GET /api/factchecks/
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Cache-Control: public, max-age=900
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "count": 17144,
    "next": "http://www.politifact.com/api/factchecks/?page=2",
    "previous": null,
    "results": [
        {
            "id": 17984,
            "slug": "lipinski-revives-gop-talking-point-aca-medicare-ch",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "daniel-lipinski",
                "full_name": "Daniel Lipinski",
                "first_name": "Daniel",
                "last_name": "Lipinski"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "Says the Affordable Care Act “took money out of the Medicare trust fund.”",
            "ruling_slug": "half-true",
            "publication_date": "2020-02-23T15:00:00-05:00",
            "ruling_comments": "<p>In his campaign to hold onto the 3rd District congressional seat, U.S. Rep. Daniel Lipinski frequently faces criticism from opponents about his vote against the Affordable Care Act.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2010/h165\">The only Democratic member of Congress from Illinois</a> to oppose former President Barack Obama&rsquo;s signature healthcare overhaul, Lipinski later <a href=\"https://lipinski.house.gov/press-releases/lipinski-i-voted-against-obamacare-but-oppose-repeal-and-wait/\">came out against</a> Republican plans to repeal the law.</p>\n\n<p>But during <a href=\"https://www.fox32chicago.com/video/655234\">an interview</a> with Fox 32&rsquo;s Mike Flannery, Lipinski repeated his rationale for opposing the legislation back when it came through the House.</p>\n\n<p>&quot;The cost was not going to be sustainable, was going to blow a big hole in the deficit,&quot; Lipinski said. &quot;It did nothing about controlling costs &mdash; and those are the big issues. It took money out of the Medicare trust fund.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>PolitiFact has checked claims about the Affordable Care Act siphoning dollars away from Medicare &mdash; usually leveled by Republican opponents of the plan &mdash;&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2012/nov/02/cuts-medicare-anatomy-talking-point/\">more than 30 times</a> since it was first introduced in 2009, consistently finding them to take things out of context or ignore critical details. So we wanted to see if Lipinski&rsquo;s statement held up any better.</p>\n\n<div class=\"pf_subheadline\">How the ACA affected Medicare</div>\n\n<p>In a phone interview, Lipinski said he was not suggesting the ACA reduced funding for Medicare beneficiaries.</p>\n\n<p>During his nine-minute Feb. 14 appearance, however, Lipinski said nothing to make that distinction clear. And in previous fact-checks, we&rsquo;ve contested more than just assertions that the ACA cut Medicare.</p>\n\n<p>When Mitt Romney &mdash; then a Republican presidential contender &mdash;&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/aug/20/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-cuts-716-medicare-pay-obamacare/\">said in 2012</a> that &quot;under the president&rsquo;s plan, he cuts Medicare by $716 billion, takes that money out of the Medicare trust fund and uses it to pay for Obamacare,&quot; PolitiFact clarified that while savings from changes the law made to rein in future Medicare spending were used to offset costs associated with expanding coverage under the ACA, money was not being taken out of one account and moved to another.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/medicares-piggy-bank/\">FactCheck.org</a> made a similar point the same year, noting the president could not &quot;actually take money out of the trust fund.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>Instead, the ACA instituted changes aimed at reducing the growth of Medicare payments to insurance companies and hospitals. Spending was still projected to grow, just at a slower rate. The law also raised taxes on wealthier Americans.</p>\n\n<p>Those changes significantly improved the outlook of Medicare&rsquo;s hospital insurance trust fund, <a href=\"https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2010.pdf\">its trustees reported at the time</a>, extending its solvency by more than a decade. The law also helped reduce the federal deficit, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.</p>\n\n<div class=\"pf_subheadline\">&lsquo;Double counting&rsquo;</div>\n\n<p>When we spoke with Lipinski, he agreed the ACA had neither taken money already allocated to Medicare nor weakened the fund&rsquo;s financial condition. Instead, he raised a different issue.</p>\n\n<p>&quot;In order to make the claim that the ACA was balanced or, you know, the CBO in the end came out saying that it actually decreased the deficit, you had to double count that money,&quot; Lipinski said. &quot;If you&rsquo;re going to raise the Medicare tax, if you&rsquo;re going to make cuts to providers, you shouldn&rsquo;t be doing that for the purpose of spending it somewhere else.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>Paul Van de Water, a former assistant director for budget analysis at CBO and current senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, made the case that the office did not double count anything.</p>\n\n<p>&quot;If a batter hits a home run, on the one hand, it adds to his home run total,&quot; Van de Water said. &quot;The team also scores an additional run. That&rsquo;s not double counting, it&rsquo;s just that the same action has more than one effect. And in this case, the act of both reducing projected Medicare spending and increasing Medicare payroll taxes had two different effects.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>Lipinski cited <a href=\"https://www.cbo.gov/publication/25017\">a 2009 CBO letter</a> reporting that &quot;to describe the full amount&quot; of trust fund savings &quot;as both improving the government&rsquo;s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government&rsquo;s fiscal position.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>However, Van de Water pointed out, this was a response to a hypothetical &mdash; not how CBO calculated the improvements it reported in the government&rsquo;s overall fiscal position. Indeed, CBO clarified this on <a href=\"https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50279-QFRs_Senate_Budget_Hearing_1.pdf\">multiple occasions</a>, including in <a href=\"https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/reports/01-22-hi_fund.pdf\">a 2010 response</a> to a question from then-U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions.</p>\n\n<p>&quot;Only the additional savings by the government as a whole truly increase the government&rsquo;s ability to pay for future Medicare benefits or other programs,&quot; the CBO wrote in that letter, noting that those savings, while smaller than those within the fund itself, still decreased the deficit.</p>\n\n<p>Matthew Fiedler, a fellow with the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy who served as chief economist of the Council of Economic Advisors during the implementation of the ACA&rsquo;s health insurance expansions, told us Lipinski&rsquo;s second point about the way the savings were allocated under the law is a &quot;more defensible&quot; position.</p>\n\n<p>&quot;Were the tax increases and cuts in Medicare provider payments worth the things they paid for? That&#39;s a completely legitimate thing to debate,&quot; Fiedler said.</p>\n\n<p>However, that was not the issue Lipinski raised on Fox 32.</p>\n\n<div class=\"pf_subheadline\">Our ruling</div>\n\n<p>Speaking about the costs behind the ACA as one of his reasons for voting against it, Lipinski said the law &quot;took money out of the Medicare trust fund.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>The law did reduce future growth in Medicare spending to help fund Obama&rsquo;s expansion of health care coverage, but it did not do so by taking existing dollars away.</p>\n\n<p>While Lipinski did not directly state that the ACA resulted in a cut to Medicare, his remarks nevertheless suggested it siphoned money already in the fund away from the program.</p>\n\n<p>We rate his claim Half True.</p>\n\n<hr>\n<p><em><strong>HALF TRUE</strong> &ndash; The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.</em></p>\n\n<p><em>Click here <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/#Truth-O-Meter%20ratings\">for more</a> on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.</em></p>",
            "sources": "<p><a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2012/nov/02/cuts-medicare-anatomy-talking-point/\">&quot;Medicare &#39;cuts&#39; and a talking point that won&#39;t die,&quot;</a> PolitiFact, Nov. 2, 2012</p>\n\n<p>Phone interview, U.S. Rep. Daniel Lipinski, Feb. 20, 2020</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/jun/16/mitt-romney/500-billion-medicare-obamacare-romney-says/\">&quot;$500 billion from Medicare for Obamacare, Mitt Romney says,&quot;</a> PolitiFact, June 16, 2011</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/aug/20/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-cuts-716-medicare-pay-obamacare/\">&quot;Romney says Obama &#39;cuts&#39; $716B from Medicare to pay for Obamacare,&quot;</a> PolitiFact, Aug. 20, 2012</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/aug/07/mike-huckabee/obamacare-robbed-medicare-700-billion-says-huckabe/\">&quot;Obamacare &#39;robbed&#39; Medicare of $700B, says Huckabee,&quot;</a> PolitiFact, Aug. 7, 2015</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/aug/29/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-said-president-obama-funneled-716-billio/\">&quot;Paul Ryan said President Obama &quot;funneled&quot; $716 billion out of Medicare &quot;at the expense of the elderly,&quot;</a> PolitiFact, Aug. 29, 2012</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/medicares-piggy-bank/\">&quot;Medicare&rsquo;s &lsquo;Piggy Bank,&rsquo;&quot;</a> FactCheck.org, Aug. 24, 2012</p>\n\n<p>Email and phone interview: Lipinski spokesperson Sally Daly, Feb. 20 - 21, 2020</p>\n\n<p>Email and phone interview: Paul Van de Water, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Feb. 20 - 21, 2020</p>\n\n<p>Email, Matthew Fiedler, fellow with the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, Feb. 20, 2020</p>\n\n<p>Email: Holly Harvey, director of health policy at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Feb. 20, 2020</p>\n\n<p>Email: Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy &amp; management at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Feb. 20, 2020</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2010.pdf\">2010 report</a> from trustees for the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.cbo.gov/publication/25017\">Effects of the ACA on the Federal Budget and the Balance in the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, </a>Congressional Budget Office, Dec. 23, 2009</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50279-QFRs_Senate_Budget_Hearing_1.pdf\">Answers to Questions for the Record Following a Hearing by the Senate Committee on the Budget</a>, Congressional Budget Office, June 16, 2015</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/reports/01-22-hi_fund.pdf\">Letter to Jeff Sessions,</a> Congressional Budget Office, Jan. 22, 2010</p>"
        },
        {
            "id": 17983,
            "slug": "viral-post-criticizes-sanders-math-health-care-tax",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "facebook-posts",
                "full_name": "Facebook posts",
                "first_name": "",
                "last_name": "Facebook posts"
            },
            "targets": [
                {
                    "slug": "bernie-sanders",
                    "full_name": "Bernie Sanders",
                    "first_name": "Bernie",
                    "last_name": "Sanders"
                }
            ],
            "statement": "“Bernie Sanders wants free health care for all and was asked how he would pay for it. His answer was raise taxes to 52% on anybody making over $29,000 per year.”",
            "ruling_slug": "false",
            "publication_date": "2020-02-21T17:42:06-05:00",
            "ruling_comments": "<p>On Facebook, several conservative pages are trying to use math to discredit Sen. Bernie Sanders&rsquo; plan to raise the minimum wage and provide universal health care to all Americans.&nbsp; But they need to double-check their work.</p>\n\n<p>One Feb. 20 post <a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/groups/142529582942633/permalink/854599688402282\">published</a> in a Bill O&rsquo;Reilly fan page shows some calculations of Sanders&rsquo; plans. It cites a proposed $15 federal minimum wage that Sanders, I-Vt., brought up during <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/feb/20/fact-checking-las-vegas-democratic-debate-bloomber/\">the Feb. 19 Democratic presidential debate</a> in Las Vegas.</p>\n\n<p>It also cites Sanders&rsquo; Medicare for All plan, a single, national health insurance program that would cover everyone who lives in the United States.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>The Facebook post claims the plan would put an undue tax burden on minimum-wage workers, making Sanders&rsquo; proposed pay increase pointless. &quot;Bernie Sanders wants free health care for all and was asked how he would pay for it. His answer was raise taxes to 52% on anybody making over $29,000 per year,&quot; the image reads. &quot;Math. It&rsquo;s fascinating.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>Sanders has never suggested placing a 52% tax on earnings over $29,000.</p>\n\n<div class=\"artembed\">See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com</div>\n\n<p><em>(Screenshot from Facebook)</em></p>\n\n<p>The math, the post claims, works out like this: A person making Sanders&rsquo; $15 an hour minimum wage would earn $31,200 a year. But because of Sanders&rsquo; 52% tax to pay for Medicare for All, they&rsquo;d pay $16,224 right back in a new health care tax. The upshot: The worker is only actually earning $7.20 an hour, or $14,976 a year after taxes</p>\n\n<p>The post was flagged as part of Facebook&rsquo;s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about<a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/help/1952307158131536?helpref=related\"> our partnership with Facebook</a>.) It has been shared more than 15,000 times and copied by several popular pro-Trump <a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/506204922756465/posts/2781863298523938\">Facebook</a> <a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/Deplorables1/posts/1078326532525866\">pages</a>.</p>\n\n<p>We reached out to the user who originally posted the image, but we haven&rsquo;t heard back &mdash; probably for good reason: The post makes some pretty fundamental errors both understanding Sanders&rsquo; plans, and the U.S. tax system.</p>\n\n<p>Sanders first introduced <a href=\"https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s1129/BILLS-116s1129is.pdf\">Medicare for All</a>, which would cover every American&rsquo;s medical bills completely, in April 2019. According to <a href=\"https://www.urban.org/research/publication/incremental-comprehensive-health-reform-how-various-reform-options-compare-coverage-and-costs\">the Urban Institute</a>, the health care plan would increase federal spending by $2.8 trillion in 2020, and $34 trillion over 10 years.</p>\n\n<p>To pay the health care proposal, Sanders <a href=\"https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file\">has proposed</a> a variety of different options to help cover the cost &mdash;&nbsp;including tax rate increases for the wealthy.</p>\n\n<p><strong><em>RELATED:</em> <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/nov/05/what-you-need-know-about-medicare-all/\">What you need to know about Medicare for All</a></strong></p>\n\n<p>Under one of those options, the marginal income tax rate would increase for Americans making more than $250,000 per year. Incomes above $10 million would be taxed at 52%.</p>\n\n<p>The tax rate would be lower for people who earn less money.</p>\n\n<p>For single minimum-wage workers, the marginal income tax rate would stay at 12%, assuming <a href=\"https://www.efile.com/irs-income-tax-rates-and-brackets/\">current federal tax brackets</a> remained the same if Congress passed a $15 minimum wage. The rate for married couples that jointly file taxes would increase from 10% to 12%, assuming their total household income is $31,200.</p>\n\n<p>Another one of Sanders&rsquo; proposed ways to pay for Medicare for All is a 4% income-based premium paid by households. A single person making minimum wage would pay $752, nowhere near the $16,224 that the post said.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>In short, Sanders doesn&rsquo;t propose a 52% tax rate for any income close to what people make at a minimum wage job. In addition, tax filers are entitled to a standard deduction ranging from $12,400 for a single filer to $24,800 for a married couple. That means people would only pay tax on income earned over that amount. Other deductions or tax credits could lower someone&rsquo;s tax liability further.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False.</p>",
            "sources": "<p>Congress.gov, <a href=\"https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22medicare+for+all+act%22%5D%7D&amp;r=2&amp;s=1\">S.1129 - Medicare for All Act of 2019</a>, April 10, 2019</p>\n\n<p>Efile.com, <a href=\"https://www.efile.com/irs-income-tax-rates-and-brackets/\">IRS, Federal Income Tax Brackets by Tax Year</a>, accessed Feb. 21, 2020</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/Deplorables1/posts/1078326532525866\">Facebook post</a>, Feb. 20, 2020</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/506204922756465/posts/2781863298523938\">Facebook post</a>, Feb. 20, 2020</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/groups/142529582942633/permalink/854599688402282\">Facebook post</a>, Feb. 20, 2020</p>\n\n<p>NBC News, &quot;<a href=\"https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-ninth-democratic-debate-las-vegas-n1139546\">Full transcript: Ninth Democratic debate in Las Vegas</a>,&quot; Feb. 20, 2020</p>\n\n<p>Sen. Bernie Sanders, <a href=\"https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file\">Options to Finance Medicare for All</a>, accessed Feb. 21, 2020</p>\n\n<p>Tax Policy Center, &quot;<a href=\"https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/story-medicare-all-and-taxes-complex-warren-and-sanders-have-tell-it\">The Story Of Medicare For All And Taxes Is Complex, But Warren And Sanders Have To Tell It</a>,&quot; Oct. 17, 2019</p>\n\n<p>The Urban Institute, &quot;<a href=\"https://www.urban.org/research/publication/incremental-comprehensive-health-reform-how-various-reform-options-compare-coverage-and-costs\">From Incremental to Comprehensive Health Reform: How Various Reform Options Compare on Coverage and Costs</a>,&quot; Oct. 16, 2019</p>\n\n<p>The Washington Post, &quot;<a href=\"https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/\">We&rsquo;re asking 2020 Democrats where they stand on key issues</a>,&quot; accessed Feb. 21, 2020</p>"
        },
        {
            "id": 17980,
            "slug": "elizabeth-warren-wrong-say-amy-klobuchars-health-p",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "elizabeth-warren",
                "full_name": "Elizabeth Warren",
                "first_name": "Elizabeth",
                "last_name": "Warren"
            },
            "targets": [
                {
                    "slug": "amy-klobuchar",
                    "full_name": "Amy Klobuchar",
                    "first_name": "Amy",
                    "last_name": "Klobuchar"
                }
            ],
            "statement": "\"Amy, I looked online at your (health care) plan. It’s two paragraphs.\"",
            "ruling_slug": "false",
            "publication_date": "2020-02-21T17:26:56-05:00",
            "ruling_comments": "<p>Sen. Elizabeth Warren loves to tout her plans for any and all policy questions, including <a href=\"https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/climate-change\">climate change</a>, <a href=\"https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-for-universal-child-care-762535e6c20a\">child care</a> and especially <a href=\"https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-first-term-plan-for-reducing-health-care-costs-in-america-and-transitioning-to-medicare-for-all-8d45dd993872\">health care</a>.</p>\n\n<p>This became a point of contention during the <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/feb/20/fact-checking-las-vegas-democratic-debate-bloomber/\">Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas</a> on Feb. 19, where she&nbsp;criticized her rivals over a lack of specificity in their health plans.</p>\n\n<p>Warren said a proposal from Pete Buttigieg is &quot;not a plan. It&#39;s a PowerPoint.&quot; Then she turned to Senate colleague Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.</p>\n\n<p>&quot;And Amy&#39;s plan is even less,&quot; Warren said. &quot;It&#39;s like a Post-It note, &#39;Insert Plan Here.&#39;&quot;</p>\n\n<p>After some additional digs and discussion,&nbsp;Warren and Klobuchar had this&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-ninth-democratic-debate-las-vegas-n1139546\">exchange</a>:</p>\n\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt;\"><strong>Warren</strong>: &quot;So I actually took a look at the plans that are posted. &hellip; Amy, I looked online at your plan. It&#39;s two paragraphs. Families are suffering, and they need &hellip;&quot;</p>\n\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt;\"><strong>Klobuchar</strong>: &quot;OK, that&#39;s it.&quot;</p>\n\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt;\"><strong>Warren</strong>: &quot;You can&#39;t simply stand here and trash an idea to give health care coverage to everyone without having a realistic plan of your own. And if you&#39;re not going to own up to the fact either that you don&#39;t have a plan or that your plan is going to leave people without health care coverage, full coverage, then you need to say so.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>Warren&rsquo;s campaign told PolitiFact that she was referring specifically to Klobuchar&rsquo;s plan for &quot;universal health care.&quot; Her campaign pointed to the two paragraphs at the end of a Klobuchar campaign web page that specifically follow the heading &quot;Propose legislation to get us to universal health care.&quot;&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>However, this is a selective reading of the health care policy pages that Klobuchar posted on her website.</p>\n\n<div class=\"pf_subheadline\">The two candidates&rsquo; plans</div>\n\n<p>Klobuchar supports building on the Affordable Care Act and adding a public option that expands Medicare and Medicaid.</p>\n\n<p>By contrast, Warren initially joined rival candidate Bernie Sanders in supporting a wholesale switch to a single-player plan &mdash; a more aggressive approach than Klobuchar&rsquo;s &mdash; then later <a href=\"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2019/11/18/the-health-202-elizabeth-warren-is-no-longer-a-medicare-for-all-purist/5dd145a788e0fa10ffd20ed8/\">eased off</a>. Warren currently backs two bills, one for a public option and another for a single-payer plan.</p>\n\n<p>The problem with Warren&rsquo;s attack is that it focuses on two paragraphs, which ignores most of her rival&rsquo;s health care plan. There is quite a bit of detail in Klobuchar&rsquo;s plan.</p>\n\n<p>Klobuchar&rsquo;s website has no fewer than four different web pages that address the topic &mdash; <a href=\"https://amyklobuchar.com/issue/health-care/\">a main health care policy page</a>, <a href=\"https://amyklobuchar.com/turning-ideas-into-action-senator-klobuchar-on-health-care-and-prescription-drugs/\">a more detailed sub-page</a>, <a href=\"https://amyklobuchar.com/turning-ideas-into-action-senator-klobuchar-on-health-care-and-prescription-drugs/\">a sub-page on prescription drugs</a> and <a href=\"https://medium.com/@AmyforAmerica/amys-plan-to-combat-addiction-and-prioritize-mental-health-b0207531c9ab\">a sub-page on mental health</a>.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>Some of Klobuchar&rsquo;s bullet-pointed priorities include:</p>\n\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt;\">&bull; &quot;Immediately suspend the Trump Administration&rsquo;s efforts to eliminate the Affordable Care Act&rsquo;s protections for people with pre-existing conditions.&quot;</p>\n\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt;\">&bull; &quot;Develop best models of care to address disparities in maternal and infant mortality and address the shortage of maternity care health professionals in underserved rural and urban areas.&quot;</p>\n\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt;\">&bull; &quot;Expand Medicaid reimbursement for people receiving mental health or substance use treatment.&quot;</p>\n\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt;\">&bull; &quot;Expand the open enrollment period for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act so more people can get insurance coverage.&quot;</p>\n\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt;\">&bull; &quot;Stop Trump sabotage of the ACA by ending workarounds that allow states to raise premiums for sicker people and shift ACA premium subsidies away from lower-income enrollees.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>All told, the four Klobuchar web pages by our count have 64 paragraphs, not counting overlap &mdash; far more than two.</p>\n\n<div class=\"pf_subheadline\">Our ruling</div>\n\n<p>Warren said, &quot;Amy, I looked online at your (health care) plan. It&rsquo;s two paragraphs.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>Warren&rsquo;s campaign said she was referring to just the paragraphs that specifically addressed universal health care. That wasn&#39;t clear on stage, where she dismissed Klobuchar&#39;s health policy ideas as small enough to fit on a Post-It. Klobuchar&#39;s two paragraphs on universal health care are just one part of a four-webpage policy statement that collectively runs 64 paragraphs long.</p>\n\n<p>We rate the statement&nbsp;False.</p>",
            "sources": "<p>Las Vegas debate <a href=\"https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-ninth-democratic-debate-las-vegas-n1139546\">transcript</a>, Feb. 19, 2020</p>\n\n<p>Amy Klobuchar health policy web pages, accessed Feb. 19, 2020: <a href=\"https://amyklobuchar.com/issue/health-care/\">main health care policy page</a>, <a href=\"https://amyklobuchar.com/turning-ideas-into-action-senator-klobuchar-on-health-care-and-prescription-drugs/\">more detailed sub-page</a>, <a href=\"https://amyklobuchar.com/turning-ideas-into-action-senator-klobuchar-on-health-care-and-prescription-drugs/\">sub-page on prescription drugs</a>, <a href=\"https://medium.com/@AmyforAmerica/amys-plan-to-combat-addiction-and-prioritize-mental-health-b0207531c9ab\">sub-page on mental health</a></p>\n\n<p>Elizabeth Warren, &quot;<a href=\"https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-first-term-plan-for-reducing-health-care-costs-in-america-and-transitioning-to-medicare-for-all-8d45dd993872\">My First Term Plan for Reducing Health Care Costs in America and Transitioning to Medicare for All</a>,&quot; Nov 15, 2019</p>\n\n<p>Washington Post, &quot;<a href=\"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2019/11/18/the-health-202-elizabeth-warren-is-no-longer-a-medicare-for-all-purist/5dd145a788e0fa10ffd20ed8/\">The Health 202: Elizabeth Warren is no longer a Medicare-for-all purist</a>,&quot; November 18, 2019</p>"
        },
        {
            "id": 17982,
            "slug": "no-presidential-limo-wasnt-doing-burnouts-daytona-",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "viral-image",
                "full_name": "Viral image",
                "first_name": "",
                "last_name": "Viral image"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "Says President Trump’s limousine driver did burnouts to entertain Daytona 500 spectators during a rain delay.",
            "ruling_slug": "pants-fire",
            "publication_date": "2020-02-21T16:06:11-05:00",
            "ruling_comments": "<p>Did President Donald Trump&rsquo;s limousine driver put the rubber to the road and do burnouts in Cadillac One at the Daytona 500?</p>\n\n<p>Sorry to disappoint, but no.</p>\n\n<p>A <a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1761658673969738&amp;set=a.609883669147250&amp;type=3&amp;theater\">Facebook post</a> shares an altered image of such a scene, along with a caption that says, &quot;the presidential limo driver entertains the crowd during the rain delays at the Daytona 500 with smokey burnouts.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>The post was flagged as part of Facebook&rsquo;s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about<a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/help/1952307158131536?helpref=related\"> our partnership with Facebook</a>.)&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>The president and first lady did attend the Feb. 16 event, and multiple media organizations <a href=\"https://time.com/5785130/donald-trump-daytona-500/\">reported</a> Trump&rsquo;s limo took a warmup lap around the track.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>But the driver did not decide to use the official state car of the president of the United States to do some smoky burnouts, in the rain no less.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>Beyond the Facebook post, we found the altered image <a href=\"https://twitter.com/Chase79485892/status/1229246407074353153\">in a tweet</a> that said: &quot;This is what we needed at the #DAYTONA500 is for @realDonaldTrump limo to do a burnout.&quot; The image then got passed around as authentic.</p>\n\n<p>If such a thing happened in the First Car, we would all know about it.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>We rate this altered photo an extra-smoky Pants on Fire!</p>",
            "sources": "<p>Facebook <a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1761658673969738&amp;set=a.609883669147250&amp;type=3&amp;theater\">post,</a> Feb. 16, 2020</p>\n\n<p>Twitter, <a href=\"https://twitter.com/Chase79485892/status/1229246407074353153\">image tweet</a>, Feb. 16, 2020</p>\n\n<p>Time, <a href=\"https://time.com/5785130/donald-trump-daytona-500/\">President Trump Takes Warmup Lap at Daytona 500 in Limousine</a>,&nbsp; Feb. 17, 2020</p>\n\n<div>&nbsp;</div>"
        },
        {
            "id": 17981,
            "slug": "doctored-image-falsely-shows-pete-buttigieg-leathe",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "facebook-posts",
                "full_name": "Facebook posts",
                "first_name": "",
                "last_name": "Facebook posts"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "Says image shows Pete Buttigieg in a leather suit posing with two other men.",
            "ruling_slug": "pants-fire",
            "publication_date": "2020-02-21T15:16:19-05:00",
            "ruling_comments": "<p>A photo shared on Facebook falsely shows Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg dressed in a black leather suit and standing on the street posing for a picture alongside two other men.</p>\n\n<p>The post was flagged as part of Facebook&rsquo;s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our<a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/help/1952307158131536?helpref=related\"> partnership with Facebook</a>.)</p>\n\n<p>PolitiFact ran reverse image searches and found the <a href=\"https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/549861435725886601/?nic_v1=1aRfmkDmGAAh2b3ZpRkQNC1Zc61o5RFGxaBQmIw841KttqxmA7OxP8ON6lhhFgNP29\">original photo</a>, which does not include Buttigieg. The picture found on Pinterest does not identify who&rsquo;s in it; it only says it&rsquo;s from a Folsom Street Fair.</p>\n\n<p>The Facebook photo was edited to replace the face of the person originally in the photo with an image of Buttigieg&rsquo;s face.</p>\n\n<p>We rate the doctored Facebook photo Pants on Fire!</p>",
            "sources": "<p>Pinterest.ca, <a href=\"https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/549861435725886601/?nic_v1=1aRfmkDmGAAh2b3ZpRkQNC1Zc61o5RFGxaBQmIw841KttqxmA7OxP8ON6lhhFgNP29\">Folsom Street Fair photo</a></p>"
        },
        {
            "id": 17977,
            "slug": "does-bernie-sanders-have-strong-support-rural-and-",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "jane-omeara-sanders",
                "full_name": "Jane O’Meara Sanders",
                "first_name": "Jane",
                "last_name": "O’Meara Sanders"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "\"@BernieSanders receives strong support from the conservative &amp; most rural part of Vermont.\"",
            "ruling_slug": "true",
            "publication_date": "2020-02-20T19:40:24-05:00",
            "ruling_comments": "<p>Electability is at the front of the minds of Democratic voters as they mull who to support in the primary contest.</p>\n\n<p>People in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and the now fast-approaching Super Tuesday states have been deciding whether the self-described democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., can win over moderate Democrats&nbsp; and go on to defeat President Donald Trump in a general election.</p>\n\n<p>In the runup to the Iowa caucuses, where the Vermont senator finished in the top two &mdash; bunched with former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg &mdash; Jane O&rsquo;Meara Sanders, senior adviser and the wife of Bernie Sanders, claimed on Twitter that her husband has a track record of support in the Republican pockets of Vermont.</p>\n\n<p>&quot;@BernieSanders receives strong support from the conservative &amp; most rural part of Vermont. Even if they don&rsquo;t agree with him on everything, they appreciate his honesty, hard work &amp; that he&rsquo;s fighting for workers,&quot; Jane Sanders tweeted.</p>\n\n<p>Sanders is immensely popular in Vermont, consistently ranking among the top U.S. senators <a href=\"https://morningconsult.com/the-most-and-least-popular-senators-in-america/\">for favorability in the country</a>, but does the progressive politician have &quot;strong&quot; support in the state&rsquo;s most conservative and rural area?</p>\n\n<div class=\"pf_subheadline\">Support for Sanders in Republican Vermont</div>\n\n<div class=\"pf_subheadline\">&nbsp;</div>\n\n<div class=\"pf_subheadline\">The Sanders campaign provided results from the 2018 election as evidence to support Jane Sanders&rsquo; statement.</div>\n\n<p>The campaign highlighted the large number of towns and counties which Sanders carried in the Senate race, but which also voted for incumbent Republican Gov. Phil Scott in the gubernatorial election.</p>\n\n<p>While it is true that many counties voted for both Scott and Sanders during the 2018 election, this does not address the portion of Jane Sanders&rsquo; claim that the conservative and &quot;most rural&quot; area in Vermont supports the senator.</p>\n\n<p>The most strongly Republican areas in the state are the counties that make up the Northeast Kingdom &mdash; Essex, Orleans and Caledonia &mdash; along with Franklin and Rutland counties.</p>\n\n<div class=\"pf_subheadline\">Crunching the numbers</div>\n\n<p>VTDigger analyzed general election data from the Vermont Secretary of State&rsquo;s Office for these five counties since 1990 &mdash; the year Vermont first sent Sanders to Congress &mdash; to see how the Vermont senator has fared against Republicans in the most conservative areas of the state.</p>\n\n<p>Since 1990, Sanders has dropped below the 50% threshold in Essex County just four times &mdash; 1992, 1994, 1996 and 2018, once in Caledonia County &mdash; in 1994, and has never dipped below 50% support in Orleans County.</p>\n\n<p>In that same time period, 1994 was the only election he did not receive 50% of the vote in Rutland and Franklin counties.</p>\n\n<p>The 1994 race was a competitive contest between the incumbent Sanders and Republican John Carroll. Sanders received 49.9% while Carroll finished 3 points behind with 46.6%. While Sanders <a href=\"https://vtelectionarchive.sec.state.vt.us/elections/view/75683/\">received fewer votes than</a> Carroll in several of the towns in the Northeast Kingdom, it was by small margins demonstrating competitiveness in the region.</p>\n\n<p>Interestingly, during that contest, Sanders did not carry Shelburne or South Burlington but did receive more support than Carroll in Rutland City.</p>\n\n<p>Between 1998 and 2006, Sanders never dipped below 56% support in Essex County and in his 2012 reelection bid he got more than 60% of the vote in the county. The last election, in 2018, was the first time since 1996 that he received less than 60% of the vote in Caledonia County.</p>\n\n<p>Because Vermont does not require voters to register with a party to vote in elections, there&rsquo;s no data on how many Republican voters crossed over in these elections to vote for Sanders.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>&quot;It is true that Bernie has done well in the smaller towns in Vermont for a very long time,&quot; said Eric Davis, professor emeritus of political science at Middlebury College.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>&quot;Is it conservative voters in those towns or is it more progressive voters in those towns? We don&#39;t know,&quot; Davis added. &quot;What we do know is, he has done well among the rural areas of the state. We do not know if he has done well among conservative voters.&quot;</p>\n\n<div class=\"pf_subheadline\">Our Ruling</div>\n\n<p>On Jan. 26, Jane O&rsquo;Meara Sanders tweeted that her husband, Bernie Sanders, &quot;receives strong support from the conservative &amp; most rural part of Vermont&quot; as an argument why he is electable.</p>\n\n<p>In general election contests since 1990, Sanders has demonstrated he has been able to receive the majority of the votes in both the most rural and conservative areas of the state &mdash; even if Vermont Republicans may not agree with all of his policies.</p>\n\n<p>We rate this statement True. ​</p>",
            "sources": "<p>Email exchange with Rosemary Boeglin, Northeast press secretary for the Sanders campaign. Feb. 19, 2020.</p>\n\n<p>Phone interview with Eric Davis, Feb. 19, 2020.</p>\n\n<p>Phone interview with Garrison Nelson, Feb. 19, 2020.</p>\n\n<p>Elections data from the Vermont Secretary of State&rsquo;s Office.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>&nbsp;</p>"
        },
        {
            "id": 17978,
            "slug": "gavin-newsom-claimed-californias-homeless-populati",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "gavin-newsom",
                "full_name": "Gavin Newsom",
                "first_name": "Gavin",
                "last_name": "Newsom"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "\"Back in 2005, when we did that first point-in-time count, there were over 188,000 thousand people that were deemed homeless in the state of California. … That’s 35,000 more than we have today.”",
            "ruling_slug": "half-true",
            "publication_date": "2020-02-20T19:39:18-05:00",
            "ruling_comments": "<p>Gov. Gavin Newsom dedicated his second <a href=\"http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/02/19/transcript-and-analysis-california-gov-gavin-newsoms-2020-state-of-the-state/\">State of the State address</a> almost entirely to California&rsquo;s deepening homelessness crisis. He said the problem today requires &quot;a coordinated crisis-level response,&quot; one that gets &quot;the mentally ill out of tents and into treatment&quot; and produces affordable housing to ensure no Californian is homeless.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>But Newsom also said the crisis &quot;has persisted for decades&quot; and made a claim that suggests it was worse 15 years ago.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>&quot;Back in 2005, when we did that first point-in-time count, there were over 188,000 thousand people that were deemed homeless in the state of California. &hellip; That&rsquo;s 35,000 more than we have today,&quot; Newsom said during his address, held at the state Capitol.</p>\n\n<p>Those figures caught our attention.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>Has the state&rsquo;s homeless population really dropped by 35,000 over the past decade and a half? We set out on a fact check.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p><strong>&lsquo;Apples To Oranges&rsquo; Comparison?&nbsp;&nbsp;</strong></p>\n\n<p>The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development tracks homeless figures for each state based on point-in-time counts conducted every two years by local agencies. For 2005, <a href=\"https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_State_CA_2005.pdf\">HUD listed California&rsquo;s homeless population at 188,299</a>, matching Newsom&rsquo;s figure.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>Last month, HUD released its 2019 <a href=\"https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2019-AHAR-Part-1.pdf\">report</a> showing California had 151,278 homeless people, or about 37,000 fewer than in 2005. That also generally lines up with the governor&rsquo;s statement.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>But we found there&rsquo;s been a major change in how homeless people are counted since 2005. At that time, some communities, including Los Angeles County, would count the &quot;the hidden homeless,&quot; or those who were temporarily living in a motel or on someone&rsquo;s couch, in addition to those who lived on the streets, in cars, shelters or abandoned buildings.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>HUD stopped allowing the practice of counting the hidden homeless several years ago.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>That makes comparing past data to today&rsquo;s &quot;apples to oranges,&quot; said Bob Erlenbusch, executive director of the Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness. &quot;It&rsquo;s not even close.&quot;&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>Sharron Rapport, director of the California Policy Corporation for Supportive Housing, said a significant number of people who were counted as homeless residents in the past are no longer tallied.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>&quot;There may not be an actual decrease of 35,000 people experiencing homeless. It could just be that we counted them differently before,&quot; said Rapport, who serves on the governor&rsquo;s homelessness task force.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>Advocates for homeless people have criticized HUD&rsquo;s methodology for not counting these less-visible individuals. They have said point-in-time counts, which are conducted on a single night at the end of January and largely by volunteers, tally only a fraction of the total homeless population.</p>\n\n<p>&quot;We know there&rsquo;s an epidemic, right? You would have to be blind to not understand the nature of the epidemic,&quot; Margaretta Lin, executive director of the Dellums Institute for Social Justice said in a <a href=\"https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/03/homeless-crisis-oakland-california-hud-point-in-time-data/584023/\">CityLab news article</a> in 2019. &quot;But HUD defines homelessness as people who are literally homeless. People who are in a motel for that night or couch surfing for that night, under the HUD definitions, they are not considered homeless.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>While the change in HUD&rsquo;s methodology partially explains the lower homeless population, Rapport said California is also doing a better job housing people without a permanent home than it did in the past.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>Los Angeles County, for example, is now housing 133 homeless people per day, a significant increase from the past, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said at a <a href=\"http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/02/13/us-housing-chief-ben-carson-urges-california-to-work-with-feds-on-homelessness-crisis-draws-skepticism/\">forum</a> last week on homelessness. The mayor noted, however, that an estimated 150 people per day are becoming homeless in the county.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p><strong>A More Visible Crisis</strong></p>\n\n<p>Setting the numbers aside, Rapport said there are several reasons homelessness is more visible now compared with 15 years ago. For one, it&rsquo;s in more communities.</p>\n\n<p>&quot;It used to be more concentrated in specific areas. Now it is more dispersed,&quot; Rapport said. &quot;We see homelessness in every part of our state. &hellip; It&rsquo;s not just in our urban centers, it&rsquo;s in our suburban areas, it&rsquo;s in our rural areas. People notice it more, I think, because of that.&quot;&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>The high-profile Hepatitis A outbreaks that spread in homeless communities in <a href=\"https://apnews.com/cc40b8c476ef469ebdc2228772176b03\">San Diego</a> and <a href=\"https://abc7.com/health/hepatitis-a-outbreak-declared-in-los-angeles-county/2433276/?ref=hvper.com\">Los Angeles</a>, along with more media coverage of the topic have also raised awareness, she said.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>When we asked about Newsom&rsquo;s statement, the governor&rsquo;s office told us it&rsquo;s &quot;not a perfect&quot; comparison. But, they said, the federal reports are the only comprehensive source available.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>They added that Newsom was not trying to suggest that the crisis has improved, just the opposite.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Our Ruling</strong></p>\n\n<p>Newsom claimed: &quot;Back in 2005, when we did that first point-in-time count, there were over 188,000 thousand people that were deemed homeless in the state of California. &hellip; That&rsquo;s 35,000 more than we have today.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>His figures are technically right based on homelessness reports issued every two years by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>But his statement ignores a key change in how the reports count homeless people. In the past, they tallied a large number of &quot;hidden homeless,&quot; those living temporarily at a friend&rsquo;s home or motel. Today, those people are no longer counted, meaning Newsom&rsquo;s comparison is problematic, at best.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>We rated the governor&rsquo;s claim Half True.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<hr>\n<p><em><strong>HALF TRUE </strong>&ndash; The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.</em></p>\n\n<p><em>Click here for<a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/feb/21/principles-truth-o-meter/\"> more</a> on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.</em></p>\n\n<p><strong>RELATED:&nbsp;</strong></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/02/19/transcript-and-analysis-california-gov-gavin-newsoms-2020-state-of-the-state/\">Transcript And Analysis: California Gov. Gavin Newsom&#39;s 2020 State Of The State</a></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jan/13/one-year-gov-gavin-newsom-shows-bold-action-califo/\">One year in, Gov. Gavin Newsom shows bold action, but California&rsquo;s homelessness crisis deepens</a></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/01/08/a-real-emergency-newsom-issues-executive-order-to-use-state-land-travel-trailers-hospitals-for-california-homeless-crisis\">&lsquo;A Real Emergency&rsquo;: Newsom Issues Executive Order To Use State Land, Travel Trailers, Hospitals For California Homeless Crisis</a></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/california/promises/newsom-meter/promise/1458/appoint-state-homelessness-secretary/\">A promise stalled: Eight months in, Gov. Gavin Newsom has yet to hire a homelessness czar</a></p>",
            "sources": "<p>Gov. Gavin Newsom, <a href=\"http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/02/19/transcript-and-analysis-california-gov-gavin-newsoms-2020-state-of-the-state/\">State of the State Address</a>, Feb. 19, 202</p>\n\n<p>Bob Erlenbusch, executive director, Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness, phone interview Feb. 19, 2020</p>\n\n<p>Sharon Rapport, director, California Policy Corporation for Supportive Housing, &nbsp;phone interview Feb. 19, 2020</p>\n\n<p>U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department, <a href=\"https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2019-AHAR-Part-1.pdf\">The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress</a>, accessed February 2020</p>\n\n<p>U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department, <a href=\"https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_State_CA_2005.pdf\">HUD&#39;s 2005 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations</a>, accessed February 2020</p>\n\n<p>CityLab, <a href=\"https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/03/homeless-crisis-oakland-california-hud-point-in-time-data/584023/\">Is There a Better Way to Count the Homeless?, March 4</a>, 2019</p>"
        },
        {
            "id": 17976,
            "slug": "checking-bloomberg-houston-infant-mortality",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "michael-bloomberg",
                "full_name": "Michael Bloomberg",
                "first_name": "Michael",
                "last_name": "Bloomberg"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "Says “black babies die at rates twice as high as white babies because of a lack of access to affordable health care.”",
            "ruling_slug": "mostly-true",
            "publication_date": "2020-02-20T18:28:18-05:00",
            "ruling_comments": "<p>At a rally in Houston, Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg apologized for supporting the stop-and-frisk policy he endorsed while serving as mayor of New York City from 2002 to 2013.</p>\n\n<p>Bloomberg told the mostly black audience at the rally that he should have &quot;acted sooner and faster&quot; to stop the policy and said if he were elected, he&rsquo;d use &quot;the power of the presidency to right the wrongs of institutional racism.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>He used the rally as an opportunity to unveil a new initiative that he says will address issues specific to the black community in the United States: &quot;Mike for Black America.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>One issue he highlighted in his address was access to health care.</p>\n\n<p>&quot;We will build a future in which we better protect the health of black mothers and their babies,&quot; Bloomberg said at the rally. &quot;You should know that black babies die at rates twice as high as white babies because of a lack of access to affordable health care and here, in the wealthiest country in the world, we cannot accept that and we will change that.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>Bloomberg&rsquo;s figure is accurate, but is he right in his assessment of the cause of this disparity? His team did not return a request for more information about his claim.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Mortality rate higher for black infants</strong></p>\n\n<p>The latest statistics on infant mortality from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that there were 22,341 infant deaths reported in the United States in 2017, putting the mortality rate at 5.79 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.</p>\n\n<p>Statistics on infant mortality are compiled based on birth and infant death certificates in cases where infants less than a year died during the calendar year.</p>\n\n<p>Generally, the infant mortality rate has trended downward since 1995 and has declined 16% since 2005, when the rate was 6.86 deaths per 1,000 live births.</p>\n\n<p>The CDC also analyzes the infant mortality rate by race. In 2017, infants born to black women had the highest mortality rate of 10.97 deaths per 1,000 live births.</p>\n\n<p>The mortality rate for infants born to non-Hispanic white mothers was 4.67 deaths per 1,000 live births, meaning infants born to black mothers have an infant mortality rate 2.35 times higher than infants born to white mothers, according to the CDC.</p>\n\n<p>Bloomberg&rsquo;s claim wasn&rsquo;t limited to Texas, but this trend is also visible at the state level.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db295.pdf\">A 2018 report</a> from the CDC looked at infant mortality data from 2013 to 2015 by state and race and found that, in Texas, the mortality rate for infants born to non-Hispanic white women was 5 deaths per 1,000 live births and was 10.52 for infants born to black women.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Exploring causes of disparity</strong></p>\n\n<p>It&rsquo;s true that infants born to black mothers have died at rates twice as high as white babies in recent years, but is it true that it is due to a lack of access to affordable health care? It isn&rsquo;t that simple.</p>\n\n<p>The five leading causes of all infant deaths in 2017 identified by the CDC were all health related:</p>\n\n<ul>\n\t<li>Congenital malformations: 21% of infant deaths</li>\n\t<li>Disorders related to short gestation and low birthweight: 17% of infant deaths</li>\n\t<li>Maternal complications: 6% of infant deaths</li>\n\t<li>Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS): 6% of infant deaths</li>\n\t<li>Unintentional injuries: 6% of infant deaths</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>In a 2019 report, the CDC noted that infants born to black women had the highest mortality rates for disorders related to short gestation (premature birth) and low birthweight and maternal complications.</p>\n\n<p>Numerous academic studies and media investigations have highlighted correlations between access to health care and the disparity in infant and maternal mortality rates between black and white mothers.</p>\n\n<p>But access to health care is widely considered to be one of many contributing factors.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388953/\">One 2017 study</a> published in the American Journal of Public Health identified other factors that contribute to the high black infant mortality rate: socioeconomic status, maternal behavior, &quot;exposure to protective and risk factors over the course of a woman&rsquo;s life,&quot; and certain historical factors like segregation, limited educational opportunities, structural racism, and intergenerational poverty.</p>\n\n<p>This is not to say that a lack of access to health care is not a significant cause of this disparity.</p>\n\n<p>A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2019 explored how state Medicaid expansion associated with changes in low birthweight and preterm birth across different races &mdash; which are more likely to affect black mothers and infants than white mothers and infants.</p>\n\n<p>The study did not explore the link between Medicaid expansion and reducing infant mortality.</p>\n\n<p>Researchers found that overall, Medicaid expansion was not associated with differences in rates of low birth weight or preterm births. However, they identified &quot;significant improvements in relative disparities for black infants compared with white infants in states that expanded Medicaid vs. those that did not.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>In other words, states that expanded Medicaid saw rates of low birthweight and preterm births decline among black mothers and infants.</p>\n\n<p>In general, black mothers were less likely than white mothers to access prenatal care, according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services&rsquo;s Office of Minority Health.</p>\n\n<p>In 2017, black mothers were 2.3 times more likely to receive no prenatal care or late prenatal care than non-Hispanic white mothers.</p>\n\n<p>The same year, 66.6% of black mothers received prenatal care during the first trimester, compared to 82.4% of white mothers who accessed early care.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Our ruling</strong></p>\n\n<p>Bloomberg said: &quot;Black babies die at rates twice as high as white babies because of a lack of access to affordable health care.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>Bloomberg&rsquo;s figures about the black infant mortality rate vs. the white infant mortality rate are accurate. Studies show that access to healthcare is a contributing factor to this disparity, but it is far from being the only issue at play.</p>\n\n<p>We rate this claim Mostly True.</p>",
            "sources": "<p>Youtube, <a href=\"https://youtu.be/sEuvsP7sgXk?t=4350\">Mike Delivers Speech in Houston</a>, TX, Feb. 14, 2020</p>\n\n<p>PolitiFact,<a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/apr/23/beto-orourke/la-di-dah/\"> Is racial gap in infant mortality higher today than in 1850, as Beto O&#39;Rourke says?</a>, April 23, 2019</p>\n\n<p>National Vital Statistics Reports, <a href=\"https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_10-508.pdf\">Infant Mortality in the United States, 2017: Data From the Period Linked Birth/Infant Death File</a>, August 1, 2019</p>\n\n<p>National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief, <a href=\"https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db295.pdf\">State Variations in Infant Mortality by Race and Hispanic Origin of Mother, 2013-2015</a>, January 2018</p>\n\n<p>U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health,<a href=\"https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&amp;lvlid=23\"> Infant Mortality and African Americans</a>, accessed Feb. 17, 2020</p>\n\n<p>Journal of the American Medical Association, <a href=\"https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2731179\">Association of State Medicaid Expansion Status With Low Birth Weight and Preterm Birth</a>, April 2019</p>\n\n<p>Center for Health Journalism,<a href=\"https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/2019/05/11/how-one-reporter-made-old-statistic-about-black-infant-mortality-new-and-urgent\"> How one reporter made an old statistic about black infant mortality new and urgent</a>, June 14, 2019</p>\n\n<p>New York Times Magazine,<a href=\"https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5949dcd872af65c387d48484/t/5d263a062c708800011eed6d/1562786313617/Why+America%E2%80%99s+Black+Mothers+and+Babies+Are+in+a+Life-or-Death+Crisis+-+The+New+York+Times.pdf\"> Why America&rsquo;s Black Mothers and Babies Are in a Life-or-Death Crisis</a>, April 11, 2018</p>\n\n<p>KPCC, <a href=\"https://www.scpr.org/topics/special-series-black-infant-mortality\">Special Series: Black Infant Mortality</a>, accessed Feb. 18, 2020</p>\n\n<p>U.S. National Library of Medicine, <a href=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388953/\">State-Level Progress in Reducing the Black&ndash;White Infant Mortality Gap, United States</a>, 1999&ndash;2013, May 2017</p>\n\n<p>U.S. National Library of Medicine, <a href=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388980/\">The US Black&ndash;White Infant Mortality Gap: Marker of Deep Inequities</a>, May 2017</p>"
        },
        {
            "id": 17971,
            "slug": "amy-klobuchar-says-majority-trump-voters-hunters-w",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "amy-klobuchar",
                "full_name": "Amy Klobuchar",
                "first_name": "Amy",
                "last_name": "Klobuchar"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "“The majority of hunters now want universal background checks, the majority of Trump voters.”",
            "ruling_slug": "true",
            "publication_date": "2020-02-20T17:43:03-05:00",
            "ruling_comments": "<p>On the heels of a <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/feb/20/fact-checking-las-vegas-democratic-debate-bloomber/\">fiesty Democratic debate</a> that touched on everything from health care to former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg&rsquo;s past comments and positions, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar joined <a href=\"https://youtu.be/WwGX3hxToi4?t=258\">MSNBC&rsquo;s &quot;Morning Joe&quot;</a> to talk about an issue that didn&rsquo;t come up: Guns.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>Klobuchar said she was &quot;sad&quot; that gun violence wasn&rsquo;t talked about during the debate in Las Vegas, the location of the <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/oct/02/wake-las-vegas-reviewing-fact-checks-guns-and-gun-/\">deadliest</a> <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/may/18/facts-mass-shootings-guns-united-states/\">mass shooting</a> in U.S. history in 2017. She also lamented the lack of progress in Congress on universal background checks.</p>\n\n<p>&quot;The majority of hunters now want universal background checks, the majority of Trump voters,&quot; Klobuchar said. &quot;There&rsquo;s absolutely no reason we shouldn&rsquo;t be moving on it.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com</p>\n\n<p>We&rsquo;ve fact-checked a number of related claims from Democrats about <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/\">support</a> for universal background checks among groups such as <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/feb/27/tim-ryan/after-parkland-shooting-ohio-congressman-said-70-8/\">NRA members</a>, <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/02/tammy-baldwin/mostly-target-claim-97-percent-gun-owners-support-/\">gun owners</a> and <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/29/pete-buttigieg/buttigieg-point-majority-republicans-support-backg/\">Republicans</a>.</p>\n\n<p>But what about hunters? And what about supporters of President Donald Trump?&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>Klobuchar has made the same claim a few times before, including on <a href=\"https://youtu.be/PFq-kehtxjg?t=124\">ABC&rsquo;s &quot;The View,&quot;</a> so we decided to check it out. We found that her statement lines up with the available polls.</p>\n\n<p><strong><em>RELATED: <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2020/jan/02/gun-background-checks-what-research-shows/\">Do gun background checks work? What the research shows</a></em></strong></p>\n\n<div class=\"pf_subheadline\">Recap: What are universal background checks?</div>\n\n<p>Many Democrats have called for universal background checks, which would require background checks on nearly all gun purchases, including private sales made at events such as gun shows.</p>\n\n<p>The Democrat-led House <a href=\"https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr8/BILLS-116hr8pcs.pdf\">passed a bill in 2019</a> to ban the private transfer of firearms unless a licensed gun dealer or manufacturer takes possession of the firearm to conduct a background check. But the GOP-led Senate has <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/nov/14/what-congress-doing-besides-impeachment/\">refused to take it up</a>.</p>\n\n<p>Trump, meanwhile, has <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/aug/23/donald-trumps-shifts-gun-background-checks-after-m/\">made inconsistent statements</a> about background checks, often touting the need to strengthen them in the wake of mass shootings only to walk back his support later.</p>\n\n<div class=\"pf_subheadline\">Limited polling shows support among Trump voters, hunters</div>\n\n<p>When we examined a previous <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/29/pete-buttigieg/buttigieg-point-majority-republicans-support-backg/\">claim</a> about GOP support for universal background checks, we found a number of polls that showed Republican approval floating between 82% and 95%.</p>\n\n<p>Not all registered Republicans necessarily voted or are planning to vote for Trump, whose approval rating within the party has <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jun/06/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-republican-voters-him-more-they-/\">generally held</a> within the mid-to-high 80s. But a few polls that have narrowed the scope to Trump voters lend credence to Klobuchar&rsquo;s claim.</p>\n\n<p>The Klobuchar campaign specifically cited an <a href=\"https://www.scribd.com/document/421888832/Fox-News-Poll-August-14\">Aug. 14 Fox News poll</a> that asked 1,013 randomly sampled registered voters if they &quot;favor or oppose&quot; proposals &quot;requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and private sales.&quot;&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>That poll &mdash; conducted shortly after mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas &mdash; found support for such proposals from 90% of &quot;Trump voters,&quot; with 8% signaling opposition and 2% saying they didn&rsquo;t know.</p>\n\n<p>Similarly, a mid July <a href=\"http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1907190926.pdf#page=3?campaign_id=39&amp;instance_id=11361&amp;segment_id=15808&amp;user_id=5a33e92e8470f397afd80c81663d317d&amp;regi_id=78772156&amp;nl=david-leonhardt&amp;emc=edit_ty_20190802\">Marist poll conducted in partnership with NPR and PBS NewsHour</a> asked 1,346 respondents about &quot;background checks for gun purchases at gun shows or other private sales.&quot; And 82% of &quot;2016 Trump supporters&quot; said the checks were a &quot;good idea.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>Still, it&rsquo;s <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/29/pete-buttigieg/buttigieg-point-majority-republicans-support-backg/\">worth noting</a> that support for background checks doesn&rsquo;t always line up with voting for specific pieces of legislation. The National Rifle Association <a href=\"https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/background-checks-nics/?page=69&amp;state=0&amp;startDate=&amp;endDate=&amp;search=&amp;contributor=0&amp;contentBuckets=8166%2C8176%2C8177%2C8178%2C8195%2C8180%2C8188%2C8190%2C8189%2C8181%2C8183%2C8185%2C8191%2C8182%2C8186%2C8192%2C8194%2C8187&amp;geo\">has pointed</a> to 2016 referendums in <a href=\"https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Sales,_Question_3_(2016)\">Maine</a> and <a href=\"https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Purchases,_Question_1_(2016)#State_profile\">Nevada</a> that showed lower support for background checks than the <a href=\"https://www.thetrace.org/2016/10/gun-ballot-initiative-referendum-washington-nevada-maine/\">national polls</a>.</p>\n\n<p>It&rsquo;s also not clear how many people surveyed as part of the Fox News and Marist polls identified as Trump voters or supporters, although the Marist poll only reported results for subgroups of at least 100 people. Small sample sizes could be misleading, even if a larger number of polls shows high support for background checks among Republicans more generally.</p>\n\n<p>But Klobuchar claimed only that a majority of Trump voters want background checks, leaving her wiggle room to account for margins of error or changes in public opinion over time.</p>\n\n<p><em><strong>We follow the facts and share what we learn so you can make your own decisions. Support our mission today. <a href=\"https://t.co/ZG0SgVl6fM\">Membership.politifact.com</a></strong></em></p>\n\n<p>As for hunters, the Klobuchar campaign cited a <a href=\"https://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/guns-background-checks-hunting-group-089592\">2013 Politico article</a> <a href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/inside-the-power-of-the-nra.html\">about</a> a <a href=\"https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hunters-show-strong-support-for-conservation-background-checks-strong-opposition-to-assault-weapons-ban-200273701.html\">poll</a> <a href=\"https://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/hunting-guns-089599\">commissioned</a> by <a href=\"http://web.archive.org/web/20130530091149/http://www.bullmoosesportsmen.org/national-survey-of-hunters\">Bull Moose Sportsmen&rsquo;s Alliance</a>, an advocacy group representing hunters and sportsmen.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>That poll surveyed 800 hunters and found that 77% support &quot;requiring anyone who wants to purchase a firearm to pass a criminal background check before each potential gun purchase.&quot;&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>It also found that 72% of hunters support criminal background checks that allow for exemptions for &quot;gun exchanges between family members, sharing guns on hunting trips and shooting ranges, or sales to those who have concealed carry permits from state government.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>By now, the poll is almost seven years old. Liam Sullivan, press secretary for Brady United Against Gun Violence, a gun control advocacy group, said the organization was not aware of any other surveys measuring hunters&rsquo; support for background checks.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>We couldn&rsquo;t find other related polls via Google and Nexis. Neither could Everytown for Gun Safety, another gun control advocacy organization.</p>\n\n<p>But Sullivan noted that pollsters &mdash; including the <a href=\"https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/\">Pew Research Center</a>  &mdash; have found majority support for background checks <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/02/tammy-baldwin/mostly-target-claim-97-percent-gun-owners-support-/\">among gun owners</a> more generally.</p>\n\n<div class=\"pf_subheadline\">Our ruling</div>\n\n<p>Klobuchar said, &quot;The majority of hunters now want universal background checks, the majority of Trump voters.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>The claim about Trump voters is backed by two national polls from the summer of 2019, while the claim about hunters matches a 2013 poll commissioned by a hunting advocacy group. Polls don&rsquo;t necessarily reflect support for specific pieces of legislation, however.</p>\n\n<p>We rate this statement True.</p>",
            "sources": "<p>MSNBC, <a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwGX3hxToi4\">&quot;Morning Joe,&quot;</a> Feb. 20, 2020</p>\n\n<p>The View on <a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFq-kehtxjg\">YouTube</a>, &quot;Sen. Amy Klobuchar Discusses Her 2020 Campaign | The View,&quot; Dec. 2, 2019</p>\n\n<p>ABC News, <a href=\"https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-campaign-data-shows-gun-control-measures-pose/story?id=65432328\">&quot;Campaign says new gun control measures may pose political problem for Trump: Sources,&quot;</a> Sept. 6, 2019</p>\n\n<p>The New York Times, <a href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/us/politics/trump-gun-control-manchin.html\">&quot;Trump Aides&rsquo; Poll Finds Gun Control Politically Problematic for the President,&quot;</a> Sept. 6, 2019</p>\n\n<p>The Washington Post, <a href=\"https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/15/surprising-support-gun-control-among-trump-voters-three-charts/\">&quot;The surprising support for gun control among Trump voters, in three charts,&quot;</a> Aug. 15, 2019</p>\n\n<p>Fox News, <a href=\"https://www.scribd.com/document/421888832/Fox-News-Poll-August-14\">&quot;Fox News Poll, August 14,&quot;</a> Aug. 14, 2019</p>\n\n<p>NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist <a href=\"http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1907190926.pdf#page=3?campaign_id=39&amp;instance_id=11361&amp;segment_id=15808&amp;user_id=5a33e92e8470f397afd80c81663d317d&amp;regi_id=78772156&amp;nl=david-leonhardt&amp;emc=edit_ty_20190802\">national poll</a>, July 17, 2019</p>\n\n<p>NRA, <a href=\"https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/background-checks-nics/?page=69&amp;state=0&amp;startDate=&amp;endDate=&amp;search=&amp;contributor=0&amp;contentBuckets=8166%2C8176%2C8177%2C8178%2C8195%2C8180%2C8188%2C8190%2C8189%2C8181%2C8183%2C8185%2C8191%2C8182%2C8186%2C8192%2C8194%2C8187&amp;geo\">&quot;Background Checks for Guns,&quot;</a>, Jan. 7, 2019</p>\n\n<p>The New York Times, <a href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/inside-the-power-of-the-nra.html\">&quot;Inside the Power of the NRA,&quot;</a> Dec. 12, 2013</p>\n\n<p>PR Newswire, <a href=\"https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hunters-show-strong-support-for-conservation-background-checks-strong-opposition-to-assault-weapons-ban-200273701.html\">&quot;Hunters Show Strong Support for Conservation, Background Checks, Strong Opposition to Assault Weapons Ban,&quot;</a> May 27, 2013</p>\n\n<p>Politico, <a href=\"https://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/hunting-guns-089599\">&quot;Hunters chart middle ground on guns,&quot;</a> April 4, 2013</p>\n\n<p>Politico, <a href=\"https://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/guns-background-checks-hunting-group-089592\">&quot;Hunting org is for background checks,&quot;</a> April 3, 2013</p>\n\n<p>Bull Moose Sportsmen&rsquo;s Alliance, <a href=\"http://web.archive.org/web/20130530091149/http://www.bullmoosesportsmen.org/national-survey-of-hunters\">&quot;National Survey of Hunters,&quot;</a> accessed via the Internet Archive on Feb. 20, 2020</p>\n\n<p>PolitiFact, <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/29/pete-buttigieg/buttigieg-point-majority-republicans-support-backg/\">&quot;Buttigieg on point that majority of Republicans support background checks,&quot;</a> Jan. 29, 2020</p>\n\n<p>PolitiFact, <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/nov/14/what-congress-doing-besides-impeachment/\">&quot;What is Congress doing besides impeachment?&quot;</a> Nov. 14, 2019</p>\n\n<p>PolitiFact, <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/aug/23/donald-trumps-shifts-gun-background-checks-after-m/\">&quot;Donald Trump&rsquo;s shifts on gun background checks after mass shootings,&quot;</a> Aug. 23, 2019</p>\n\n<p>PolitiFact, <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jun/06/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-republican-voters-him-more-they-/\">&quot;Republicans support Donald Trump, but not as much as he said,&quot;</a> June 6, 2019</p>\n\n<p>PolitiFact, <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/02/tammy-baldwin/mostly-target-claim-97-percent-gun-owners-support-/\">&quot;A mostly on target claim: 97 percent of gun owners support universal background checks,&quot;</a> March 2, 2018</p>\n\n<p>PolitiFact, <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/feb/27/tim-ryan/after-parkland-shooting-ohio-congressman-said-70-8/\">&quot;Do majority of NRA members support background checks for guns?&quot;</a> Feb. 27, 2018</p>\n\n<p>PolitiFact, <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/\">&quot;Do 90% of Americans support background checks for all gun sales?&quot;</a> Oct. 3, 2017</p>\n\n<p>Email interview with Liam Sullivan, press secretary for Brady United Against Gun Violence, Feb. 20, 2020</p>\n\n<p>Email interview with Adam Farina, press secretary for Everytown for Gun Safety, Feb. 20, 2020</p>\n\n<p>Email interview with Max Steele, spokesman for the Klobuchar campaign, Feb. 20, 2020</p>"
        },
        {
            "id": 17974,
            "slug": "bloombergs-edited-video-las-vegas-democratic-debat",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "michael-bloomberg",
                "full_name": "Michael Bloomberg",
                "first_name": "Michael",
                "last_name": "Bloomberg"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "Video shows Democratic presidential candidates speechless for 20 seconds when discussing whether any of them started a business.",
            "ruling_slug": "barely-true",
            "publication_date": "2020-02-20T17:03:58-05:00",
            "ruling_comments": "<p>Democratic presidential candidates jumped over each other to land rhetorical punches against Mike Bloomberg at the <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/feb/20/fact-checking-las-vegas-democratic-debate-bloomber/\">Las Vegas debate</a>, hitting the billionaire former mayor over <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/20/elizabeth-warren/mike-bloombergs-redlining-remarks-distorted-elizab/\">redlining</a>, <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/20/michael-bloomberg/fact-checking-mike-bloombergs-claim-95-decline-sto/\">stop and frisk</a>, and his <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/20/joe-biden/obamacare-disgrace-biden-highlights-bloombergs-neg/\">past critiques of Barack Obama</a>.</p>\n\n<p>Bloomberg selected a different highlight to share on Twitter the next day.</p>\n\n<p>The video starts with Bloomberg on stage saying, &quot;I&rsquo;m the only one here I think that&rsquo;s ever started a business. Is that fair?&quot;&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1230515129877434368\">In the video</a>, Bloomberg&rsquo;s question is met with silence and blank stares from the other Democrats on stage. The sound of crickets plays in the background.</p>\n\n<p>&quot;OK,&quot; he says at the end of the 25-second clip.</p>\n\n<div class=\"artembed\">See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com</div>\n\n<p>Bloomberg&rsquo;s video makes it look like he left the other presidential candidates speechless for 20 seconds. But that&rsquo;s not what actually happened. In fact, there was a two-second pause between when the former mayor said &quot;Is that fair?&quot; and &quot;OK.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>Here are Bloomberg&rsquo;s <a href=\"https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-ninth-democratic-debate-las-vegas-n1139546\">full remarks</a>, which came in response to a question about his stance on redlining:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n<p>&quot;I&#39;ve been well on the record against red-lining since I worked on Wall Street. I was against it during the financial crisis. I&#39;ve been against it since.</p>\n\n<p>&quot;The financial crisis came about because the people that took the mortgages, packaged them, and other people bought them, those were &mdash; that&#39;s where all the disaster was. Red-lining is still a practice some places, and we&#39;ve got to cut it out. But it&#39;s just not true.</p>\n\n<p>&quot;What I was going to say, maybe we want to talk about businesses. I&#39;m the only one here that I think that&#39;s ever started a business. Is that fair? OK.&quot;</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>His last comment was met with laughter from the audience.</p>\n\n<p>The video was selectively edited to make Bloomberg&rsquo;s debate performance look better than it was &mdash; splicing together unrelated moments of expressive faces from his rivals.</p>\n\n<p><strong><em>RELATED:</em> <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/feb/20/fact-checking-las-vegas-democratic-debate-bloomber/\">Bloomberg on the defensive, fact-checking the Las Vegas Democratic debate</a></strong></p>\n\n<p>On Twitter, some users took it a step further, saying the clip is a &quot;deepfake&quot; and a violation of the platform&rsquo;s new policy against manipulated videos.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>According to Twitter&rsquo;s <a href=\"https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/new-approach-to-synthetic-and-manipulated-media.html\">policy</a> on &quot;synthetic and manipulated media,&quot; the company is only likely to remove videos that have been &quot;significantly and deceptively altered or fabricated,&quot; &quot;shared in a deceptive manner&quot; and are &quot;likely to impact public safety or cause serious harm.&quot;&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>As of now, Bloomberg&rsquo;s video does not appear to meet those standards. Twitter may label clips that meet just one of the criteria, but it has not yet done so for Bloomberg&rsquo;s tweet.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/the-future-of-the-deepfake-and-what-it-means-for-fact-checkers/\">A deepfake video</a> is one that uses artificial intelligence to make it look like someone is doing or saying something that never occurred. In contrast, the clip that Bloomberg shared is an example of what the Washington Post <a href=\"https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/fact-checker/manipulated-video-guide/\">calls</a> &quot;splicing,&quot; or &quot;editing together disparate videos&quot; that &quot;fundamentally alters the story that is being told.&quot;</p>\n\n<p>Bloomberg&rsquo;s video is the latest example of deceptive video editing techniques being used in the 2020 election.</p>\n\n<p>On Feb. 6, President Donald Trump <a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/feb/11/trump-tweeted-video-pelosi-ripping-his-state-union/\">tweeted an edited video</a> of his State of the Union address. The clip makes it look like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped up her copy of the speech after Trump introduced each of his guests, which included military families and a young woman receiving a scholarship.</p>\n\n<p>In fact, Pelosi waited until the end of the address to rip up her copy. And she stood and clapped for many guests.</p>\n\n<p>PolitiFact reached out to Twitter and the Bloomberg campaign for comment, but we haven&rsquo;t heard back.</p>\n\n<div class=\"pf_subheadline\">Our ruling</div>\n\n<p>Bloomberg tweeted a video that purports to show a 20-second pause from Democratic candidates at the Las Vegas debate after he claimed he was the only one who had started a business.</p>\n\n<p>The video was selectively edited to splice together unrelated moments of expressive faces from his rivals. In fact, there was a two-second pause after Bloomberg brought up his business experience.</p>\n\n<p>Bloomberg&rsquo;s video contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.</p>",
            "sources": "<p>NBC News, &quot;<a href=\"https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-ninth-democratic-debate-las-vegas-n1139546\">Full transcript: Ninth Democratic debate in Las Vegas</a>,&quot; Feb. 20, 2020</p>\n\n<p>PolitiFact, &quot;<a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/feb/11/trump-tweeted-video-pelosi-ripping-his-state-union/\">Trump tweeted a video of Pelosi ripping his State of the Union speech. Here&rsquo;s what you need to know</a>,&quot; Feb. 11, 2020</p>\n\n<p>PolitiFact, &quot;<a href=\"https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/nov/03/10-most-aired-political-ads-fact-checked/\">10 most aired political ads, fact-checked</a>,&quot; Nov. 3, 2016</p>\n\n<p>Poynter, &quot;<a href=\"https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/the-future-of-the-deepfake-and-what-it-means-for-fact-checkers/\">The future of the deepfake &mdash; and what it means for fact-checkers</a>,&quot; Dec. 17, 2018</p>\n\n<p>TV Eyes, accessed Feb. 20, 2020</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1230515129877434368\">Tweet</a> from Michael Bloomberg, Feb. 20, 2020</p>\n\n<p>Twitter, &quot;<a href=\"https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/new-approach-to-synthetic-and-manipulated-media.html\">Building rules in public: Our approach to synthetic &amp; manipulated media</a>,&quot; Feb. 4, 2020</p>\n\n<p>The Washington Post, &quot;<a href=\"https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/fact-checker/manipulated-video-guide/\">The Fact Checker&rsquo;s guide to manipulated video</a>,&quot; accessed Feb. 20, 2020</p>"
        }
    ]
}