is illegal. Growth hormone is currently only approved for adults with Growth Hormone Deficiency (GHD) and for children with pituitary disorders. The promotion of growth hormone to counteract the effects of aging, namely a decline in physical functioning, is not new; however, the benefit of this use has not been established and the long-term safety is unknown. In this randomized controlled study, an increase in physical functioning was reported in the growth hormone group, but we are not told the degree of this benefit, or if the difference in functioning (measured by improved balance, climbing stairs and heel-to-toe walking) between this group and the placebo group was statistically significant. This story notes that diet and exercise are preferred methods of prevention for staying healthy and functional as we age. However, the story focuses on the notion that normal physical decline involved with aging needs to be counteracted with a pill, such as growth hormone. The natural decline in growth hormones with age may actually be protective. The comparison of prescription eye-glasses for older adults with taking growth hormone to improve physical functioning is unfounded and qualifies as disease mongering. Eyeglasses are an intervention to improve a manifestation of aging, i.e. degenerating eyesight, and glasses pose few (if any) risks to physical health. Growth hormone may pose serious risks to the endocrine and cardiovascular systems, and long-term use may actually reduce longevity by increasing the risk of prostate cancer in older men. The only sources of information appear to be researchers who presented their work at a scientific meeting. (There can be problems with such reporting. See “Media reporting on research presented at scientific meetings: more caution needed,” at: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/184_11_050606/wol10024_fm.html) The story does note that the study was sponsored by Pfizer, maker of the growth hormone drug capromorelin, but there is no independent reporting or corroboration with sources not affiliated with the study.

The story does not provide the cost of growth hormone for the purpose of improved physical functioning in the elderly. The story mentions there was an increase in physical functioning in the growth hormone group, but we are not told how much they improved in physical functioning or increased muscle mass. How big was the benefit? Was it statistically significant? And, more important, was it clinically significant for these people? The story mentions that further study of growth hormone in otherwise healthy older adults is needed due to a lack of safety information, however none of the potential harms are mentioned. We do not know the long-term effects of growth hormone in older adults; however, it may pose an increased risk of prostate cancer for older men and decrease longevity (Vance, M. L. (2003). Can growth hormone prevent aging? N Engl J Med, 348(9), 779-780.). The story briefly mentions the study design: randomization of men and women ages 65-84 to either growth hormone or placebo. The story does not mention how long the participants took the growth hormone, what their functioning was at baseline when they enterred into the study, the incidence of any side effects of the drug compared to placebo, or the degree of benefit achieved from the drug. There was an increase in physical functioning, but how much, and was the difference statistically significant? While the story notes that diet and exercise are preferred methods of prevention for staying healthy and functional as we age, the story focuses on the notion that normal physical decline involved with aging needs to be counteracted with a pill, such as growth hormone. The natural decline in growth hormones may actually be protective. Also, the term ‘anti-aging’ is a misnomer, as there is no proven medical intervention to stop or reverse the process of aging. The comparison of prescription eye-glasses to improve eyesight in older adults with taking growth hormone to increase muscle mass and improve physical functioning is unfounded. Eyeglasses are an intervention to improve a manifestion of aging, i.e. reduced eyesight, and glasses pose few (if any) risks to physical health. Growth hormone may pose serious risks to the endocrine system, and possibly the cardiovascular system, and long-term use may increase the risk of some cancers in older adults. The only sources of information appear to be researchers who presented their work at a scientific meeting. (There can be problems with such reporting. See “Media reporting on research presented at scientific meetings: more caution needed,” at: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/184_11_050606/wol10024_fm.html) The story does mention that the study was sponsored by Pfizer, maker of the growth hormone drug capromorelin. Diet and exercise are mentioned as preferred means of counteracting some of the effects of aging, such as muscle loss and health problems of a sedentary lifestyle. The study mentions improved functioning (increased balance, heel-to-toe walking and stair climbing) with growth hormone, but a comparison of growth hormone with a structured exercise program for older adults is not mentioned. The story notes that growth hormone to counteract the effects of aging is controversial and it is not FDA approved for this use. However, the story also subtly suggests it is available for non-approved use. “Anti-aging” clinics may administer growth hormone, but federal law states that distributing or administering human growth hormone for age-related health problems or for cosmetic use is illegal. Growth hormone is currently only approved for adults with Growth Hormone Deficiency (GHD) and for children with pituitary disorders. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists does not recommend growth hormone to prevent age-related muscle loss in otherwise healthy adults, due to a lack of information on long-term safety: http://www.aace.com/pub/pdf/guidelines/hgh.pdf Promoting growth hormone to counteract the effects of aging, namely physical functioning, is not new. However, the benefit of this has not been established and safety of growth hormone for this use in older adults in unknown. The story does note that this study does not represent a breakthrough in preventing age-related decline in physical or cognitive functioning. We can’t be sure if the story relied largely on information from a news release, although much of the material in the story appears in a University of Pittsburgh news release at the time of The International Congress of Neuroendocrinology, where the research was presented.


“Clean coal technology” currently makes coal a clean source of energy and helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Explanation: Regardless of one’s view on the philosophical debate about spending money to clean a technology we may begrudgingly have to use for years to come, the fact is that currently, so-called “clean coal” technology can for now do nothing to reduce carbon emissions on any appreciable or significant scale.

“Clean coal, ”a broad term for technology that can reduce the environmental impact of burning coal, has become a popular political buzzword in the past two U.S. presidential campaigns. To those who promote it, clean coal is a “third way” that will allow humans to continue to mine and burn that form of fossil fuel in a more responsible way, obviating the need for regulations on the coal industry or heavy investment in green energy. To detractors, it is an expensive marketing ploy selling an unrealized and unrealistic fantasy. Humans have used coal as fuel for at least 4000 years. A combustible rock formed from the chemical transformation of organic plant matter over hundreds of millions of years of burial, coal is a relatively cheap and easy source of energy. Its widespread use powered the industrial revolution, and coal-burning power plants currently provide 33% of all household energy in the States. But for as long as coal has been an energy source, it has been plagued by environmental issues. Burning coal produces hazardous acid rain and irritating particulate matter, and it releases climate-warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. From a global warming standpoint, burning coal is significantly worse than burning other fossil fuels, as its chemistry allows for the production of more CO2 per reaction, as discussed in a December 2010 Atlantic article about clean coal technology: Compared with most other fossil-fuel sources of energy, coal is inherently worse from a carbon-footprint perspective, since its hydrogen atoms come bound with more carbon atoms, meaning that coal starts with a higher carbon-to-hydrogen ratio than oil, natural gas, or other hydrocarbons. This situation is especially unfortunate for the United States, since the country has large domestic reserves of cheap coal, and because many local economies depend on coal mining jobs that could be lost if regulations were to make coal economically unfeasible. The intersection of these environmental and economic concerns has made coal mining and energy a polarizing political issue in the United States. “Clean coal” is not a special type of coal, nor is it a new technology that reduces the environmental impact of coal mining. Instead, it refers to technology used to clean up the emissions from burning coal after it has already been burned for energy, or technology used to treat coal just prior to being burned. In the context of global warming, the main technology that is cited is “carbon capture, utilization and sequestration”, defined on the U.S. Department of Energy web site thusly: Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), also referred to as carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, is a process that captures carbon dioxide emissions from sources like coal-fired power plants and either reuses or stores it so it will not enter the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide storage in geologic formations includes oil and gas reservoirs, unmineable coal seams and deep saline reservoirs — structures that have stored crude oil, natural gas, brine and carbon dioxide over millions of years. The term “clean coal” was first used by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in 1980s during an initiative they sponsored to demonstrate the commercial viability of technology that could scrub acid-rain creating toxins from the emissions of coal burning. At the time of the initiative, acid rain was the primary environmental concern, and greenhouse gases were an afterthought: The early program, however, was focused on the environmental challenges of the time — primarily concerns over the impact of acid rain on forests and watersheds. In the 21st century, additional environmental concerns have emerged — the potential health impacts of trace emissions of mercury, the effects of microscopic particles on people with respiratory problems, and the potential global climate-altering impact of greenhouse gases. The term was, in effect, rebranded in 2007 by an industry-funded group called the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, who were concerned about the prospect of increased coal regulations under an Obama presidency. They made the term “clean coal” a household name through a 30 million dollar public relations campaign touting the benefits of clean coal technology. The problem, though, is that from the standpoint of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the technology (for all practical purposes) does not yet exist on a scale that could be considered at all meaningful. In terms of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration technology, the only projects underway in the United States are pilot studies. These are not viable on larger scale, as the DOE admits: Today, there are commercially available First Generation CO2 capture technologies that are being used in various small-scale industrial applications. At their current state of development these technologies are not ready for widespread deployment on fossil fuel based power plants […]. Furthermore, there are a number of barriers to the successful implementation of carbon capture technology at coal-burning power plants, as discussed in a report by the British humanitarian think tank the Overseas Development Institute. First, the pace and scale of carbon capture technology is unlikely to overcome its limitations in a time period that would have any relevance to reducing atmospheric CO2: Essentially, coal-powered CCS has yet to be technologically proven as planned even at a quarter-scale. With per-plant investments running to the billions, this stepping-stone from laboratory to full commercial rollout of just the first phase of coal-powered CCS plants is incredibly important and getting past it is going to take years. Although the industry might argue that it is close, it has clearly not yet refined an ‘off-the-shelf’ product. The investment and time needed to build, test, and learn from projects to reduce costs means that CCS for coal power will not be ready to be commercially deployed at scale for at least a decade. Second, implementation of CCS makes the cost of coal too high to be competitive, and it reduces its output by consuming energy from the power plant trying to sell that energy: To capture CO2 at a power station requires adding a large separation unit, which also requires a significant amount of power to run. Adding the extra process currently doubles the capital costs of a plant, while running the separation process effectively decreases the overall efficiency of the plant by around a quarter. This efficiency penalty means that only the most efficient coal plant (‘advanced coal’) can feasibly be used with CCS. Together these mean that adding CCS to a coal-fired plant will make the electricity it produces substantially more expensive than both conventional and advanced current coal plants. These problems were made plainly visible by a recent pilot study of a coal-burning power plant in Canada’s Saskatchewan province that used a nearby hydroelectric dam to power the separation of CO2 from its exhaust. Though early reports painted a rosy picture, a March 2016 New York Times article suggested that the system was affected by a number of critical problems: Known as SaskPower’s Boundary Dam 3, the project has been plagued by multiple shutdowns, has fallen way short of its emissions targets, and faces an unresolved problem with its core technology. The costs, too, have soared, requiring tens of millions of dollars in new equipment and repairs. “At the outset, its economics were dubious,” said Cathy Sproule, a member of Saskatchewan’s legislature who released confidential internal documents about the project. “Now they’re a disaster.” This is not to say that research into minimizing the effect of the emissions from coal burning is necessarily futile. As discussed in a 2010 Atlantic article, there are two arguments to be made in favor of funding clean coal technology: One is that coal can be used in less damaging, more sustainable ways than it is now. The other is that it must be used in those ways, because there is no plausible other way to meet what will be, absent an economic or social cataclysm, the world’s unavoidable energy demands. The latler argument is a staple of the pro-coal camp, who argue that, like it or not, we are going to have to use coal in the future to supply energy for our country. So why not try to make it cleaner in the process? The push against that argument is well summarized by a comment made by Mary Finley-Brook, a professor of geography, environmental studies and international studies at the University of Richmond in Virginia, to the science news website Live Science: “Clean coal does not currently exist,” Finley-Brook wrote in an email. “It will be expensive to develop and is uncertain (unlikely) to work, depending on what technology is selected. This is moving in the wrong direction from a climate change mitigation perspective. We need energy transition away from fossil fuels, not nice-sounding names to confuse people who don’t know better.”


The celebration of Christmas was illegal in the United States until 1836.

Explanation: For these reasons, the claim contained in the “For Truth Not Religion” meme is false.

The final weeks of every year see the “War on Christmas” return to television panel debates and newspaper columns in the United States, bringing (dubious) claims that modern American society has progressively marginalized and turned against public expressions of Christianity. In December 2018, one widely-shared internet meme turned this annual trope on its head, claiming that Christmas only came to be accepted relatively late on in the history of the United States, after a long period of Puritan disdain for what was once perceived as a “pagan holiday.” The Facebook page “For Truth Not Religion” posted a meme featuring blurred images of “publick notices” describing Christmas traditions as “Satanical practices,” along with the claim that “Christmas was illegal in the U.S. until 1836 as it was considered an ancient Pagan holiday”:  At one time, in both American and English history, Christmas was indeed regarded as a pagan holiday, but it’s not true to say that the festival was banned in the United States until 1836. Neither the meme itself nor “For Truth Not Religion” cited any sources, but the two archaic notices shown in the meme provided some clue as to the origins of the claim. The first was a law passed by the General Court in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1659, which read as follows:  Publick Notice For the preventing of disorders, arising in several places within this jurisdiction by reason of some still observing such festivals as were superstitiously kept in other communities, to the great dishonour of God and offense of others. It is therefore ordered by this court and the authority thereof that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like — either by forbearing labour, feasting or any other way, upon any such account as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall pay for every such offense five shilling as a fine to the county. Massachusetts Bay Colony, 1659. The second notice read as follows:  Publick Notice The observation of Christmas having been deemed a sacrilege, the exchanging of Gifts and Greetings, dressing in Fine Clothing, Feasting and similar Satanical Practices are hereby FORBIDDEN with the Offender liable to a Fine of Five Shillings. The first notice came from a statute passed in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1659, which can be viewed here. The provenance of the second notice is unclear: the earliest instance of it we could find was a 1963 newspaper article that referred to the Atlantic Monthly magazine’s having republished it as part of a subscription renewal advertisement, describing the notice as a 1660 Massachusetts law. Despite this citation, it is not included in various online collections of Massachusetts colonial records, which, by contrast, do contain the first notice. It’s possible that the second notice did originate in Massachusetts in 1660 but was a public advertisement that summarized and reiterated the 1659 law, rather than being a discrete statute of its own. In any event, it is true that the celebration of Christmas was indeed banned in colonial Massachusetts in 1659. That ban was motivated largely by the austere Puritan religious beliefs of authorities in the colony, who objected to the December 25th celebration for two main reasons: because it was originally a pagan winter festival co-opted by Christians and lacking in any Biblical basis, and because it was typically accompanied by merriment and indulgence and therefore was anathema to the Puritan principles of sobriety and hard work. In his book The Battle for Christmas the historian Stephen Nissenbaum referenced the suppression of Christmas celebrations in early New England:  In New England, for the first two centuries of white settlement most people did not celebrate Christmas. In fact, the holiday was systematically suppressed by Puritans during the colonial period and largely ignored by their descendants … Only in the middle of the nineteenth century did Christmas gain legal recognition as an official public holiday in New England. Nissenbaum noted that the Puritans often pointed out the lack of explicit Biblical support for December 25 as Jesus’ birthday (an issue we have separately examined in greater depth) and emphasized its pagan origins as well as decrying the excess that often came with it: It involved behavior that most of us would find offensive and even shocking today — rowdy public displays of eating and drinking, the mockery of established authority, aggressive begging … and even the invasion of wealthy homes … Excess took many forms. Reveling could easily become rowdiness; lubricated by alcohol, making merry could edge into making trouble. Christmas was a season of “misrule,” a time when ordinary behavioral restraints could be violated with impunity. The Puritan crackdown on Christmas in Massachusetts had a recent precedent in English history. During the 1640s and 1650s, under the influence of Oliver Cromwell, England’s short-lived republican parliament passed laws restricting and prohibiting the celebration of Christmas. First in 1644, lawmakers passed an ordinance which called for December 25 to be a day of “solemn humiliation” rather than the “carnal and sensual delights” which had characterized the celebration of Christmas: This day in particular is to be kept with the more solemne humiliation, because it may call to remembrance our sinnes, and the sinnes of our forefathers, who have turned this Feast, pretending the memory of Christ into an extreame forgetfulnesse of him, by giving liberty to carnall and sensuall delights, being contrary to the life which Christ himselfe led here upon earth. In 1647, the English parliament banned the celebration of Christmas altogether, along with Easter and Whit Sunday, replacing them with a monthly day of rest: Forasmuch as the Feasts of the Nativity of Christ, Easter and Whitsuntide, and other Festivals commonly called Holy-Dayes, have been heretofore superstitiously used and observed Be it Ordained, by the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled, That the said Feast of the Nativity of Christ, Easter and Whitsuntide, and all other Festival dayes, commonly called Holy-dayes, be no longer observed as Festivals or Holy-dayes within this Kingdome of England and Dominion of Wales … However, these crackdowns did not last long. When the English monarchy resumed under Charles II in 1660 (ushering in a period known as the Restoration), laws passed during the preceding 18 years were struck down, and Christmas has been legally and enthusiastically celebrated there ever since. Similarly, the Massachusetts Bay prohibition on Christmas was repealed in 1681, some 22 years after it was introduced. We were unable to find any record of a similar ban on the celebration of Christmas after that date, either in the north-eastern colonies of the 17th and 18th centuries, or anywhere throughout the United States after 1776. Indeed, the emphasis on religious liberty in the 1791 Bill of Rights, whose First Amendment famously bars states from creating any law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion, means any attempt to outlaw the celebration of Christmas would have been given short shrift. The significance of 1836 appears to be as the year in which, it is widely held, Alabama became the first U.S. state to formally recognize Christmas Day as a public holiday. However, some dispute exists over this date. The earliest record we could find placing Alabama’s legal recognition of Christmas at 1836 was James Harwood Barnett’s 1954 book The American Christmas. However, despite searching news archives and Alabama legislative records, we were unable to verify that the state passed any statute or resolution in 1836 rendering Christmas Day a public holiday. In any event, the claim in the meme that Christmas was “illegal in the U.S. until 1836” is wrong in several ways. First, Christmas was only ever illegal from 1659 until 1681, and not thereafter. Secondly, that ban was limited to the Massachusetts Bay colony and never took hold throughout the United States, which was not even formed until almost a century after the Massachusetts ban had ended. Finally, 1836 was the year in which, according to some sources, the first U.S. state recognized Christmas Day as a public holiday. However, there is reason to doubt the accuracy of that date, and in any case, the series of laws passed throughout the United States in the 19th century had the effect of making December 25 a day off for laborers, not overturning a ban on Christmas Day.


Leo Berman Says the hospital listed on Barack Obama’s just-publicized long-form birth certificate denies the president was born there.

Explanation: State Rep. Leo Berman says Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children denies President Barack Obama was born there

Obama Birth Certificate, Texas, Leo Berman,

Trying to quell recurrent unfounded claims that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, President Barack Obama released his long-form birth certificate Wednesday. In a White House news conference, the president said he was releasing the document in order to move on from the so-called "birther" issue: "We have to make a series of very difficult decisions about how we invest in our future but also get a hold of the deficit and debt. But we're not going to be able to do it if we are distracted. We're not going to be able to do it if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts." Nevertheless, Obama said, there will likely be "a segment of people" for whom the evidence of his birth certificate is not enough. Indeed, shortly after Obama spoke, state Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, said he’s still not persuaded that Obama was born in a Honolulu hospital, according to the Texas Tribune. The Tribune reported that Berman, who has filed legislation to require presidential candidates who want to appear on the Texas ballot to present their birth certificate to the secretary of state, "claims the hospital Obama lists on his birth certificate — in fact, all hospitals in Honolulu — have denied the president was born there." We followed up with Berman, who told us that two hospitals, including Kapiolani Medical Center For Women and Children, where Obama says he was born, have denied it. He couldn’t recall the name of the other hospital. Asked where and when the hospitals made the denials, Berman told us: "In several places over the past year and a half," but provided no more specifics. "Neither hospital recognized the fact that he was born there and not only that, but you would think that the hospital that gave birth to the president of the United States would have some kind of commemorative plaque or something." Berman also said that "it’s going to take someone with a lot of money like Donald Trump to take a look at this and see if Kapiolani will admit whether or not he was born there." Trump, a possible GOP presidential candidate, has repeatedly suggested that Obama was not born in the United States. Earlier this month, for example, he said Obama’s "grandmother in Kenya said he was born in Kenya and she was there and witnessed his birth." PolitiFact rated that statement False. Responding to a 2008 question about whether "she was present when he was born in Kenya," Obama’s grandmother, who speaks Swahili, at first said through a translator that she was. Then she clearly and repeatedly corrected herself, saying that he was born in the United States. A subset of Obama critics, dubbed "birthers," doubt that he is a natural-born U.S. citizen, a requirement to serve as president. PolitiFact has checked at least five other claims about Obama’s birthplace, finding no truth to any of them. One was a February claim by Berman, who said Hawaii’s governor "can’t find anything that says (Obama) was born in Hawaii." Finding no evidence that the governor said that. We searched the Lexis-Nexis database, which archives news articles, and the Internet, where skepticism about Obama’s proof of citizenship thrives, for assertions that Kapiolani hospital had ever denied that it was the site of Obama’s birth. We found no instances of hospital officials making that assertion. However, we found a Jan. 18 story by World Net Daily, a conservative news website that has fanned the birth certificate controversy, reporting that a former Honolulu elections official had said that Kapiolani hospital has no record that Obama was born there. Two days later, Hollywood reporter Mike Evans, claiming to be a longtime friend of Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie’s, told Minnesota’s KQRS-FM radio that the governor had told him that he had searched "everywhere using his powers as governor" at Kapiolani and Queen’s hospitals and that "there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii. Absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii." However, FoxNews.com later quoted Evans as saying that he had misspoken. "I haven’t talked to Neil since he’s been governor," he said. According to Fox, Evans said that he called Abercrombie’s office after reading online reports that the governor couldn’t find Obama’s birth certificate but Abercrombie did not return his call. Obama’s newly-released long-form birth certificate contradicts those reports — and Berman’s claim. The document says that Barack Hussein Obama II was born at Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital at 7:24 p.m. Aug. 4, 1961. We attempted to reach officials from the Kapiolani Medical Center for Woman and Children on Wednesday and didn’t hear back. But as FactCheck.org reported in its April 9 look at Trump’s claims, Kapiolani can’t legally release individually identifiable health information, which the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) prohibits. Individually identifiable health information, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is information relating to the provision of health care to an individual, or anything that can reasonably be used to identify the individual, such as a name, address, birth date or Social Security number. An individual’s health information can only be shared under certain circumstances, according to the site, such as reporting a gunshot wound to the police. Protected information includes information in an individual’s medical record, and health providers must comply with an individual’s right to decide whether or not health information can be shared for certain purposes. In July 2009, World Net Daily quoted Kristy Watanabe, a spokeswoman at Hawaii Pacific Health, which includes the Kapiolani hospital, as saying: "Our comment to everyone who has been calling is that federal law does not permit us to provide any more details concerning information about Obama’s birth without authorization from Mr. Obama." However, the medical center has promoted a January 2009 letter Obama wrote on White House stationery to congratulate the medical center on its centennial celebration. "Kapiolani was one of Hawaii’s earliest hospitals, and it has served many generations of Hawaii’s people with distinction," the letter says. "As a beneficiary of the excellence of Kapiolani Medical Center — the place of my birth — I am pleased to add my voice to your chorus of supporters." The Foundations of Hawaii Pacific Health published the letter in the spring 2009 issue of its Inspire magazine, and the medical center posted video of Abercrombie reading Obama’s letter at the centennial dinner on its website. For CNN’s recent investigation into "birther" claims, which aired April 25-26, CNN reporter Gary Tuchman traveled to Hawaii to conduct numerous interviews, including one with Monika Danielson, who says she was in the hospital at the same time as Obama's mother and saw him in the nursery. He also interviewed Chiyome Fukino, who was the state Health Department's director under Republican Gov. Linda Lingle. The bottom line, according to Tuchman: His research "reveals what most analysts have been saying since the 'birther' controversy erupted during the 2008 presidential campaign: Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. Period." So far as we can tell, Kapiolani hasn’t confirmed that Obama was born there, citing federal privacy law that prevents it from doing so. But we found no record that the hospital has ever denied it, as Berman claims. Nor did the lawmaker provide evidence of such. We have a rating for such statements. !


Facebook post Says Dr. Anthony Fauci “stands to lose 100 million dollars on Bill Gates ‘vaccine’ for the coronavirus. Because he invested in this vaccine.”

Explanation: There is no evidence that Dr. Anthony Fauci is personally financially invested in a coronavirus vaccine. The Gates Foundation has pledged up to $60 million for COVID-19 vaccine development, not $100 million, as the post says. Some of that will go to a group that’s manufacturing a potential vaccine developed by NIAID scientists, but not the agency itself. While some studies have found that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine could help alleviate coronavirus symptoms, other studies have found the drugs have no discernible effect.

Ethics, Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,

The country’s top infectious disease expert is discouraging the use of a potential COVID-19 treatment because he could earn millions of dollars from a vaccine, at least, that’s according to a popular Facebook claim. One post published by an anti-vaccine page on April 12 says Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), "stands to lose 100 million dollars" on a coronavirus vaccine from Bill Gates because he invested in it. "If everyone can be healed with the Malaria drug and a Z pack, there will be no need for the vaccine if we could use drugs already on the market that helps heal 98 percent of the cornovirus (sic) patients," reads the image. "That’s why he’s been so hesitant to put his seal of approval on this form of treatment that has shown to drastically improve hundreds of people’s symptoms." The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat  news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Facebook) As a member of the White House’s coronavirus task force, Fauci has tempered expectations for the use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients. The drugs, which are used to treat conditions like malaria and lupus, respectively, have shown some promise in alleviating coronavirus symptoms, but the research is not conclusive. PolitiFact has seen a lot of misinformation about public officials’ financial interests in hydroxychloroquine. Fauci has become a popular target for coronavirus disinformation, so we wanted to check out this post, too. The Facebook post draws a  connection between Gates’ philanthropy and Fauci’s public remarks about hydroxychloroquine. There is no evidence that Fauci is personally financially invested in a coronavirus vaccine, and scientists still don’t know if hydroxychloroquine is effective in treating COVID-19. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is indirectly supporting the NIAID by funding a group that is helping the agency develop a potential coronavirus vaccine. But there is no evidence that Fauci himself stands to profit. The Gates Foundation said in a Feb. 5 statement that it is investing up to $100 million for "the global response to the 2019 novel coronavirus." That includes efforts aimed at improving detection and treatment of the virus in addition to vaccine development. "The foundation will commit up to $60 million to accelerate the discovery, development and testing of vaccines, treatments and diagnostics for 2019-nCoV (the formal name for the coronavirus)," the statement reads. While the Gates Foundation has supported the NIAID in the past, the philanthropy told PolitiFact in an email that it does not provide funding to the agency now, even though NIAID is currently developing a COVID-19 vaccine. During his March 11 testimony to the House Oversight and Reform Committee, Fauci said it could take a year and a half to roll out a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine. There are 70 vaccines in development, according to the World Health Organization — three of which are in clinical trials. The first trial began in mid-March. The potential vaccine was developed by NIAID scientists in partnership with pharmaceutical company Moderna, Inc. A search of the Securities Exchange Commission’s database, which contains information on publicly traded companies, turned up no documents linking Fauci directly to Moderna. According to a statement from the National Institutes of Health, which houses the NIAID, manufacturing for the potential vaccine was supported by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, a foundation that funds vaccine research. The Gates Foundation said in its February release that it will allocate some of its research and development funding to the coalition. So Gates' money is indirectly going toward the development of a potential coronavirus vaccine created by NIAID scientists, but not to the agency itself. And there is no publicly available evidence that Fauci personally stands to profit from a vaccine. The Facebook post claims that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine heal "98% of coronavirus patients" and have improved "hundreds of people’s symptoms." There is no evidence to back that up. With more than 50 studies in the works, there is still much scientists don’t know about how hydroxychloroquine affects the coronavirus. But four studies — two from France and two from China — have come to conflicting conclusions. One study of 62 patients in Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the pandemic, found that those who were issued hydroxychloroquine saw their body temperature and cough go down faster than the control group. But a separate group of doctors in Shanghai found that the drug had no discernible effect on a group of 30 patients over the course of a week. One hospital in Marseilles gave 80 COVID-19 patients a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, an antibiotic. After five days, 95% of the patients tested negative for the coronavirus. But a similar hospital study in Paris found no marked improvement in 10 patients. Bottom line: We still don’t know whether chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine is effective at improving COVID-19 symptoms. That uncertainty, as well as the drugs’ adverse heart effects and the potential for doctors to stockpile it, is why public health officials have urged caution. There are no Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs to treat COVID-19, although the agency has issued an emergency authorization for the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in hospitals. A Facebook post claims Fauci has downplayed the potential use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus patients because he stands to lose $100 million on a Gates-funded vaccine. There are 70 potential COVID-19 vaccines in development, one of which was created by NIAID scientists in partnership with Moderna, Inc. That vaccine is being manufactured by an organization that the Gates Foundation supports, but there’s no evidence that NIAID or Fauci will directly profit from that support. And the Gates Foundation has pledged up to $60 million for vaccine development, not $100 million, as the post says. Some studies have found that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine could help treat coronavirus patients, but others have found no effect at all. Public health officials have urged caution due to the uncertainty and the adverse side effects of the drugs. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it .


Facebook post Says COVID-19 came to the United States in 2019.

Explanation: The first confirmed COVID-19 case in the United States was reported on Jan. 20, 2020. The patient was a man who had recently returned to Washington state from Wuhan, China. The first reported case of COVID-19 in the world was from Wuhan on Dec. 31, 2019. “It is very unlikely we had cases in November or December, given what we know about the course of the disease and its later symptoms,” one expert said.

China, Corrections and Updates, Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,

U.S. cities and states are increasingly taking action to stem the spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. On social media, however, some users are sharing theories that COVID-19 has been infecting people in the United States since the fall. "I remember my family and a lot of you being sick for 2-4 weeks with unknown strain of flu with the same symptoms as covid-19," said one Facebook post. "Now that a team of doctors have been able to identify/diagnose what it is and name it suddenly it’s a big deal. NEWS FLASH!!!! Half of you idiots already had it and got over it!!" "U.S. authorities only just started testing for it, and even now testing is severely limited, so in all likelihood, many have had or do have it, and it’s gotten passed off as just a typical cold — because (AHEM, NEWSFLASH) it IS just a bad cold for the vast majority of people who get it" another post said. "The normal cold and flus that we’ve already been dealing with kill thousands every season — it just doesn’t get talked about because it’s nothing new and the media can’t use it to panic us at this point." There’s no evidence that either of these posts are accurate. Both posts, which have been shared nearly 100,000 times combined, were flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat  news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Here’s what you need to know about the history of the COVID-19. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that cause illnesses including the common cold and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS-CoV), according to the World Health Organization. And they’re zoonotic, which means that they are transmitted between animals and humans. Vincent Racaniello, a professor microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, has said that the likely, distant source of COVID-19 is bats, "but we don’t know who was between bats and people." It could be a direct infection between bats and humans. COVID-19 is a new strain of coronavirus that was discovered in 2019. It hadn’t previously been identified in humans. As of March 16, 164,837 cases have been confirmed in 146 countries, and 6,470 people have died, according to WHO. In the United States, there are 1,678 confirmed cases. The first COVID-19 case was reported to the World Health Organization from Wuhan, China, on Dec. 31, 2019. On March 13, though, the South China Morning Post reported on unpublished Chinese government data indicating that the earliest case was Nov. 17, 2019, according to the Guardian. Richard Watanabe, a professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California, told PolitiFact that there’s at least evidence that there were four cases in China from earlier in December than the first reported case in Wuhan on Dec. 31. And since it’s a new virus and the early symptoms are similar to the flu, it’s possible cases existed in China even earlier than that, he said. "However," he said, "in the U.S., it is very unlikely we had cases in November or December, given what we know about the course of the disease and its later symptoms. The first cases in the U.S. were, in fact, travelers that brought the virus from China or other countries." Vox recently reported that an analysis of the coronavirus’ genome by Tanja Stadler, a professor of computational biology at ETH Zurich and a molecular epidemiology expert, found that the virus emerged in humans in China in the first half of November 2019. "The widespread hypothesis that the first person was infected at an animal market in November is still plausible," Stadler said in a statement. "Our data effectively rule out the scenario that the virus circulated in humans for a long time before that." The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the United States was reported on Jan. 20. The patient, a 35-year-old man, had had a cough and fever for four days when he went to an urgent care clinic in Snohomish County, Washington, on Jan. 19. He had recently returned to Washington state from Wuhan, China, on Jan. 15. The source of his infection is unknown, according to the New England Journal of Medicine. We’ve already debunked claims that the new coronavirus is "simply the common cold." These Facebook posts make unsubstantiated claims that many people have been infected and recovered from COVID-19 well before the first cases were documented in the United States and even China. There’s a lot we still don’t know about the disease. But current evidence indicates that COVID-19 originated in China in November and has since spread around the world. We rate these posts . Correction, March 19, 2020: An earlier version of this post had an incorrect date for when the first COVID-19 case was reported to the World Health Organization from Wuhan, China. The story has been updated.


Judge rules EPA failing to curb pollution blowing east.

Explanation: A federal judge in New York has ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has violated the federal Clean Air Act by failing to curb ozone air pollution that blows into Connecticut and New York from the west.

Clean Air Act, New York, Scott Pruitt, Environment, Connecticut, Air pollution, Smog, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pollution

U.S. District Judge John Koeltl, in a decision dated Tuesday, granted the states’ request for a summary judgment against the EPA and Commissioner Scott Pruitt for violating the so-called “Good Neighbor Provision” of the act, which requires it to enforce 2008 clean-air standards with state-by state implementation plans. The lawsuit, which was filed in January, is one of several in the past year involving mostly East Coast states seeking to have the EPA regulate out-of-state pollutants. New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood said as many as two in three New Yorkers are breathing unhealthy levels of smog. “The Trump administration has repeatedly flouted the law — and over and over again, we’ve taken them to court and won. We will continue to do what it takes to protect New Yorkers’ health and environment,” she said. New York and Connecticut alleged the air quality there is being choked by smog emanating from Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. “As a downwind state, our residents have suffered for too long from other states’ lax clean air standards,” Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, a Democrat, said. “The EPA’s recent failure to hold upwind states accountable is not acceptable.” The judge ordered the EPA to come up with an action plan by June 29 and implement those plans by Dec. 6. “As we have already publicly announced, we intend to propose — by the end of June — and finalize — by December — an action that will address any remaining good neighbor obligations related to the 2008 ozone standard for these and other states,” Dave Deegan, an EPA spokesman, said in an email responding to the ruling.


South Dakota reports 3 flu deaths, 1st of the season.

Explanation: South Dakota has reported three flu deaths, the first deaths of the season, state health officials said Tuesday.

The South Dakota Department of Health says the deaths were reported in Deuel and Mellette counties, and those who died were all 50 years or older. State epidemiologist Dr. Joshua Clayton says the deaths are a reminder that influenza “can be a very serious illness,” and that it’s not too late to get vaccinated for flu this season. Flu activity is classified as widespread across South Dakota. So far, the state has reported 1,555 lab-confirmed cases of flu and 59 flu-related hospitalizations.


The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) will be reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule 2 drug in August 2016.

Explanation: A purportedly credible source reported that the DEA would be reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule 2 drug in August 2016, but the DEA has denied petitions to that effect.

In mid-June 2016, rumors began to circulate on social media claiming that the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) would effectively be legalizing marijuana by moving it from Schedule 1 classification (drugs with no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States) to Schedule 2 (drugs that have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States), which would pot to be used and researched for medical purposes. A 18 June 2016 article published by the Santa Monica Observer included commentary from an anonymous source said to be a DEA lawyer in which the difference between Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 classifications was explained: The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration will reclassify marijuana as a “Schedule Two” drug on August 1, 2016, essentially legalizing medicinal cannabis in all 50 states with a doctor’s prescription, said a DEA lawyer with knowledge of the matter. The DEA Lawyer had told the lawyer representing a DEA informant of the DEA’s plan to legalize medicinal cannibis nationwide on August 1, 2016. When questioned by our reporter, the DEA lawyer felt compelled to admit the truth to him as well. “Whatever the law may be in California, Arizona or Utah or any other State, because of Federal preemption this will have the effect of making THC products legal with a prescription, in all 50 states,” the DEA attorney told the Observer. Federal Preemption is a legal doctrine that where the US Government regulates a particular field, State and local laws are overridden and of no effect. He explained that “there are five DEA schedules. Nothing on Schedule One is ever legal, and that is where Cannabis is today. Schedule Two drugs are available with a prescription.” The article stated that marijuana would be rescheduled alongside “Percocet, Aderall [sic], Oxycontin, Hydrocodone and other drugs that are legal, even common, with a prescription” as a Schedule 2 drug. It continued with speculation that California’s medical marijuana industry would view the move as unwelcome competition: He opined that the 135 medicinal cannabis clinic owners in Los Angeles will no doubt oppose this move by the Federal government, because the rule change will eliminate any reason for people to visit medical marijuana clinics. “In my opinion, CVS pharmacy, Rite-Aid and Walgreens will sell Schedule Two THC products similar to what users call “edibles,” but will not sell smokeable weed because of the health risk smoking anything entails,” said the DEA lawyer … He speculated that this action will be taken in the closing days of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, so as to motivate the Democratic base to turn out and vote for Hillary Clinton[.] The item was popular among residesnts of states without flexible medical marijuana policies, as it suggested that the sale of weed lozenges at CVS was on the horizon, but remarks about the change being election year maneuvering bordered on conspiracy theory. And not everyone was convinced the anonymous source was credible — a post on the Daily Chronic blog expressed considerable skepticism of the assertion: Shouldn’t we be excited? Not quite, as this “news” is unlikely to be true. The entire article — which has since been cited as fact by several pro-cannabis blogs — is speculation and rumor from a source that is identified only as “The DEA Lawyer.” According to the second paragraph of the article, “The DEA Lawyer had told the lawyer representing a DEA informant of the DEA’s plan to legalize medicinal cannibis [sic] nationwide on August 1, 2016.” This, the second paragraph of the article, should be as far as anyone needs to read to realize that this article is hastily written, poorly researched, and simply speculation or a rumor, including the misspelling of “cannabis” and a poorly worded sentence structure. Throughout the Observer’s article, the sole source of this information is only ever referred to as an attorney who wishes to remain anonymous. Reputable journalists rarely use an anonymous source as the sole source of information because they simply can not be properly vetted. According to guidelines issued by the Associated Press (AP), one of the world’s largest news organizations, articles must be properly vetted before publication — including requiring more than one source. In rare cases, one source will be sufficient – but only when the information comes from an authoritative figure who provides information so detailed that there is no question of its accuracy, according to the AP. For example, a press release issued by the DEA, or a statement from a DEA spokesperson, but not an anonymous attorney acting as the sole source of information. That marijuana-centric outlet decried the swift circulation of the rumor-as-fact across social media and cannabis blogs: [E]ven more reputable sites such as marijuana.com were also fooled, although they took a slightly more cautious approach with their headline, “DEA Attorney Claims Feds Will Reschedule Marijuana This Summer.” But does this mean that the DEA won’t reschedule cannabis? No. In April, the DEA said they were prepared to respond to an administrative petition calling for the reclassification of marijuana, a petition that was launched in 2011. Replying to a July 2015 inquiry by US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and seven other senators, representatives from the DEA acknowledged that they intend to respond to a five-year-old rescheduling petition, filed by then Governors Christine Gregoire of Washington and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. The DEA’s response is expected by July 1. The DEA last decided on a similar rescheduling petition in 2011. The agency rejected that petition, alleging, “At this time, the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy.” On 17 June 2016, business site Inc. addressed what such a change might mean for the fledgling cannabis industry, noting that marijuana’s rescheduling would subject many businesses to a change in regulation and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight: If marijuana becomes a Schedule II drug, the FDA would subject companies to intense inspections and testing. Companies would need to get their packaging and labeling approved by the FDA; the Federal Trade Commission would be there to ensure companies don’t sink to unfair or deceptive marketing and advertising practices. If marijuana was de-scheduled, and placed into the same category of alcohol and tobacco, it would fall under the purview of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. That has its own maw of legal hoops to maneuver. “If the FDA came out and said we are making cannabis Schedule II and the entire industry didn’t change, the whole industry would be illegally trafficking a Schedule II substance,” says Hank Levy, a CPA for marijuana companies, including Harborside, one of the largest dispensaries in the nation. Simply put, the industry as it stands today would not be legal under a whole set of other laws. “I don’t see Schedule II as being any help here for the existing cannabis industry at all,” says Ittleman, who notes that the changes likely open the door to big pharmaceutical companies that have the experience manufacturing Schedule II controlled substances. “This is the red carpet for Purdue Pharma and Pfizer to enter the industry,” adds Ittleman. The Denver Post (based in Colorado, where marijuana is currently legal for recreational use) ran an editorial surmising that states with laws allowing for broader use of legal cannabis would suffer fiscal losses under a rescheduling of the substance: If the DEA keeps marijuana on Schedule I, the federal government risks continued suffering by those with true medical ailments and continued lack of scientific study. The DEA would be wildly out of step with rapidly changing public opinion. If the DEA de-schedules marijuana, big tobacco companies could take over, and the fears of many anti-marijuana advocates would be realized. Rescheduling marijuana for medical/prescription use, but shutting down the state recreational side, would result in unintended negative consequences. Because prescriptions are not taxed, state and local jurisdictions would lose millions of dollars in tax revenues. Colorado collected nearly $135 million in medical and recreational marijuana taxes and license fees in 2015 on a combined medical and recreational market of nearly $1 billion. With a prescription-only industry, states would lose their current marijuana-related jobs to existing pill-manufacturing companies. Claims that marijuana would move from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 on 1 August 2016 initially excited folks in states without laws allowing for medical or recreational use of the substance, but the claims were made by an anonymous source to a small community newspaper. And in August 2016 the DEA dashed those hopes by announcing they had declined two rescheduling petitions:  DEA has denied two petitions to reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). In response to the petitions, DEA requested a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which was conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in consultation with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Based on the legal standards in the CSA, marijuana remains a schedule I controlled substance because it does not meet the criteria for currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, there is a lack of accepted safety for its use under medical supervision, and it has a high potential for abuse. In his letter to the petitioners, DEA Acting Administrator Chuck Rosenberg offered a detailed response outlining the factual and legal basis for the denial of the petitions. The full responses to the petitions can be found in the Federal Register. Response 1 AND Response 2  The DEA and the FDA continue to believe that scientifically valid and well-controlled clinical trials conducted under investigational new drug (IND) applications are the most appropriate way to conduct research on the medicinal uses of marijuana. Furthermore, DEA and FDA believe that the drug approval process is the most appropriate way to assess whether a product derived from marijuana or its constituents is safe and effective and has an accepted medical use. This pathway allows the FDA the important ability to determine whether a product meets the FDA criteria for safety and effectiveness for approval.


There is a federal criminal law that says it's a crime to transport dentures across state lines.

Our jaws dropped when U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte called for the repeal of a federal law banning the transport of dentures across state lines. Does such a law really exist? Goodlatte, R-6th, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, made the statement during a Nov. 24 radio interview on "The John Fredericks Show" in Portsmouth. He was touting a bill his committee passed Nov. 18 that would strike a number of what he considers to be superfluous laws. "There is a federal criminal law that says it’s a crime to transport dentures across state lines," he said. "So we’re getting rid of that." Seeking more information, we contacted Beth Breeding, Goodlatte’s communications director. She pointed us to a section of the U.S. code called the Federal Denture Act of 1942. It’s a murky law, and we had trouble finding experts who know about it. It turns out that some states have laws that only dentures provided by licensed dentists can be sold within their borders, and other states don’t have that mandate. The federal law says its purpose is to protect the integrity of state laws requiring dentist-made false teeth and to promote good oral health. Those who violate the law can be charged criminally or reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. We wondered how often people have been charged with the federal crime. Peter Carr, a Justice Department spokesman, told us his department looked back over the past decade, starting in 2004, and could not find records of any charges being filed under the provision. If no one is being prosecuted, is there still any value in having the law? The answer depends on who makes the dentures. Maria Lopez Howell, a consumer adviser with the American Dental Association, said the law protects people by making sure their dentures are provided by someone "who has been trained to do this very customized work." On the other side of the fence are denturists - technicians who have been trained in making dentures but do not have medical degrees. Paul M. Levasseur, secretary of the National Denturist Association, called the restriction on interstate transport of false teeth "a strange law." "While I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted, it is probably a case of protectionism by organized dentistry," Levasseur said in an email. The New York Times documented the dispute between dentists and denturists in 2007. Denturists said they were highly trained and sometimes work under the supervision of a dentist. The ADA said the technicians aren’t trained to diagnose mouth diseases or to spot broken roots of teeth, which can cause harm if not corrected before dentures are inserted. All of this debate, however, ignores a more basic question: Can grandpa wear his false teeth across state lines without the risk of prosecution? The answer is yes. "If you have a family member who has dentures, they can still travel across the United States without any consequences," Howell said. Levasseur told us, "I believe this deals with commerce not individuals." Our ruling Goodlatte said it’s a federal crime "to transport dentures across state lines." He made the statement while promoting a bill that would repeal what he considers to be unnecessary laws. A 73-year-old federal law does make it a crime for non-dentists who make false teeth to ship their wares out of state. But it doesn’t restrict citizens from wearing their dentures wherever they go. The congressman didn’t mention that. So Goodlatte’s claim is accurate but needs a clarification. We rate it .


“Florida is doing over five times better” than New Jersey and New York in COVID-19 deaths per million people.

Explanation: The claim is accurate on one measure — the number of COVID-19 deaths per capita for the duration of the outbreak. But the claim is that Florida is doing well now, when in fact deaths are on the rise.

New Jersey, Public Health, Florida, Facebook Fact-checks, New York, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,

A Facebook post that argues that Florida compares favorably with New Jersey and New York in the rate of COVID-19 deaths has a point. But it’s misleading, and there is much more to the story. "This is a time-sensitive and difficult metric," Dr. Myron Cohen, an epidemiologist and director of Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina, told PolitiFact. "You do not know the true denominator — death rate versus number of people infected — and you cannot see forward. Any discussions such as these lack proper context." The July 26 post, from a Facebook user with more than 1.4 million followers, says: "Despite all the fake, negative media hype, as of posting this the Covid death count per 1 million population: "NJ: 1,787 NY: 1,680 Florida: 273 "Florida is doing over 5 TIMES better in deaths, yet media tells the opposite story because they protect Democrats." The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Facebook user, saying the media highlights that Florida’s COVID-19 cases are surging, cited a table of Worldometer data. When we checked the site’s state data on July 29, we found that Florida’s death rate was one-sixth of New Jersey’s and New York’s. The same was true on other databases we checked, including one from Johns Hopkins University. But it’s a limited measure, bearing on a state that became a hotspot well after New York and New Jersey. Here’s what news reports said about Florida’s record-breaking coronavirus surge in the days before the post: Florida had the highest single-day total of new cases by any state, with more than 15,000 new infections. There were 872 deaths in one week, the highest weekly total in the Sunshine State during the outbreak. Florida was among the 21 states with outbreaks serious enough to place them in the "red zone," according to a federal report. For a larger perspective, among the 20 countries currently most affected by COVID-19, the United States has the fourth-highest death rate per 100,000 people, behind the United Kingdom, Peru and Chile, according to Johns Hopkins University. Timing is a big reason why the statistic cited in the Facebook post is misleading. New Jersey and New York were hit hard early in the pandemic, and Florida was hit later. "One has to wait until all is over to really see how ‘well’ states have been doing," Dr. Werner Bischoff, professor of infectious diseases at Wake Forest University, told PolitiFact. As of July 30, Florida recorded 988 COVID-19 deaths in the previous seven days, compared with 91 in New Jersey and 114 in New York, according to the New York Times. Death counts and rates are lagging indicators, which means they can confirm a trend after the fact, but can’t necessarily predict the course of the outbreak. "While cases started to increase exponentially in Florida in June, deaths only started to increase exponentially in July," Boston University global health professor Brooke Nichols told PolitiFact. "The only way to compare these types of death rates meaningfully would be once we are several months after Florida’s first wave — and compare that to several months after the first wave in New York and New Jersey," she said. Nichols gave an example. On April 4, when the first wave of cases in New York peaked, the state had 237 deaths per 1 million population. Using July 16 as a peak in cases for Florida, the death rate was 223 deaths per million. "Those two numbers are eerily similar, and a foreshadow of what’s to come in Florida," Nichols said. The Facebook post said "Florida is doing over 5 TIMES better in deaths" than New York and New Jersey. For a statement that contains only an element of truth.


We have no [trade] deficit [with Canada], but that doesn't include energy and timber. But when you do we lose $17 billion a year."

Explanation: This Sunday in South Africa, an accountant, an entrepreneur and a boxing executive are among 20 friends running the Cape Town marathon - with saplings strapped to their backs.

North American Free Trade Agreement, trade,

The group are promoting the planting of native trees amid a nationwide push to replace invasive species with indigenous one to cope with drought and climate change. Last year, Cape Town suffered its worst drought in a century, nearly running out of water and forcing authorities to enforce severe water rationing and set up public water points. Spooked businesses put $3.7m into a fund to eradicate invasive water-hungry trees around Cape Town, a move that would top up reservoirs with billions of liters of water. Activist and treegrower Siyabulela Sokomani, who is running carrying a wild olive, said the group of friends is raising cash to plant 2,000 trees in Khayelitsha, one of Cape Town’s biggest townships, where many of them come from. The 34-year-old entrepreneur attended school there and was  inspired by a teacher who started an environmental club. “There were no trees in the township where I grew up,” he said. Now Sokomani has tattoos of his favorites - the Coral Tree, Speckboom and Acacia - twining across his shoulder. The Speckboom is a favorite at Sokomani’s Shoots and Roots nursery. Spekboom can grow almost anywhere and absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere faster than most other trees in dry conditions, the United Nations says. Last year Sokomani went back to his school to plant 67 trees on Mandela Day, symbolizing the 67 years that Mandela spent in public service. He co-founded Township Farmers in 2017 to teach children about agriculture and plant trees in schools. From 2001 to 2018, South Africa lost 1.34 million hectares of tree cover, equivalent to a 22% decrease since 2000, according to Global Forest Watch, a monitoring organization run the Washington-based thinktank World Resource Institute.


Ohio abortion clinic lands license needed to stay open.

Explanation: The Dayton area’s last abortion clinic has prevailed in a years-long battle over Ohio’s stringent new licensing requirements and will remain open.

Dayton, Health, General News, Abortion, Ohio

The Ohio Department of Health has granted Women’s Med Center a surgical facility license. The center in Kettering had postponed surgical abortions as it pursued multiple avenues to stay open, including state and federal court challenges and negotiations with local health systems and doctors. After being unable to land the legally required emergency patient-transfer agreement, the center secured enough doctor signatures for a variance. Ohio Right to Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion group, said it’s disappointed the state has licensed a facility that’s skirted laws for years that are intended to protect women. NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion-rights group, said Ohio’s restrictive abortion laws are not medically necessary.


Abortion, National, NARAL Pro-Choice America,

Even amid a torrent of campaign ads during the waning days of the 2014 midterm election cycle, a new television ad in Colorado’s tight Senate race certainly stands out. It addresses a topic -- abortion and birth control -- that have recurred often in the campaign between incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Udall and Republican Rep. Cory Gardner. But the imagery, and the claim, make the ad unusual. The ad shows footage of a young, partially dressed couple in a bed, with the man reaching for a condom on the night table. "Guys, guys, guys, guys, guys!" the narration says. "If Cory Gardner gets his way, you'd better stock up on condoms." In bold type, the ad offers a visual saying, "Gardner: Ban birth control." The ad’s sponsors -- the abortion-rights groups NARAL Pro-Choice America and NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado -- frame the ad as an "edgy" attempt to reach young voters. (The ad also makes claims about climate change, but we won’t address those in this fact-check.) How accurate is the claim about condoms? We have previously addressed claims on Gardner and birth control, but this one is slightly different, so we’ll take a closer look. First, here’s what the Gardner campaign said when we asked about the ad. "Cory does not want to ban condoms," said campaign spokesman Alex Siciliano. "In fact, he believes in increased access to contraceptives. He has proposed making common forms of oral contraception available over the counter." So where does the ad get its evidence from? Past claims about Gardner and birth control have stemmed from his support of efforts to support "personhood" measures that would define life beginning at fertilization to the Colorado Constitution. In the U.S. House of Representatives, Gardner co-sponsored H.R. 1091, known formally as the Life At Conception Act and informally as a "personhood" bill. The bill was introduced April 8, 2013, by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. According to the bill text, it would "implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person" and "declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being." It goes on to say that " 'human person' and 'human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being." Opponents of personhood legislation say that giving a fertilized egg all the rights of person could make illegal several FDA-approved contraceptives, such as the pill and intrauterine devices, or IUDs. Anti-abortion groups successfully petitioned to get personhood measures on the Colorado ballot in 2008 and 2010. Both times it was rejected by more than 70 percent of voters. As we have noted in the past, we can’t predict how the courts would interpret personhood legislation or their impacts on forms of birth control that are currently legal. Though even Gardner acknowledges that some contraceptives could be at risk if personhood passed, a lot of legal ambiguity remains. Because no state has passed a personhood measure, we don’t know how it could impact specific types of contraceptives. As we’ve noted in past articles about the debate over personhood, some legal scholars and the medical community have cautioned that it could potentially impact access to birth control. Gardner’s critics may have a point that some forms of birth control could be outlawed if personhood measures became law -- but that shouldn’t affect condoms. That’s because condoms prevent sperm from reaching the egg in the first place. No fertilization ever takes place. In a further twist, Gardner made a major about-face during the 2014 campaign, saying he no longer supports the personhood movement, partly because he now thinks it could potentially impact access to certain forms of birth control. "The fact that it restricts contraception, it was not the right position," Gardner told The Denver Post. "I've learned to listen. I don't get everything right the first time." Gardner has also said that if the Affordable Care Act is not repealed, he wants to allow the birth control pill to be sold over-the-counter without a prescription. Udall’s campaign said he supports allowing over-the-counter sales of the pill as long as insurance companies are still mandated to cover it without any cost sharing. Finally, Gardner’s campaign notes that in 2007, he was one of five to cosponsor an anti-abortion measure in Colorado that specified that "nothing in this section shall prohibit the sale, use, prescription or administration of a contraceptive measure, device, drug or chemical." This bill, his campaign said, demonstrates that Gardner is not anti-contraceptive. The ad’s sponsors didn’t get back to PolitiFact, but Doug Gordon, a spokesman for NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, told our friends at FactCheck.org that "we're not saying he is banning condoms. We are saying if Gardner starts limiting other forms of birth control, you better stock up on condoms because there will be so much demand for them — since Gardner wants to ban other forms of birth control." While an affiliated radio ad does make that argument, the television ad doesn’t say that. It seems much more plausible to us that viewers of the TV ad would assume that Gardner wants to ban birth control, period. Our ruling The ad claims that "if Cory Gardner gets his way, you'd better stock up on condoms." The most obvious interpretation of this statement is that Gardner wants to ban condoms -- something that’s based on an incorrect interpretation of the measures Gardner has supported in the past (and which he has since distanced himself from). Gardner says he doesn’t support banning condoms, and in any case, condoms would not be at issue under the personhood measure he once supported. We rate this claim !


Several widely-available cheeses are partially made from wood.

Explanation: What's true: The percentage total of the ingredient cellulose in some cheeses attracted the attention and ire of the Food and Drug Administration. What's false: Cheese is made from actual wood, wood pulp, or anything people would recognize as wood-related in its raw state. What's undetermined: The pervasiveness of overuse of cellulose in cheese.

Food, bloomberg businessweek, carboxymethylcellulose, cellulose

In February 2016, multiple outlets prompted consumer concern with claims that the Food and Drug Administration discovered wood in many mass-market cheeses, including some higher-end varieties. The rumor wasn’t due to poor reading comprehension, as multiple headlines left the impression that ordering cheese on your burger could lead to a mouthful of splinters:    This cheese company has been putting wood in their parmesan for 30 yearshttps://t.co/75k2AFl6V3 — NowThis (@nowthisnews) February 18, 2016 Wood in your Parmesan? How to make sure you’re getting the real cheese https://t.co/Fc26zvCRaQ pic.twitter.com/GBaD5Fdxqc — TODAY (@TODAYshow) February 18, 2016  FDA discovers that ‘100% real’ Parmesan cheese you’re eating may be wood: https://t.co/aA1fDDRUyb pic.twitter.com/zMJQQFi4RX — PCMag (@PCMag) February 18, 2016  “Wood,” “wood in parmesan,” and “cheese … may be wood” weren’t very ambiguous ways to describe the claim. On 17 February 2016, USA Today published an article that claimed: Parmesan cheese or wood pulp? Chances are when you sprinkle parmesan on your spaghetti you may be getting a little of both. … while the idea of eating a product that contains wood pulp doesn’t seem appetizing, you probably do it more than you think. That item cited Bloomberg Businessweek, the outlet that apparently kicked off the flurry of wood worry. After mentioning a 2012 FDA investigation, the site reported they’d done their own independent testing for “wood pulp” in several cheeses: How serious is the problem? Bloomberg News had store-bought grated cheese tested for wood-pulp content by an independent laboratory … Essential Everyday 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese, from Jewel-Osco, was 8.8 percent cellulose, while Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s Great Value 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese registered 7.8 percent, according to test results. Whole Foods 365 brand didn’t list cellulose as an ingredient on the label, but still tested at 0.3 percent. Kraft had 3.8 percent. Some of the less sensational aspects of that article provided a clearer picture of the actual controversy. Bloomberg Businessweek clarified the ingredient in question was actually cellulose (not “wood pulp” per se) and that blending of lesser cheeses was part of the overall dispute: Some grated Parmesan suppliers have been mislabeling products by filling them with too much cellulose, a common anti-clumping agent made from wood pulp, or using cheaper cheddar, instead of real Romano. Someone had to pay. Castle President Michelle Myrter is scheduled to plead guilty this month to criminal charges. She faces up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine. Although most outlets referenced “cellulose,” the FDA’s list of food additives generally recognized as safe primarily listed carboxymethylcellulose (cellulose gum) as an approved additive in cheese production, which isn’t necessarily made from wood. The FDA said: Cellulose is a major constituent of many foods of plant origin. As such it is a significant portion of the diet, but is neither degraded nor absorbed. Cellulose derivatives considered in this report are virtually unabsorbed and little or no degradation of absorbable products occurs in the human digestive tract. In man, consumption of large amounts appears to have no effect other than providing dietary bulk, reducing the nutritive value of such foodstuffs and possibly exerting a laxative effect. Many of the FDA’s regulatory provisions pertained not to the safety of the carboxymethycellulose, but concentration thresholds for specific cheese labeling (in this instance, pasteurized cheese spread): One or any mixture of two or more of the following: Carob bean gum, gum karaya, gum tragacanth, guar gum, gelatin, sodium carboxymethylcellulose (cellulose gum), carrageenan, oat gum, algin (sodium alginate), propylene glycol alginate, or xanthan gum. The total weight of such substances is not more than 0.8 percent of the weight of the finished food. In this case, the FDA appeared less concerned with the safety of cellulose in cheese and more so with labeling standards. A 2011 Mayo Clinic item focused on the increasing use of cellulose in foods for a variety of reasons, but did not mention any health risks: Small cellulose particles impart a smooth consistency, mouthfeel and stickiness to products such as salad dressings, barbecue sauces and, yes, ice cream. Longer fiber lengths provide structure and a firmer texture to baked goods. Cellulose also helps capture and retain moisture and keeps products from seeming dry. We’re seeing more foods with added fiber, such as cellulose, because most people aren’t eating enough foods that are naturally high in fiber — namely vegetables, fruits and whole grains. Manufacturers are also adding cellulose because it means they can use less fat and sugar without losing the desired mouthfeel or moistness. The rising cost of flour, sugar and oil may be another reason for this trend. Castle Cheese was the recipient of a FDA warning letter dated 11 July 2013, and the mention of cellulose had to do with possible labeling inconsistencies, not wood in cheese: 3. Your International Packing Parmesan Cheese, (b)(4) Romano 100% Grated Cheese and (b)(4) 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese products are adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(b)(4) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 342(b)(4)] in that a substance has been added to increase the products’ bulk and weight. Specifically, cellulose and/or starch were used to increase the weight of the cheese base used to manufacture your products. Another approach during the February 2016 wood cheese dustup came in the form of a February 2016 Bon Appétit article. The piece made a distinction between proper labeling of specific cheeses and the presence of “wood pulp” in parmesan: Eating cellulose won’t kill you. There are no known harmful side effects from adding it to food, and it’s completely legal. “Cellulose is a non-digestible plant fiber, and we actually happen to need non-digestible vegetable fiber in our food—that’s why people eat bran flakes and psyllium husks,” says Jeff Potter, author of Cooking for Geeks. And though it makes for more sensational headlines, it’s not quite accurate to claim that something made with cellulose is part “wood pulp,” as implied in a rather breathless Bloomberg News headline. Noting that cellulose was “completely safe to eat,” the magazine again expressed skepticism at the widespread conflation of cellulose and “wood pulp”: So could part of the faux-Parmesan cheese you eat once have had a tire-swing hanging from it? Sure …But it could also have been made in part from a crateful of apples that didn’t make it onto supermarket shelves, or corn husks, or any variety of plant matter. It could even have been made from the crate the apples came in. By the time it becomes cellulose, it’s pretty much just a tasteless powder whose primary purpose in life is to take up space… It’s like an accountant at a rock concert after-party. It’s worth noting, by the way, that the official FDA warning letter to Castle Cheese Inc. lists cellulose and starch as adulterants they discovered, but that they don’t mention wood pulp anywhere in the text. Blame easy conflation by an overeager headline writer. We’ve all done it. The cellulose-in-food scare was nothing new. On 2 July 2014, Slate covered a then-current panic over wood pulp in burgers: This media meme, catching on like wildfire burning up so much delicious wood pulp, is not only alarmist but 100 percent misleading. … It’s pure fiber, so it contains no calories. Cellulose is a natural component of all plants’ cell walls and is therefore in contained in every fruit or vegetable you might care to eat … A single article in February 2016 launched a wave of responses to the “news” that cheese contained cellulose, widely described as “wood pulp.” But the news was not all that new, as even the original item referenced a controversy that began in late 2012. The FDA indeed investigated cheese manufacturers over the presence of cellulose in cheese, but only in the larger context of honest labeling (not safety or health concerns). Cellulose is considered safe in all expected concentrations (though it could certainly dilute the flavor of parmesan) and it didn’t in any way resemble wood or wood pulp as many outlets suggested. Finally, the early 2016 outpouring of concern was not new at the time it occurred. In 2014, the same media “meme” latched on to “wood pulp in fast food,” ignoring its presence in a vast quantity of other widely eaten foods. While it was true many cheeses were held to strict standards of labeling, the controversy over cellulose was confined to purity and misrepresentation, not the sneaky addition of wood to otherwise benign cheese.


The president's health care proposals will cause "most Americans to have their premiums increased, not decreased, and hundreds of millions of people lose their current insurance coverage.

Explanation: Health care reform does not increase premiums and boot people out of their coverage

National, Health Care, Pundits, Nancy Pfotenhauer,

In an interesting display of chutzpah from a television pundit, Republican strategist Nancy Pfotenhauer claimed on CNN that she understood perfectly the president's health care proposals, then proceeded to distort them. "You've got an extremely talented man here who's a great orator," she said after President Barack Obama's State of the Union address. "I don't think anybody could challenge that. But if there's a sin, it's hubris, and at one point, when he was talking about health care, he literally said, you know, hey, you're not with me, but that's okay. I understand. I just didn't speak clearly enough to you. Like if I slow down and talk in smaller words, maybe you'll get it." "And so the response is, no, no, you explained it, I heard it and I disagreed with you," she added. "You're talking about a proposal that increases taxes by half a trillion dollars, that cuts Medicare by half a trillion dollars, that causes most Americans to have their premiums increased, not decreased, and hundreds of millions of people to lose their current insurance coverage. This is not something that's good." (That didn't get challenged by host Larry King, who then went to a commercial.) Pfotenhauer boiled down some complicated issues we've been reporting on for quite a while into a zinger of a soundbite. A bit of what she said was true, but most of this is a significant distortion of Obama's reforms. Here, we're going to rule on the most dramatic part of her claim, that the plans cause "most Americans to have their premiums increased, not decreased, and hundreds of millions of people lose their current insurance coverage." We contacted Pfotenhauer, who served as an adviser to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, and asked what the basis of her claims were. But we didn't hear back. We've written before about the Democratic proposals to increase taxes to pay for expanded health care coverage. The House bill increases income taxes on the wealthy, and the Senate bill has an excise tax for high-cost health care plans, or "Cadillac" plans. Add up those taxes, plus other revenue provisions in the form of fees, and those revenues do approach $500 billion over 10 years. On Medicare spending, both bills seek to curb spending on Medicare by trimming excess payments to private insurers under the Medicare Advantage program, as well as other freezes on payments intended to reduce waste. (Check out this comparison on the details on Medicare created by the independent Kaiser Family Foundation. You'll find details on Medicare changes on Page 14.) Those provisions too approach $500 billion over 10 years. But the measure also includes more funding for Medicare's prescription drug plan. Then Pfotenhauer said most Americans would "have their premiums increased, not decreased," and that "hundreds of millions of people lose their current insurance coverage." On Nov. 30, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, released a detailed analysis on how health insurance premiums might be affected by the Senate Democrats' health care bill. The CBO is an independent agency whose estimates for pending legislation are considered nonpartisan and rigorous. The CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease. This was especially true for people who get their insurance through work. (Health policy wonks call these the large group and small group markets.) People who have to go out and buy insurance on their own (the individual market) would see rates increase by 10 to 13 percent. But more than half of those people -- 57 percent, in fact -- would be eligible for subsidies to help them pay for the insurance. People who get subsidies would see their premiums drop by more than half, according to the CBO. So most people would see their premiums stay the same or potentially drop. As for "hundreds of millions of people" losing their coverage, there is little evidence to support this. Republicans have been making the claim based on a study by the Lewin Group, which stated that 123 million people would choose a public option for health insurance if it were cheaper than their current coverage. (The Lewin Group is respected by many health care analysts and operates with editorial independence, but it is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, whose primary business is private health insurance.) There were other problems with how Republicans have used the Lewin study to claim that people would be pushed out of their coverage, and you can read more about those problems in another item we reported back in October. But it's not necessary to go into those details because the Senate has since rejected a public option. So it's not clear where Pfotenhauer is getting her numbers now. Certainly there will be some churn among plans, just as there is now, when companies change insurance plans. (For this reason, we gave Obama a Half True for saying that people could keep their current coverage. Under the plan, employers would still be able to choose new plans.) But the CBO has found that the numbers of uninsured will be lower under the Democratic plans. The Senate Democrats plan would increase the percentage of the insured from 83 percent to 94 percent. So we don't see how millions of people would lose their current coverage. It's true that there is a lot of confusion among the public about the health care proposals. The independent Kaiser Family Foundation recently conducted a poll and found that "even after a year of substantial media coverage of the health reform debate, many Americans remain unfamiliar with key elements of the major bills passed by the House and Senate." The poll also found tremendous differences based on political affiliations: Democrats supported the proposals, Republicans opposed them, and independents were roughly split. In Pfotenhauer's appearance on CNN, though, she said she understood the proposals but disagreed with them. Then she said -- and this was not phrased as an opinion -- that the plans will cause "most Americans to have their premiums increased, not decreased, and hundreds of millions of people to lose their current insurance coverage." There's not an independent, nonpartisan analysis out there on the current Democratic proposals that shows that. These are Republican talking points that have repeatedly been proven false, but they keep coming back. Pfotenhauer's statement is not just false, it's ridiculously so. !