Anti-choice legislation will be enacted in Tennessee and Florida starting July 1, imposing unnecessarily extended waiting periods before women can obtain abortion procedures. But media should note that these restrictions to abortion access are discriminatory and will prevent many women from receiving vital reproductive health care.
From the June 26 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
From the June 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
Loading the player reg...
The Libre Initiative's outrage over the Supreme Court's decision to uphold health insurance tax credits for millions of Americans mirrored the conservative media's extreme response, despite massive gains in insurance rates among Latinos since the Affordable Care Act was implemented.
From the June 25 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:
Loading the player reg...
Conservative media figures are floating conspiracy theories to explain Chief Justice John Roberts' decision in favor of the Obama administration, reaffirming the Affordable Care Act in the King vs. Burwell case.
Writing for the 6-3 Supreme Court majority, Roberts' opinion preserves the nationwide tax credits in the health care law that assist poor and middle-class people in the purchase of health insurance.
On his June 25 show, Rush Limbaugh promoted the theory that Roberts -- who in the past has more typically sided with the conservative justices -- had been influenced by outside businesses in order to come to his decision affirming the law.
Limbaugh highlighted a link on the Drudge Report to CNBC, which explained that health care stocks had increased after the decision was announced. He told his listeners to "follow the money," claiming the stock increases were evidence that some in the Republican Party are more responsive to "money people" and "donors" over voters.
While Limbaugh said "I'm not accusing anybody of anything," he also argued that "when you follow the money, a lot of questions that seem unanswerable become clear." He accused Chief Justice Roberts of rewriting and interpreting the Affordable Care Act "outside the bounds of law" in order to come to his desired conclusion.
Limbaugh said "there's a clear benefit to certain people" resulting from the Supreme Court decision. Rhetorically asking himself if "moneyed interests" could influence a Supreme Court justice, Limbaugh said, "I don't know" but added that it was "obvious the law was not used in rendering this decision."
Limbaugh also characterized the court's decision as "maybe even an economic opinion," but not a legal one.
Meanwhile, writing at Glenn Beck's news website, The Blaze, occasional FoxNews.com opinion columnist (and conspiracy theorist) Wayne Allyn Root promoted another conspiracy about the decision. Root asked, "Has Supreme Court Justice John Roberts been blackmailed or intimidated?"
Root went on to ask, "Is it impossible to believe that Obama and his socialist cabal that learned from Saul Alinsky that 'the ends justify the means' would hold something over a Supreme Court justice's head?"
Root noted, "It's time to assume the worst of this government ... All it takes to destroy America and pass Obama's agenda is to control a few key powerful positions in Washington, D.C."
He then laid out the scenario of how the purported blackmail would go down: "They threaten to expose something terrible like an affair, or corruption, or malfeasance, or immorality that would shock the nation, ruin their career, destroy their legacy, cost their marriage, destroy their relationship with their children and leave them unemployable by any respectable law firm or lobbyist."
Root concluded, "Republicans are being blackmailed, intimidated, extorted and bribed. That explains Justice Roberts and the Supremes ruling against the American People again," darkly adding, "The Obama Crime Family is in charge."
From the June 25 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
Conservative media were outraged after the Supreme Court ruled to uphold health insurance tax credits for millions of Americans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), just as Congress intended.
Fox News' Martha MacCallum falsely claimed that businesses are not hiring because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), despite evidence that the healthcare law will actually create jobs and stimulate economic growth.
During the June 15 edition of America's Newsroom, host Martha MacCallum discussed how Hillary Clinton's support for policies designed to reduce income inequality could impact the presidential race. Citing her support for the Affordable Care Act, network contributor Katie Pavlich claimed that the health care law "do[es] nothing to pull people out of poverty." MacCallum agreed, saying, "That is true, businesses you talk to all across the country will tell you" that they're not hiring because of Obamacare. Talking over guest Mary Anne Marsh as she replied, MacCallum demanded to know "why companies are not hiring" if not because of the Affordable Care Act:
But MacCallum's baseless assertion is just the latest effort by conservative media to fearmonger that the ACA would eliminate jobs. In 2014, media consistently misread a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, which found that the ACA would create more job opportunities by freeing Americans from job lock, claiming that it would actually eliminate positions, and going so far as to label the law a "job destroyer."
In reality, the CBO's ten-year Budget and Economic Outlook report predicted that the health care law would create jobs while stimulating the economy:
[T]he ACA's subsidies for health insurance will both stimulate demand for health care services and allow low-income households to redirect some of the funds that they would have spent on that care toward the purchase of other goods and services--thereby increasing overall demand. That increase in overall demand while the economy remains somewhat weak will induce some employers to hire more workers or to increase the hours of current employees during that period.
If changes in incentives lead some workers to reduce the amount of hours they want to work or to leave the labor force altogether, many unemployed workers will be available to take those jobs--so the effect on overall employment of reductions in labor supply will be greatly dampened.
As the Brookings Institute further pointed out in a March 2015 blog post, while it isn't yet possible to definitively evaluate the health care law's impact on employment, it is "not easy to make a convincing case that job gains have lagged since the President signed the health insurance law." The post also noted that "[t]he pace of job growth has actually increased in the past few months as the Administration began to enforce the employer penalty provisions of the law."
CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota posited that "mental illness" may "lead to violence" while discussing a recent shooting in Dallas, a problematic framing of mental health issues that feeds false stigmas and ignores research debunking the notion of a direct causal link between mental health and violence.
James Boulware attacked Dallas police headquarters with a gun before fleeing in an armored van on June 13. He was killed after a brief standoff with police, and his relatives are now saying Boulware had a history of mental health issues.
Discussing the Dallas shooting on June 15, CNN's Alisyn Camerota implied there may be a direct connection between mental health issues and violence, asking her guest, "Do you see this as just another sad case of someone's mental illness leading to violence?" Citing the Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT shootings, Camerota then said, "We hate to give the impression that mental illness leads to violence, but does mental illness lead to violence, like in these cases?"
But there is no evidence of a direct connection between mental health and violence -- A 2013 report from The Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy explained how most people with mental health issues are "more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence," noting that only about 4 percent of violence in the United states "is attributable to mental illness.":
Many recent gun violence prevention policy discussions have assumed a direct causal connection between mental illness and violence. The research evidence suggests that violence has many interacting causes, and that mental illness alone very rarely causes violence.
Importantly, only a very small proportion of violence in the United States - about 4% - is attributable to mental illness.
According to the Consortium, only under very limited circumstances does a link exist between "individuals with serious mental illness" and violence:
Most people with serious mental illness - which includes conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder - are never violent toward others, and are in fact more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence. However, research suggests that small subgroups of individuals with serious mental illness, at certain times, such as the period surrounding a psychiatric hospitalization or the first episode of psychosis, are at elevated risk of violence. In addition, the population with serious mental illness experiences high rates of co-occurring substance use, an important risk factor for violent behavior in the general population.
Out of the Consortium report grew the Gun Violence Restraining Order proposal, which would allow family members of a "person who is at an elevated risk of harm to self and/or others to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from that individual."
Speculation like Camerota's feeds into the misperception that people with mental health issues are inherently violent, a myth about which the public is already misinformed. This misunderstanding is often fueled by entertainment and news media that mostly portray such people as dangerous, leading to widespread stigma and discrimination.
CNN reporter Dana Bash missed the opportunity to press Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush on a 2001 Florida law he allowed to pass as governor that required single mothers to list their sexual histories in a newspaper before allowing children to be adopted.
In a prerecorded interview that aired on the June 14 edition of CNN's State of the Union, Dana Bash questioned Bush about his campaign for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, including how he will distinguish himself from his family's political record, but failed to press Bush on his record as governor of Florida.
Just days earlier, however, Bash highlighted Bush's record as governor, noting that he is "facing questions about a 2001 so-called Scarlet Letter law in Florida when he was governor, requiring single mothers to put a notice in the newspaper before they could give up a child for adoption."
Bash also highlighted a statement from Bush's 1995 book Profiles in Character, in which he "argued for the 'restoration of shame' in society." From Bush's book:
One of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame. Many of these young women and young men look around and see their friends engaged in the same irresponsible conduct. Their parents and neighbors have become ineffective at attaching some sense of ridicule to this behavior. There was a time when neighbors and communities would frown on out of wedlock births and when public condemnation was enough of a stimulus for one to be careful.
According to Huffington Post's Laura Bassett, Bush's book "points to Nathaniel Hawthorne's 1850 novel The Scarlet Letter, in which the main character is forced to wear a large red 'A' for 'adulterer' on her clothes to punish her for having an extramarital affair that produced a child, as an early model for his worldview."
And, as Bassett explained, Florida's Scarlet Letter law was an "opportunity to test his theory on public shaming," when he "declined to veto a very controversial bill," -- that Marco Rubio and five members of Congress also voted for -- "that required single mothers who did not know the identity of the father to publish their sexual histories in a newspaper before they could legally put their babies up for adoption."
NPR reported that part of Bush's rationale for the law was to decrease uncertainty about adoptions by "provid[ing] greater finality once the adoption is approved, and to avoid circumstances where future challenges to the adoption disrupt the life of the child."
But a 2004 Notre Dame Law Review article explained that the personal information required by the law to be listed in newspapers was extensive:
"The notice ... must contain a physical description, including, but not limited to age, race, hair and eye color, and approximate height and weight of the minor's mother and of any person the mother reasonably believes may be the father; the minor's date of birth; and any date and city, including the county and state in which the city is located, in which conception may have occurred."
And according to NPR, the ad "had to run once a week for a month, at the expense of either the mother or the people who wanted to adopt the baby, as that 2004 article explains."
While Bush objected to parts of the law, in part because, "there is a shortage of responsibility on behalf of the birth father," the 2001 law wasn't replaced until after a Florida court "declared the provision requiring women to list their sexual encounters unconstitutional because it was deemed an invasion of privacy."
From the June 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
Hosts of Fox News' Outnumbered railed against the GOP for lacking a serious alternative health care plan should the Supreme Court rule against the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) tax credits. The plans put forward by Republican lawmakers as alternatives would each result in fewer people enrolled in coverage while paying higher premiums.
The Supreme Court will issue a ruling this month on the King v. Burwell lawsuit, which will determine whether a subclause in the ACA that says subsidies can be disbursed through "Exchanges established by the State" prohibits the IRS from providing tax credits to consumers who bought insurance over the federal exchange.
The hosts of Fox News' Outnumbered criticized President Obama for not having a "plan B if the justices rule against him," but Sandra Smith and Andrea Tantaros turned the focus to congressional Republicans, calling them out for not having "a backup plan" after campaigning for years against the administration to repeal Obamacare. Tantaros called Republicans "lame", and characterized their actions as "inexplicable" and "pathetic":
In fact, Republicans in Congress have come up with five alternative plans if the ACA's subsidies are struck down, but as Vox noted each could lead to "very bizarre policy outcomes that are not good for the individual insurance market," and would result in fewer people enrolled in coverage while paying higher premiums:
Republicans lawmakers have also come up with five alternatives plans to keep the [federal subsidy] dollars flowing. The question is whether they'll do much good. Most of the plans would extend the availability of subsidies, while dismantling other parts of Obamacare. The result would likely be a world that looks much more like America before Obamacare -- where fewer people are enrolled in coverage and are paying higher premiums.
Take, for example, Sen. Ron Johnson's Preserving Freedom and Choice in Health Care Act. It would both extend the Obamacare subsidies and kill the health-care law's individual mandate, the unpopular requirement that nearly all Americans carry health coverage.
Without a requirement to purchase insurance coverage, health economists roundly expect that young, healthy people would no longer buy coverage. This, then, would lead to a spike in premiums as only the really sick people, who use their coverage a lot, opt to buy insurance plans.
The transitional period Johnson's bill imagines is one where the individual market is smaller and a more expensive place to shop.
These types of problems turn up again and again in all five Republican plans. When you try to repeal Obamacare and maintain the law's subsidies, it turns out you end up with some very bizarre policy outcomes that are not good for the individual insurance market.
From the June 4 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
Loading the player reg...
Fox News gave likely 2016 presidential hopeful and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) a platform to double down on his assertion that ultrasounds -- mandatory in his state for women seeking abortions -- are just a "cool" thing.
This week Walker defended his state's legislation forcing women seeking abortions to first undergo ultrasounds that are likely to be transvaginal, dismissing the procedure as "just a cool thing out there" during an appearance on The Dana Show with Dana Loesch.
Fox News host Neil Cavuto defended Walker with the same excuse during a May 28 interview on Fox Business' Cavuto, asserting that "I knew what you meant by that, but obviously that was not the reception" the statement received. Walker replied that backlash was simply a "typical example" of how progressives and the media "take out of context comments out there" -- but then the governor immediately doubled down on his original comments. Walker reiterated that "I think ultrasounds are cool" (emphasis added):
WALKER: This is a typical example of the left -- not just leftist organizations, but some even in the left in the media -- take out of context comments out there. You're right, I talked about, my kids are 19 and 20, Tonette and I have the first ultrasound picture that was taken of both. And that's something that we treasure. That was each of our children. In fact, Matthew had the side of his head turned so you could see his hand and his mouth, what appeared to be sucking on his thumb.
CAVUTO: That's so cool. Mine had an iPhone. It was the weirdest thing. But seriously, they said 'stay out governor, this is none of your business.
WALKER: Well they're pushing back on it, saying I said it was cool. Well, I think ultrasounds are cool. And they tried to mischaracterize our law, says, simply put, if someone is going to go in for abortion, we require the provider, whoever is doing that procedure, has to provide access to an ultrasound, a traditional ultrasound, not the kind they planned out there, because we believe as someone who's pro-life, I believe that if someone has access to seeing that information, if they can look at it, not forced to, but if they can look at it if they so choose, if that's available, chances are they're going to pick life. They'll pick the life of that unborn child. I think that's a great thing. And if they don't, under the law, they don't have to. But the reality is, I think those on the left are afraid of people actually having information. They say they're pro-choice, but they don't want an informed choice.