MSNBC.com

Tags ››› MSNBC.com
  • Fox News Cites Anti-Choice Group’s Poll To Push Myth That Americans Oppose Abortion Access

    Once Again, Fox’s Shannon Bream Pushed Dubious Polling To Argue That “Social Conservatives” Are “Turning The Tide” On American’s Abortion Beliefs

    Blog ››› ››› SHARON KANN

    During the July 27 edition of Fox News’ Special Report, chief legal correspondent Shannon Bream reported that the Democratic Party’s positions on increasing abortion access and funding run contrary to the “personal convictions of average Americans.”

    To support this argument, Bream cited a recent poll commissioned by the Knights of Columbus -- a self-identified “pro-life” group that has waged “a decades-long battle against abortion legislation.” Beyond failing to disclose the ideological affiliations of the group commissioning the poll, Bream also attempted to use the data to misleadingly suggest that Americans have a unified and consistently anti-choice position on abortion access.

    According to Bream, the Knights of Columbus poll shows that “78 percent” of Americans “say they support substantial restrictions on abortion, including 62 percent of those who self-identify as pro-choice.” However, as previous research has shown, polling on individuals’ support for abortion is complicated and highly contextual.

    For example, as Vox’s Sarah Kliff explained, 39 percent of Americans do not self-identify as either “pro-choice” or “pro-life,” and this determination is often influenced heavily by the wording of individual poll questions. She noted that although many people had “strongly held” feelings about abortion, much of the phrasing in polls fails to capture “the personal factors and situations that influence how each individual thinks about the issue.” Kliff continued that in poll questions, “a simple wording change can significantly alter whether Americans say they support legal abortion.”

    When MSNBC’s Irin Carmon compared the questions asked in different polls she, too, found that a simple shift in phrasing or question style could substantially alter a poll’s findings:

    You could ask Americans if they want Roe v. Wade overturned, as the Pew Research Center did in 2013, and learn that 63 percent want to see it stand. Or you could ask Americans to choose between two vague statements, like the recent poll the Marist Institute for Public Opinion conducted for the Knights of Columbus, a group that opposes abortion. Asked to pick between “it is possible to have laws which protect both the health and well-being of a woman and the life of the unborn; or two, it is necessary for laws to choose to protect one and not the other,” 77 percent said it was possible to do everything. The policy implications of the first statement are unclear.

    [...]

    Asking about what the law should be, whether generally or specifically, is when it gets really messy. According to one pollster, the most popular question of all – asking people if they think abortion should be legal in all, most or certain circumstances – is the most problematic.

    “I don’t even want to ask this dumb question anymore, because it doesn’t work,” says Tresa Undem. “It’s a bad polling measurement.” She conducted the Vox poll as well as a recent one for the National Institute for Reproductive Health, which supports abortion rights, and has written about the problem with polling on abortion.

    Why? When Undem looked only at the 34 percent of people who said they thought abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, incest and health risk, she found contradictory views.

    [...]

    But Undem says that internally conflicting views on abortion are par for the course. “On this topic, where people haven’t sorted through all their thoughts about it, you ask one question, the next you can get a reverse response.”

    Americans across the ideological spectrum also tend to share a variety of fundamentally incorrect perceptions about the frequency and safety of abortion procedures. As Kliff wrote in a February 29 article, Americans often significantly “overestimate the safety risks for women who have abortions" and underestimate the prevalence of procedure itself. Despite the fact that abortion is both common and incredibly safe, these misconceptions can negatively skew an individual’s perception of the procedure.

    The July 27 Special Report segment was far from the first time Bream has used selectively framed polling data to suggest Americans oppose abortion access and reproductive health care.

    In January 2016, Bream cited another poll from the Knights of Columbus to allege that “81 percent of Americans think abortion should be limited to the first three months of pregnancy.” During the report, Bream did not note that the poll was commissioned by the anti-choice group.

    Beyond pushing selectively framed polling, Bream also has a history of presenting misleading reporting on a number of reproductive rights topics. For example, long after the anti-choice group Center for Medical Progress (CMP) and its smear campaign against Planned Parenthood were discredited, Bream gave CMP founder David Daleiden an unchallenged platform to continuing pushing misinformation.

    While Fox News and Bream used selectively framed polling to criticize the Democratic Party’s platform as “out of step with the majority of Americans,” they have ignored the fallacious positions on abortion and Planned Parenthood codified in the official Republican Party platform.

  • Latest Abortion Statistics Put To Rest The Right-Wing Media Myths Behind The Texas Anti-Choice Law

    Long-Awaited Texas Abortion Statistics Confirm Anti-Choice Laws Aren't Making Abortion Safer Than It Already Is

    Blog ››› ››› SHARON KANN

    On June 27, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that Texas’ extreme anti-choice law HB 2 was unconstitutional because it imposed an “undue burden on abortion access.” Since the law was passed in 2013, anti-choice lawmakers and right-wing media alike have insisted that HB 2’s restrictions were necessary to protect women’s health.

    Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) drew criticism for seemingly withholding its annual abortion statistics report for 2014 -- information that could have informed the court’s opinion about the impact of HB 2 on women’s health and access to care. In a June 15 letter, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas alleged that DSHS “appears to be concealing abortion statistics … for 2014, the first full year that Texas implemented portions of its controversial abortion regulations.” As Trisha Trigilio, ACLU of Texas staff attorney, wrote, “Rather than responding honestly and claiming a legal basis for withholding the 2014 statistical tables, it appears that your agency has chosen to hide the truth.”

    On June 30, the Texas DSHS released these statistics and confirmed what reproductive rights advocates, researchers, and Texas women had been saying all along: HB 2 was an undue burden on abortion access and had nothing to do with women’s health.

    According to MSNBC’s Irin Carmon, the key findings from the 2014 statistics showed a “sharp decline in abortions overall that was disproportionately experienced by Latinas, and the growing share and absolute number of second-trimester procedures.” As Trigilio wrote in a response for the ACLU of Texas:

    We will leave it to statisticians to undertake deeper analyses of this data but at first glance the numbers demonstrate the devastating effect House Bill 2 had on the women of Texas. Given the overall drop in abortions – especially in vulnerable communities along the border – as well as the precipitous 70 percent drop in medication abortions, these numbers show that this law never had anything do with women’s health. It’s clear why lawmakers might have wanted to keep this information out of the public eye before the Supreme Court made its decision.

    If HB 2 had been upheld, it would have required that abortion providers have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic and that these clinics meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs). Proponents of HB 2 claimed these restrictions were medically necessary to protect the health and safety of women during abortions. In particular, Texas lawmakers pushing for HB 2 in 2013 capitalized on anti-choice myths about abortion safety to insist that abortion providers needed greater regulation. These arguments were echoed by right-wing media outlets, which have waged a continued campaign of misinformation about HB 2 since.

    For example, during a 2015 appearance on Shepard Smith Reporting, Fox News correspondent Trace Gallagher amplified Texas lawmakers’ arguments that the requirements of HB 2 were intended to protect women from supposedly unsafe abortion procedures, without mentioning the ample evidence that abortion in Texas was already safe. Gallagher said Texas lawmakers “argue they're simply looking out for the well-being of women, saying better equipment and more staffing helps alleviate the dangers that are associated with abortion."

    In reality, these restrictions are based on medically inaccurate information -- a conclusion underscored by the extremely in-depth, fact-based majority opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer. Breyer wrote that “each [restriction] places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion.” Although the justices did not have access to Texas’ most recent abortion statistics, the release of the 2014 data affirms Breyer’s point and cuts through the right-wing media noise to end the myths that have long sustained HB 2.

    For those studying the impact of anti-choice laws on Texas women, the findings in the 2014 abortion statistics were no surprise.

    In an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH) argued that the additional barriers to abortion access created by HB 2 would pose “severe burdens in accessing reproductive healthcare.” Citing an earlier district court decision, NLIRH argued that “there is no question” HB 2 would negatively impact Latinas due to the majority Latino populations of the Texas counties most impacted by clinic closures.

    An independent analysis of Texas’ 2014 data by TheTexas Observer confirmed these warnings and pointed out the comparative loss of access to abortion experience by Texas Latinas. As Alexa Garcia-Ditta reported, “In 2013, over 24,000 of Texans who got abortions were Hispanic; in 2014, that number decreased by 18 percent to under 20,000.” In comparison, she noted, there was “a 7.7 percent decrease among black Texans who got abortions” and a “6.7 percent drop among white Texans, after the law went into effect.”

    Similarly, researchers for the Texas Policy Evaluation Project (TxPEP) had also previously warned about the risk of HB 2 delaying or in some cases preventing access to abortion care. In the January 2016 study, TxPEP interviewed women “who either had their abortion appointments cancelled when clinics closed or who sought care at closed clinics.” According to a news release about the study, researchers found that women’s health care was “delayed, and in some cases [women were] prevented altogether, from obtaining an abortion.”

    In addition to proving the accessibility challenges created by HB 2, the 2014 statistics include an additional figure that thoroughly rebukes anti-choice arguments about abortion safety. As The Austin Chronicle’s Mary Tuma explained:

    One stat that anti-abortion activists will surely continue to conveniently leave out of their ostensible quest for stringent abortion safety standards is the number of women that died while undergoing the medical procedure in 2014 – that figure, much like the number of facts anti-choice legislators used to defend HB 2, comes out to zero.

  • Trump Ridiculed After Insinuating Obama Is Complicit In Orlando Attack

    ››› ››› TYLER CHERRY

    Media figures criticized presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for “casually [and] darkly” suggesting that President Obama sympathizes with Islamic terrorists and was complicit in the Orlando terror attack, calling his comments “indefensible,” “distasteful,” and part of his “latest escalation in his years-long campaign to smear” Obama.

  • An Extensive Guide To The Fact Checks, Debunks, And Criticisms Of Trump’s Various Problematic Policy Proposals

    ››› ››› TYLER CHERRY & JARED HOLT

    Over the course of the 2016 presidential primary, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has laid forth a series of problematic policy proposals and statements -- ranging from his plan to ban Muslims from entering the United States to his suggestion that the United States default on debt -- that media have warned to be “dangerous,” “fact-free,” “unconstitutional,” “contradictory,” “racist,” and “xenophobic.” Media Matters compiled an extensive list of Trump’s widely panned policy plans thus far along with the debunks and criticism from media figures, experts and fact-checkers that go along with them.

  • Major News Outlets Fail To Identify The Hate Group Boycotting Target

    The American Family Association Has Been Designated An Anti-LGBT “Hate Group” By The SPLC

    ››› ››› RACHEL PERCELAY

    Major news outlets have largely failed to identify the American Family Association (AFA) -- the group organizing a boycott of Target over its transgender inclusive restroom policy -- as an anti-LGBT "hate group," often only referring to the group as a "Christian" or "conservative" organization.

  • Why Media Should Be Skeptical Of Koch Brothers' New Anti-Poverty Group

    ››› ››› PAM VOGEL

    Officials from the Koch brothers' funding arm have announced a new "venture philanthropy" project called Stand Together, with aims of "strengthening the fabric of American society," and focusing on "poverty" and "educational quality," according to USA Today. Media should know that: previous Koch-backed poverty and education efforts have been coupled with ideological proselytizing, Stand Together's executive director is a Koch veteran and former Republican congressional candidate who repeatedly fearmongered about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and the group's top collaborator is associated with U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan's sham "anti-poverty" efforts.

  • MSNBC: Right-Wing Media's Benghazi Select Committee Sued By Former Investigator For Defamation

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    Podliska

    MSNBC reported that former House Benghazi Select Committee investigator Brad Podliska, is suing the committee for defamation after allegedly facing retaliation for claiming the committee was "hyper-focus[ed]" on Hillary Clinton.

    Podliska was fired in late June after working for almost ten months as an investigator for the committee partly for, according to Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC), mishandling classified information. On October 11, during an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on State of the Union, Podliska called the committee's investigation "partisan" and claimed the focus shifted almost exclusively to Clinton after it was reported that she utilized a private email server while serving as Secretary of State.

    Gowdy and the committee denied the allegations, and said Podliska was "terminated for cause." A committee spokesperson issued a statement accusing Podliska of his own bias in his work, claiming he participated in an effort to direct committee resources to create a "'hit piece' on members of the Obama Administration, including Secretary Clinton." The statement said the committee would not be "blackmailed into a monetary settlement for a false allegation." Gowdy also issued his own statement, claiming he never spoke directly with Podliska and was confident no one on the committee instructed him to focus on Clinton. This occurred just weeks after House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) bragged to Fox's Sean Hannity that Clinton's "numbers are dropping" because of the Select Committee's work.

    The Benghazi Select Committee is largely a creation of Fox News and other members conservative media, who endlessly called for Congress to investigate Clinton over the Benghazi attacks. After McCarthy acknowledged the partisan nature of the committee, Fox News hosts Bret Baier and Bill O'Reilly and Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume conceded that the purpose of the investigation was political.

    MSNBC reported that Podliska is not seeking monetary compensation from the defamation suit, but rather for Gowdy to release a statement admitting his allegation Podliska mishandled classified information was false. He is also asking for an injunction to prevent Gowdy from repeating the claim:

    Last month, Brad Podliska, an Air Force Reserve major, alleged the Benghazi committee terminated him based on his military obligations and his refusal to advance an agenda targeting Hillary Clinton. Now, Podliska is detailing those charges in court in a new filing that alleges Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy broke the law by defaming him in their public battle over Podliska's firing.

    Gowdy previously said Podliska was terminated partly for mishandling classified information.

    The suit cites Gowdy's claim from a press release and an interview with NBC News, and argues it was a damaging line of attack, since allegations of such a "serious crime" have "ended the careers of many professionals in national security-related industries."

    But the charge was totally false, the suit says, because the information Podliska handled was drawn entirely from "sources from the Internet." Podliska adds that the committee staffer who made the allegation later admitted the material "was not classified." The committee has not withdrawn the allegation.

    Suing Gowdy for defamation reflects a confrontational legal strategy, as Podliska is moving beyond the details of his termination - a largely staff-level issue - to directly impugning Gowdy's conduct afterward. It also means that Monday's filing goes further than expected, not only suing the Committee, but naming Gowdy as an individual defendant.

    The filing emphasizes Podliska is not seeking money for the defamation claim. Instead, he is calling for a statement establishing that Gowdy's allegation was false, and asking the Court to bar Gowdy from repeating it.

    [...]

    Beyond the legal claims, the filing includes some other detailed accusations sure to draw attention in Washington.

    The suit says Gowdy conveyed to staff that he thought his Staff Director and Deputy "were incompetent," that senior Republican committee staffers regularly drank alcohol together in the "office during the workday," and that a nonpartisan security staff member deleted documents to avoid detection by Democratic committee members.

    Podliska is seeking a jury trial, raising the prospect of one of the most high profile Washington courtroom dramas since the 2007 prosecution of Scooter Libby, a senior aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney.

  • Media Debunk Carly Fiorina's "Utterly Wrong" Debate Claim That 92 Percent Of Job Losses Under Obama Were Women

    ››› ››› ALEX KAPLAN

    Media outlets called out Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina's "utterly wrong," "wildly misleading," and long discredited claim at the October 28 CNBC presidential debate that women held 92 percent of the jobs lost during President Obama's first term, pointing out that that statistic is recycled from Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and newer data completely contradicts Fiorina's claim: women actually gained jobs by the end of Obama's first term.

  • GOP Committee Chair Brandishes Data Promoted By Right-Wing Media At Planned Parenthood Hearing, Doesn't Realize It's From Anti-Choice Group

    Media Fact Checkers: Chart "Makes Absolutely No Sense" And "Has No Y-Axis"

    ››› ››› JULIE ALDERMAN

    Right-wing media have spent months promoting a deceptive data chart from the anti-choice Americans United for Life that on September 29 became the cornerstone of Rep. Jason Chaffetz's (R-UT) cross-examination of Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards at a House Oversight Committee hearing aimed at defunding the organization. The chart's data is out of proportion and neglects to document numerous services performed by the women's health care provider to make it appear as if most of what Planned Parenthood does is pregnancy terminations.

  • Media Highlight How Upholding Texas' Restrictive Anti-Abortion Legislation Would Harm Women

    ››› ››› ALEXANDREA BOGUHN

    Media outlets are highlighting the drastic consequences that implementing Texas' House Bill 2 (HB2) -- a law restricting women's access to safe, legal abortions by imposing "several medically unnecessary requirements" on providers -- would have on women in the state trying to access reproductive health care after news broke that Texas abortion providers have asked the Supreme Court to a hear a challenge to the restrictions.

  • Univision No Revela Conflictos De Intereses En Columna Contra El Salario Minimo

    Blog ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON & CRISTINA LOPEZ English language version

    Univision Noticias falló a su audiencia al no revelar adecuadamente los vínculos financieros entre un columnista y organizaciones alineadas en contra de un aumento federal al salario mínimo, permitiéndole al autor decir, de manera engañosa, que subir el salario mínimo resultaría en un daño a las minorías trabajadoras y que destruiría empleos.

    En una columna del 6 de julio, Daniel Garza, de la organización de extrema derecha Iniciativa Libre, alegó que la "inconveniente realidad de subir el salario mínimo" sería un daño a los "más vulnerables" al aumentar los costos de producción y reducir la demanda de trabajadores. Garza citó un reporte de febrero de 2014 elaborado por la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (CBO, por sus siglas en inglés) como prueba aparente de que aumentar el salario mínimo traería consecuencias negativas a "los más vulnerables", y culpó un aumento del salario mínimo en 2009 de haber destruido cientos de miles de empleos -- ignorando por completo a la verdadera culpable de la pérdida de empleos, la recesión. De su columna en Univision.com:

    La Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (CBO) pronosticó una pérdida de aproximadamente 500,000 trabajos. Cuando el Congreso aumentó el salario mínimo un 10.6 por ciento en el 2009, más de 600,000 jóvenes perdieron sus trabajos. Actualmente, el salario mínimo contribuye significativamente al desastre fiscal por el que atraviesa Puerto Rico, donde la ley ha contribuido a un alto nivel de desempleo según el Washington Post.

    Univision no reveló los profundos lazos financieros existentes entre Daniel Garza, la Iniciativa Libre y la red de activistas anti-salario mínimo financiada por los multimillonarios conservadores Charles y David Koch, lazos que documentó recientemente Media Matters. Univision.com le ha estado brindando una plataforma a Garza y a la Iniciativa Libre sin revelar su agenda financiada por los Koch desde, por lo menos, el 18 de marzo 2015.

    Otros medios, como MSNBC, han hecho un mejor trabajo en lo que a revelar los patrocinadores de Garza respecta, poniendo en perspectiva la parcialidad de su opinión. Traducido de MSNBC:

    "No es un desarrollo positivo tener a alguien como Trump menospreciando la contribución de los inmigrantes a la corriente conservadora, especialmente a la marca Republicana", dijo Daniel Garza - director ejecutivo de la Iniciativa Libre, un grupo financiado por la red de los hermanos Koch, dedicado a vender el conservadurismo a los latinos - en una entrevista con MSNBC.

    El argumento de Garza en contra del salario mínimo se encuentra basado enteramente en su mala interpretación de un estudio de la CBO de 2014. La CBO no predijo una "pérdida de aproximadamente 500,000 trabajos", como alega Garza. Predijo 500,000 empleos netos menos creados entre 2014 y 2016 como resultado de aumentar el salario mínimo a $10.10 por hora. El mismo estudio también predijo que un salario mínimo federal de $10.10 aumentaría los ingresos por hora de 16.5 millones de trabajadores estadounidenses, a la vez que sacaría a 900,000 estadounidenses de la pobreza e inyectaría miles de millones de dólares a la economía. El error de Garza no es sorprendente; de acuerdo al Center for American Progress (CAP, por sus siglas en inglés), el estudio de la CBO ha sido malinterpretado ampliamente. Traducido de CAP:

    Primero que todo, las proyecciones de la CBO no son que las oportunidades laborales para trabajadores de bajos ingresos disminuirán en los próximos tres años si el salario mínimo se subiera del actual $7.25 a $10.10 la hora, como muchos han reportado. Apenas hace un par de semanas, la CBO publicó su panorama económico y presupuestario para 2014 a 2024, que estima que el empleo en Estados Unidos crecerá en 7 millones de empleos entre ahora y 2018. Por supuesto, esa proyección se basa en un número de supuestos sobre el futuro que consisten en poco más que conjeturas.

    Un estudio de febrero de 2013 del Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR por sus siglas en inglés) demostró que décadas de investigación sobre el salario mínimo no han revelado ningún "efecto discernible en el empleo" como resultado de aumentos incrementales al salario mínimo. No hay evidencia de que aumentar el salario mínimo afecte los niveles de empleo, pero hay investigaciones considerables mostrando los impactos positivos para trabajadores de bajos ingresos cuando se aumenta el salario mínimo -- especialmente para las mujeres y las minorías raciales.

  • Univision Fails To Disclose Conflicts Of Interest In Misleading, Anti-Minimum Wage Op-Ed

    Blog ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON & CRISTINA LOPEZ Versión en español

    Univision Noticias failed to adequately disclose for readers the financial ties between an op-ed contributor and organizations aligned against raising the federal minimum wage, allowing the author to misleadingly claim that increasing the baseline hourly wage would actually hurt minority workers and destroy jobs.

    In a July 6 Spanish-language op-ed published by Univision.com, Daniel Garza of the far-right Libre Initiative claimed that the "inconvenient reality" of a minimum wage hike is that it would hurt "the most vulnerable" by increasing labor costs and reducing demand for workers. Garza cited a February 2014 report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as apparent proof that raising the minimum wage would bring dire consequences to "the most vulnerable" among the population, and blamed a 2009 minimum wage increase for destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs -- completely ignoring the actual culprit for job loss that year, the recession. Translated from Univision.com:

    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted a loss of approximately 500,000 jobs. When Congress raised the minimum wage by 10.6 percent in 2009, more than 600,000 youths lost their jobs. Currently, the minimum wage contributes significantly to the fiscal disaster by running through Puerto Rico, where the law has contributed to a high level of unemployment, according to The Washington Post.

    Univision failed to disclose the extensive financial ties between Daniel Garza, the Libre Initiative, and the network of anti-minimum wage advocates funded by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch, which was recently documented by Media Matters. Univision.com has been providing a platform for Garza and the Libre Initiative without disclosing their Koch-backed agenda since at least March 18, 2015.

    Other media outlets, like MSNBC, have done a better job in disclosing Garza's financial backers, putting the bias in his opinion columns in context:

    "It's not a positive development to have someone like Trump disparage the contribution of immigrants to the conservative brand, especially the Republican brand," Daniel Garza - executive director of the LIBRE Initiative, a group backed by the Koch brothers' donor network devoted to selling Latinos on conservatism - told msnbc in an interview.

    Garza's entire anti-minimum wage argument is based on his misinterpretation of a 2014 CBO study. The CBO did not predict "a loss of approximately 500,000 jobs," as Garza claims. It predicted 500,000 fewer net new jobs created from 2014 through 2016 as a result of increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.  The same study also predicted that a $10.10 federal minimum wage would increase the hourly earnings of 16.5 million American workers, while lifting 900,000 Americans out of poverty and injecting billions of dollars into the economy. Garza's mistake isn't surprising, according to the Center for American Progress, the CBO study has been widely misinterpreted:

    First of all, CBO does not project that job opportunities for low-wage workers will decline over the next three years if the minimum wage were raised from the current $7.25 to $10.10 per hour, as so many have reported. Only a few weeks ago, CBO published its economic and budget outlook for 2014 to 2024, which estimated that U.S. employment will grow by 7 million jobs between now and 2018. Of course, that projection is based on a number of assumptions about the future that are little more than educated guesses.

    February 2013 study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) showed that decades of minimum wage research reveal no "discernible effect on employment"  resulting from incremental increases. There is no evidence that raising the minimum wage affects employment levels, but there is considerable research showing the positive impacts of increasing the minimum wage for low-wage workers  -- specifically women and people of color