Media Matters for America - Latest Items

Breitbart fabricates smear that SEIU's Stern is "sending SEIU goons" to "beat up innocent Americans"

T.A. — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:34:44 EST

In November 8 comments posted on his Twitter account, Andrew Breitbart accused Service Employees International Union president Andy Stern of "sending SEIU goons" to "beat up innocent Americans." However, the article to which Breitbart linked offered no evidence to support the claim that Stern was involved in violence at a local SEIU office in Sacramento, and it reported comments from local SEIU leaders that disputed the purported victim's account of the incident.

Breitbart to Stern: "Stop sending SEIU goons 2 beat up innocent Americans." On his Twitter account, Breitbart accused Stern of sending "goons" to inflict violence on California state employee and SEIU critic Ken Hamidi. Breitbart also challenged Stern: "Lets settle it like men, u&me. Im dead serious." [Breitbart's Twitter account, 11/08/09]

Linked article provided no evidence to support Breitbart's claim. Breitbart linked to a November 6 article on the website of KCRA, a local Sacramento television station, reporting that Hamidi "claims that union leaders ordered him to be assaulted" at an SEIU Local 1000 meeting. However, the article also quoted a local SEIU official claiming that it was Hamidi, not local SEIU members, who initiated the violence.

From the KCRA article:

A state employee claims he was assaulted Thursday by four or five union members at a Service Employees International Union Local 1000 meeting.

The man also claims that union leaders ordered him to be assaulted.

"They were ordering them to get me thrown out, saying, 'Throw him out of here, throw him out of here. Beat the hell out of him.'" Ken Hamidi said.

However, union leaders told a different version of what happened.

"He came to a union meeting with another woman who had film equipment. He was asked to leave," Yvonne Walker, President of SEIU Local 1000, said. "When he refused, he became abusive to members of our staff. He actually physically assaulted a couple of our staff people." [KCRA.com, 11/6/09]

Stern not part of the story. Despite Breitbart's suggestion, the KCRA article did not mention Stern in any way. Hamidi's accusation that "union leaders" ordered him to be beaten was aimed at the leaders of the local SEIU chapter, who, as noted above, strongly dispute the charge.

Hamidi removed from previous SEIU meetings. According to KCRA: "Hamidi is an outspoken critic of the union. He hosts a cable access show that regularly criticizes leaders of SEIU. Hamidi admits that police have escorted him out of previous union meetings."

Contrary to polls, Luntz claimed IN, NE, AR voters "do not want" heath care reform

C.S. — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:07:04 EST

On ABC's This Week, Republican pollster Frank Luntz claimed that voters in Indiana, Nebraska, and Arkansas "do not want" health care reform because of "the cost to the deficit." In fact, recent polling indicates that voters in all three states support or are split on creating the public option -- a key element in health care reform -- and the recently passed House health care reform bill is projected to reduce, not add to, the deficit.

Luntz: Voters in IN, NE, AR, "do not want this legislation" because of the "the cost to the deficit"

From the November 8 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

LUNTZ: I feel sorry for Evan Bayh and for Blanche Lincoln -- senators from Indiana, Arkansas. I know Nebraska, Ben Nelson --

COKIE ROBERTS: Mary Landrieu.

LUNTZ: -- Mary Landrieu of Louisiana -- these states do not want this legislation. And they don't want it because of the personal costs and the cost to the deficit. They're conservative states economically and a lot of senators are going to have to cast some very difficult votes.

Voters in IN, NE, AR support public option in health care reform

In Arkansas, 56 percent support public option: According to a Research 2000 poll conducted for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and Democracy for America (DFA), 56 percent of Arkansas residents support a public option. The H.R. 3962) "would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010-2019 period."

CBO also found the Senate Finance Bill would reduce the deficit by $81 billion over 10 years. The October 7 CBO analysis of the Senate Finance Committee found:

According to CBO and JCT's assessment, enacting the Chairman's mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 1). The estimate includes a projected net cost of $518 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $829 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $201 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $110 billion in net savings from other sources. The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $404 billion over the 10 years and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $196 billion over the same period.1 In subsequent years, the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty. [emphasis added]

Drudge, WND distort health care bill to fearmonger about cost of insurance, possibility of jail time

A.H.S. — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:10:42 EST

Matt Drudge and WorldNetDaily.com both falsely asserted that, in Drudge's words, the House health care reform bill states that people must "buy a $15,000 policy or go to jail." In fact, as stated by the Joint Committee on Taxation letter on which Drudge's and WND's claims are based, the bill does not impose criminal penalties on people merely for failing to purchase health insurance; rather, people who do not buy health insurance and also willfully refuse to pay the tax imposed on them for such actions can face civil or criminal penalties.

Drudge, WND falsely claim bill requires people to buy insurance or go to jail

Drudge: "PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail; Failure to Comply, 5 Years in Prison." From the Drudge Report (click on image to enlarge):

11/6/09]

Claim that people will go to jail for failure to buy insurance is false

Contradicting headline, lead sentence, Unruh himself notes that criminal penalty is for those who fail to pay tax, not those who fail to buy insurance. The eighth paragraph of Unruh's article states: "According to [Rep. Dave] Camp [R-MI], the JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain 'acceptable health insurance coverage' and who choose not to pay the bill's new individual mandate tax 'are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminals fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years' " [emphasis added].

Penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time. Indeed, as Unruh acknowledged in his eighth paragraph, Section 501 of the bill provides that an individual must be "covered by acceptable coverage at all times." "Acceptable coverage" includes "qualified health benefits plan coverage," "grandfathered health insurance coverage," "Medicare," "Medicaid," coverage provided to members of the armed forces and their dependants, "coverage under the veteran's health care program," people who receive health care "through the Indian Health Service," or other coverage deemed acceptable by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If a person does not have acceptable health care coverage, Section 501 imposes a tax on that person "not to exceed the applicable national average premium":

(a) TAX IMPOSED.-In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of-

(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

(b) LIMITATIONS.-

(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.-

(A) IN GENERAL.-The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.

Bill does not impose tax on those below the threshold for filing a federal income tax return. The Joint Committee on Taxation states: "The additional tax does not apply ... if the person's income is below the threshold for filing a Federal income tax return." Indeed, Section 501 of the bill imposes taxes on "the excess of ... the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year over ... the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1)" of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 6012(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that "a return is not required of an individual [who] ... has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual."

"Hardship cases" are exempted from the tax. From Section 501(f):

(f) REGULATIONS.-The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations or other guidance (developed in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) which provide-

[...]

(2) a waiver of the application of subsection (a) in cases of hardship, including a process for applying for such a waiver.

Willful failure to pay taxes of any sort can result in civil or criminal penalties. Drudge links to and Unruh quotes from a press release by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) that in turn relies on a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation. That section of the letter dealing with "civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance specifies that Camp asked the committee to "discuss the situation in which the taxpayer has chosen not to comply with individual mandate and not to pay the additional tax." Thus, the letter is not discussing the penalties for failure to buy insurance, but the penalties for both failing to buy insurance and failing to pay the tax. The committee's letter explains that the tax code provides penalties to prevent tax evasion of any sort: "The Code provides for both civil and criminal penalties to ensure complete and accurate reporting of tax liability and to discourage fraudulent attempts to defeat or evade tax." [Joint Committee on Taxation letter, 11/5/09]

Fewer than 100 people convicted for "willful failure to file or pay taxes" in fiscal year 2008. From the Joint Committee on Taxation letter: "Of the 666 convictions reported above for fiscal year 2008, fewer than 100 were convictions for willful failure to file or pay taxes under section 7203." [Joint Committee on Taxation letter, 11/5/09]

Most delinquent taxes and penalties "collected through the civil process." The Joint Committee on Taxation letter states:

The majority of delinquent taxes and penalties are collected through the civil process. In determining whether a penalty applies along with an adjustment to a tax return, the examining agent is constrained not only by the applicable statutory provision, but also by the written policy of the IRS not to treat penalties as bargaining points but instead to develop the facts sufficiently to support the decision to assert or not to assert a penalty. [Joint Committee on Taxation letter, 11/5/09]

Drudge, WND falsehood echo one made about Senate version of bill

Kudlow distorts health insurance mandate to claim violators "face a $25,000 fine, or imprisonment, or both." On his CNBC show, Larry Kudlow distorted a provision in the health care reform bill proposed by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) to claim that "if an individual opts out of this insurance plan ... apparently they face a $25,000 fine, or imprisonment, or both." In fact, the bill would levy a $1,900 "excise tax" on those who don't purchase health insurance; those who refuse to pay the tax could face a fine or prison sentence, as the Wall Street Journal editorial Kudlow cited as the source of his claim clearly stated. [9/29/09]

Drudge's suggestion that all people must spend $15,000 on insurance is false

Individual insurance costs $5,300; family insurance costs $15,000. The CBO analysis to which Camp links states "Although premiums under H.R. 3962 would vary by geographic area to reflect differences in average spending for health care and would also vary by age, the table shows the approximate national average for that lower-cost reference plan-about $5,300 for single policies and about $15,000 for family policies in 2016." Thus, not everyone will have to "buy a $15,000 policy" as Drudge claims.

Subsidies available for lower-income people. Subtitle C of the House bill makes "affordability credits" available to lower income individuals to help pay for health insurance. As the House tri-committee summary of the bill explains:

Sec. 341. Availability through Health Insurance Exchange. Creates affordability credits to ensure that people with incomes up to 400% of federal poverty have affordable health coverage. These credits are phased out according to a schedule defined in the act as individual and family incomes up to 400% of poverty and the credits apply only to Exchange-participating plans. Affordability credits reduce the costs of both premium and annual out-of-pocket spending. Individuals apply through the Commissioner or Health Insurance Exchange for the credits, or through other entities approved by the Commissioner. The Commissioner, through an agreement with the Commissioner of Social Security, must conduct a verification process to confirm citizenship or lawful presence in the United States before any individual is eligible for affordability credits. In the first two years, affordability credits can only be used to purchase a basic plan. After that, the Commissioner establishes a process to allow them to be used for enhanced and premium plans in a way that makes clear the individuals who select those options will be responsible for any difference in costs. [House tri-committee summary, 11/2/09]

Bill expands Medicaid eligibility. Section 1701 of the bill expands Medicaid eligibility to those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level. From the House tri-committee summary:

Sec. 1701. Eligibility for individuals with income below 150 percent of the Federal poverty level.

(a) Requires State Medicaid programs to cover non-disabled, childless adults under age 65 not eligible for Medicare with incomes at or below 150% of FPL ($16,200 per year for an individual). The federal government would pay 100% of the costs of Medicaid coverage for this population in 2013 and 2014, then 91% in 2015 and beyond.

(b) Requires State Medicaid programs to cover children, parents, and individuals with disabilities under age 65 with income at or below 150% of FPL ($33,100 per year for a family of 4). For individuals in these categories with incomes between the levels in effect in the state as of June 16, 2009 and 150% of FPL, the federal government would pay 100% of the costs of Medicaid coverage in 2013 and 2014 and 91% in 2015 and beyond.

(c) Requires State Medicaid programs to cover newborns up to the first 60 days of life who do not otherwise have coverage upon birth. The federal government would pay 100% of the costs of Medicaid coverage for these newborns. [House tri-committee summary, 11/2/09]

On the eve of House vote, McCaughey spews falsehoods about health reform

A.H.S. & M.W. — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:49:14 EST

In a November 7 Wall Street Journal op-ed, serial health care misinformer Betsy McCaughey purported to provide "details you need to know" about the current version of health care reform legislation slated for a vote that same day in the House of Representatives. As with her previous descriptions of reform legislation, many of her claims are falsehoods or distortions, such as McCaughey's claim that illegal immigrants are exempted from a fine imposed by the bill.

McCaughey makes false, misleading claims about health care bill

McCAUGHEY'S CLAIM: Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer. [Wall Street Journal, 11/7/09]

REALITY: Secretary has 18 months from bill passage to define "qualified plan," but people are not required to have such plans until at least 2013. McCaughey does not explain how Section 224 is "like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later." Section 224 does 11/7/09]

REALITY: House bill provides for plans offering "additional benefits." McCaughey's claim that Sec. 303 "makes it clear" that the bill provides only a "one size fits all" package is false. McCaughey claims that the bill "claims to offer choice" and lists three levels of plans, "basic, enhanced and premium levels." But McCaughey ignores that the bill also includes a fourth choice: "premium-plus plans," which offer "additional benefits, such as adult oral health and vision care." From Sec. 303 of the House bill:

(b) LIMITATION ON HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS OFFERED BY OFFERING ENTITIES.-

[...]

(c) SPECIFICATION OF BENEFIT LEVELS PLANS.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-The Commissioner shall establish the following standards consistent with subsection and title II:

(A) BASIC, ENHANCED, AND PREMIUM PLANS.-Standards for levels of Exchange participating health benefits plans: basic, enhanced, and premium (in this division referred to as a ''basic plan'', ''enhanced plan'', ''premium plan'', respectively).

(B) PREMIUM-PLUS PLAN BENEFITS.-Standards for additional benefits that may offered, consistent with this subsection and subtitle C of title II, under a premium plan a plan with additional benefits referred this division as a ''premium-plus plan'').

[...]

(5) PREMIUM-PLUS PLAN.-A premium-plus plan is a premium plan that also provides additional benefits, such as adult oral health and vision care, approved by the Commissioner. The portion of the premium that is attributable to such additional benefits shall be separately specified.

McCAUGHEY'S CLAIM: Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement. [Wall Street Journal, 11/7/09]

REALITY: Bill exempts "nonresident aliens," not "illegal immigrants," and those terms are not equivalent. There is no Section 59b of the bill. Section 501 of the bill 11/7/09]

REALITY: McCaughey doesn't back up her claim that the bill "permit[s] the government to dictate treatment decisions." Under a section entitled "Eviscerating Medicare," McCaughey purports to expose various sections of the House health reform bill that would, in part, "permit the government to dictate treatment decisions." However, McCaughey never substantiates her claim. As Media Matters for America has documented, McCaughey has previously falsely claimed that health care provisions in the economic recovery legislation would permit the government to control or interfere with doctors' treatment decisions.

McCAUGHEY'S CLAIM: Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."

The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis." [Wall Street Journal, 11/7/09]

REALITY: The "medical home" section expands a pilot program created by Republicans and can only be further expanded if the program improves quality. According to a 11/7/09]

REALITY: The CBO report did not say that medical homes were likely to resemble an unpopular plan. Indeed, CBO 11/7/09]

REALITY: Sec. 1114 adds physician assistants to currently recognized eligible hospice providers, including physicians and nurse practitioners. Contrary to McCaughey's suggestion that physicians are the only category of providers currently qualified to "oversee care for hospice patients," for purposes of hospice care, the section of the Social Security Act that Section 1114 is amending currently bill:

SEC. 1114. PERMITTING PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS TO ORDER POST-HOSPITAL EXTENDED CARE SERVICES AND TO PROVIDE FOR RECOGNITION OF ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS AS AT TENDING PHYSICIANS TO SERVE HOSPICE PATIENTS.

[...]

(b) RECOGNITION OF ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS AS ATTENDING PHYSICIANS TO SERVE HOSPICE PATIENTS.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-Section 1861(dd)(3)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(3)(B)) is amended-

(A) by striking ''or nurse'' and inserting '', the nurse''; and

(B) by inserting ''or the physician assistant (as defined in such subsection),'' after ''subsection (aa)(5)),''.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.-Section 1814(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)) is amended by inserting ''or a physician assistant'' after ''a nurse practitioner''.

McCAUGHEY'S CLAIM: Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida. [Wall Street Journal, 11/7/09]

REALITY: Bill does not "initiate programs" that require a reduction of payments "to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country." Secs. 1158-1160 do not, as McCaughey claimed, "initiate programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country." In fact, Sec. 1158 does just the opposite of what McCaughey claims, providing "any needed increases in payment rates and to 'hold harmless' providers that would otherwise have their payments reduced." [Tri-committee staff summary, 11/02/09]

Similarly, Secs. 1159 and 1160 do not necessarily mandate changes that lead to payment reductions concurrent with the "lowest cost regions of the country." Sec. 1159 requires the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study of "geographic variation in health care spending among all payers," including recommendations regarding "changes to Medicare payment systems to address such geographic variation and to improve the value of health spending in the program," and Sec. 160 requires the Health and Human Services Secretary to "develop an implementation plan for changing Medicare payment system" based on those recommendations [Tri-committee staff summary, 11/02/09]. According to the bill, those payment recommendations account for numerous factors, not simply cost-reduction, and do not necessarily require lowering payments across the country to match those in the "lowest cost regions":

(b) RECOMMENDATIONS.-Taking into account the findings under subsection (a) and the changes to the payment systems made by this Act, the Institute shall recommend changes to payment for items and services under parts A and B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act, for addressing variation in Medicare per capita spending for items and services (not including add-ons for graduate medical education, disproportionate share payments, and health information technology, as specified in sections 1886(d)(5)(F), 1886(d)(5)(B), 1886(h), 1848(o), and 1886(n), respectively, of such Act) by promoting high- value care (as defined in subsection (f)), with particular attention to high-volume, high-cost conditions. In making such recommendations, the Institute shall consider each of the following:

(1) Measurement and reporting on quality and population health.

(2) Reducing fragmented and duplicative care.

(3) Promoting the practice of evidence-based medicine.

(4) Empowering patients to make value-based care decisions.

(5) Leveraging the use of health information technology.

(6) The role of financial and other incentives affecting provision of care.

(7) Variation in input costs.

(8) The characteristics of the patient population, including socio-economic factors (including race, ethnicity, gender, age, income and educational status), and whether the beneficiaries are dually eligible for the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act and Medicaid under title XIX of such Act.

(9) Other topics the Institute deems appropriate.

McCAUGHEY'S CLAIM: Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services." [Wall Street Journal, 11/7/09]

REALITY: Bill explicitly denies federal officials the authority to use comparative effectiveness research to dictate care. There is no Section 1402 of the bill. McCaughey is presumably referring to Section 1401, which appears on pages 733-761. Section 1401 11/7/09]

REALITY: The bill requires the government to establish quality guidelines. There is no Section 399V of the bill. McCaughey is presumably referring to Section 2530 of the bill, which begins on page 1422 and adds Section 399V to Title 42 of the U.S. Code. Section 2530 specifically requires the Secretary to "establish guidelines for assuring the quality of the training and supervision of community health workers under the programs funded under this section and for assuring the cost-effectiveness of such programs," and it requires the Secretary to monitor the programs to make sure they are in compliance with those guidelines.

McCAUGHEY'S CLAIM: While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability. [...] Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services. [Wall Street Journal, 11/7/09]

REALITY: Language service demonstration project requires Secretary review, IOM report. Section 222 of the bill defines the benefits that must be included in an essential benefits program. It does not discuss interpreter services and does not appear on page 617. McCaughey is presumably referring to Section 1222, which begins on page 617. McCaughey's suggestion that the demonstration project established in Sec. 1222 is subject to "vague standards of accountability" is false. In fact, Sec. 1222 "[r]equires the Secretary to evaluate the demonstration program," and Sec. 1223 "[r]equires the Secretary to contract with the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study that examines the impact on the quality of care, access to care, the reduction in medical errors and costs or savings associated with the provision of language access services to limited English proficient populations" [Tri-committee staff summary 11/2/09]. From Secs. 1222 and 1223 of the House bill:

SEC. 1222. DEMONSTRATION TO PROMOTE ACCESS FOR MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY BY PROVIDING REIMBURSEMENT FOR CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY APPROPRIATE SERVICES.

[...]

(g) EVALUATION AND REPORT.-The Secretary shall conduct an evaluation of the demonstration program under this section and shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report not later than 1 year after the completion of the program.

[...]

SEC. 1223. IOM REPORT ON IMPACT OF LANGUAGE ACCESS SERVICES.

(a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall enter into an arrangement with the Institute of Medicine under which the Institute will prepare and publish, not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, a report on the impact of language access services on the health and health care of limited English proficient populations.

McCAUGHEY'S CLAIM: Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities." [Wall Street Journal, 11/7/09]

REALITY: House bill establishes numerous metrics by which it bases grant-awarding preference concerning nurse, health science education. Contrary to McCaughey's suggestion that Secs. 2521 and 2533 establish only "racial and ethnic preferences" for providing grants, both Sec. 2521, which pertains to nursing education, and Sec. 2533, which pertains to "secondary school health science training programs," outline a number of factors that impact how grants would be provided. From the bill:

2521. COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS TO PROVIDE EDUCATION TO NURSES AND CREATE A PIPELINE TO NURSING.

[...]

(g) PREFERENCE.-In awarding grants under this section the Secretary shall give preference to programs that-

(1) provide for improving nurse retention;

(2) provide for improving the diversity of the new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population;

(3) provide for improving the quality of nursing education to improve patient care and safety;

(4) have demonstrated success in upgrading incumbent health care workers to become nurses or which have established effective programs or pilots to increase nurse faculty; or

(5) are modeled after or affiliated with such programs described in paragraph (4).

[...]

SEC. 2533. SECONDARY SCHOOL HEALTH SCIENCES TRAINING PROGRAM.

[...]

(d) PREFERENCE.-In awarding grants and contracts under subsection (b), the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of at least one of the following:

(1) Graduating a high or significantly improved percentage of students who have exhibited mastery in secondary school State science standards.

(2) Graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds, including racial and ethnic minorities who are underrepresented in-

(A) associate's or bachelor's degree programs in health professions or bachelor's degree programs in health professions-related majors;

or

(B) health professions.

McCAUGHEY'S CLAIM: Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance. [Wall Street Journal, 11/7/09]

REALITY: McCaughey does not explain what's wrong with newborn enrollment provision. McCaughey includes her bullet about Medicaid enrollment of newborns as an example of a "questionable priorit[y]" but she does not explain what is problematic about this section, which serial misinformer who has perpetuated numerous falsehoods about health care reform. McCaughey has falsely claimed that a prior version of the House health care reform bill would "absolutely require" end-of-life counseling for seniors on Medicare "that will tell them how to end their life sooner" -- a claim that many in the media repeated. McCaughey repeatedly falsely claimed that the Senate HELP committee's bill "basically" "pushes everyone into an HMO-style plan." Additionally, McCaughey concocted the false claim, which was nonetheless widely repeated in the media, that a health IT provision in the economic recovery act enabled government bureaucrats to "monitor treatments" or restrict what "your doctor is doing" with regard to patient care. On multiple occasions, after being challenged on her false claims about health care legislation, McCaughey reportedly insisted that she was right about the ultimate effect of a bill despite misrepresenting what it actually said.

Media have repeatedly hosted McCaughey to discuss health reform. The Atlantic's Fallows has pointed to McCaughey as an example of someone for whom there "seems to be almost no extremity of being proven wrong which disqualifies" her from being given a platform in the media. Indeed, despite her numerous falsehoods and past conflicts of interest, throughout the health care reform debate in 2009, McCaughey has been an ever-present part of the media discussion. She has been hosted on CNN at least twice and on Fox News Channel repeatedly to weigh in on health care reform. Additionally, according to a search of the Nexis database, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post have each published multiple op-eds by McCaughey about health reform; Bloomberg News also published a commentary by McCaughey on health care reform provisions in the recovery act.

McCaughey's work on health care reform has been marked by conflicts of interest concerns

McCaughey resigned from medical company board over "conflict of interest" concerns. McCaughey resigned from the board of directors of Cantel Medical Corp., a medical products company, in August to "avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest," as reported by The Washington Independent and confirmed in a Cantel press release.

McCaughey reported to be Big Tobacco shill during 1994 health care debate. Rolling Stone reported that in 1994, tobacco giant Philip Morris implemented a "strategy to derail Hillarycare," which included an "effort to 'work on the development of favorable pieces' with 'friendly contacts in the media' " -- specifically mentioning the company's collaboration with McCaughey on her 1994 New Republic hit piece on the Clintons' health care reform bill. Responding to the Rolling Stone article, McCaughey described as "outrageous and fictional" the charge that she "worked for a tobacco company in writing my critique of the dangers of the Clinton Plan. I did not."

Karl Frisch: Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good

K.V.F. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:12:37 EST

Back in 2001, conservative media figures were adamant. Democratic Party victories at the ballot boxes during the off-year elections had little national significance. Fox News contributor Dick Morris said at the time, "[I]f you have a Republican president, people are going to vote Democrat, and if you have a Democrat president, they're going to vote Republicans." Proffering further spin of the GOP losses, Fox News contributor Mort Kondracke said, "We have no way of knowing" how the 2001 outcome would affect the 2002 midterms, a sentiment echoed by conservative writer Michael Barone, who declared on CNN, "I don't think that the issues and personalities" in the Virginia and New Jersey races "are going to be congruent with very many" races in 2002 or 2004. Then there was Laura Ingraham on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes noting that "[b]oth sides are going to spin this," before offering her own spin: "[T]o call this some kind of watershed moment against Republican views is nonsense."

For anyone watching Fox News in the weeks leading up to this year's off-year election, it should have been apparent what was afoot on the conservative network.

In the two weeks leading up to their November 3 elections, Conservative Party congressional candidate Doug Hoffman (NY-23), New Jersey Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie, and Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell appeared on Fox News and its personalities' radio shows at least 16 times for live interviews lasting a total of 114 minutes and 36 seconds.

As leading Republican politicians and activists celebrated Fox News' role in pushing just the right message and helping their electoral chances, two Fox News employees spent time fundraising and recruiting volunteers in support of GOP-backed candidates. Fox News host Mike Huckabee used network airtime to collect email addresses for his PAC, which in turn used the addresses to recruit volunteers for GOP candidates on Tuesday's ballot, including McDonnell and Hoffman. Meanwhile, Fox News contributor Karl Rove was shilling for the Republican Governors' Association to help Christie's bid in New Jersey. All the while, Fox continued to feature his spin of that same election.

So, Fox News gave Republican candidates a huge platform to communicate with conservative activists and voters while Fox News employees recruited volunteers and raised money for them.

What else did Fox need to check off the list before Election Day? How about telling people how to vote and pre-spinning Democratic Party losses before a single ballot had been counted? Check.

One Fox News graphic actually stated that if the GOP were to win the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey -- races with no direct influence over congressional efforts to reform health care -- it would mean "no gov't-run option" in health care reform.

Sean Hannity, Fox News' apparent GOP get-out-the-vote captain, went all out advising his radio listeners how to cast their votes, telling one caller to his radio show, "Don't forget -- go vote for Christie tomorrow in New Jersey. All right?" and his New Jersey audience in general, "get to the polls" and "stop Obama-care in its tracks." On his Fox News program, Hannity told Hoffman, "I hope I'm on the air this time tomorrow night and I'll be able to declare you the winner." Marching to Hannity's tune, CNN's Lou Dobbs declared Hoffman was "change [he] can believe in" while Fox News' Bill O'Reilly piled on predicting a Hoffman win.

But what if -- right-wing media fear of fears! -- Democrats were to pull off a victory in New Jersey? Well, there'd be just one thing to explain it -- cue the ominous music -- Voter Fraud.

Rush Limbaugh warned his audience that "fraudsters" at ACORN, SEIU, and the New Black Panthers would try to affect elections on Tuesday and that "tomorrow's going to be a dry run for Democrat mischief and malfeasance, getting ready for 2010 and 2012." Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com took the bait, baselessly -- and predictably -- accusing progressives of trying to "steal" the New Jersey governor's seat. As did Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund who fabricated evidence of voter fraud in New Jersey and anonymously sourced voter fraud innuendo. Completing the circle, Limbaugh echoed Fund's baseless accusation warning of an "ACORN factor" and a "vote fraud factor."

Fox News hosts and political analysts capped off Election Day celebrating and shilling for conservative and GOP candidates. When the dust settled, Republicans had won the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial contests while Democrats had won the open New York congressional seat -- a seat targeted by tea-partiers and not held by a Democrat in nearly 150 years.

While Fox News' Brit Hume acknowledged that "Barack Obama was not a central issue" in New Jersey -- exit polls decisively showed he wasn't an issue in any of the targeted races -- others in the conservative media were blind to the readily available exit polls. Hume's Fox colleague O'Reilly said the New Jersey governor's race was a referendum on Obama. El Rushbo dismissed the exit polls entirely, saying the governors' races were all "about Obama" and that the election results show "[t]here is no question this is an anti-Obama vote."

Fox & Friends graphics described the election results as "shockwaves," "winds of change," a "Republican revival," and a "blueprint for success." In a truly odd attempt at spin, Fox News declared that the results meant "Obamacare" was dead, while its sister network, Fox Business, claimed the markets "like[d]" "Big GOP Wins In NJ & VA."

So, exit polls said Obama had nothing to do with Democratic losses in New Jersey and Virginia, where, incidentally, the GOP nominees downplayed their right-wing positions -- and this is good news for Republicans?

What about Hoffman, the unambiguously right-wing Conservative party candidate in New York who conservative media types spent weeks hyping? How would Fox News and company spin his loss of a seat, again, not held by a Democrat in far more than 100 years?

In an attempt to paint Democratic Party victor Owens as a conservative, thus explaining away his win in a historically GOP district, right-wing bloggers sought to highlight the "under-reported fact" that he "campaigned against the public option" even though Owens had expressed support for a public option since September.

Limbaugh blamed "party bosses and these big thinkers like Newt [Gingrich]," who "screwed the whole thing up," while leaping to the defense of Sarah Palin, who had championed Hoffman. Limbaugh asserted that Palin "is not damaged at all" by the loss of her candidate. And in an about-face only fitting for someone of Limbaugh's ego - err ... stature -- the conservative talker switched his stance on "moral" victories, which he'd lambasted Democrats for in 2006, declaring Hoffman had a "good showing."

So, yes, if one thing is clear after the 2009 off-year election, it's this: Conservative media figures haven't a clue when it comes to election analysis.

Oh and one last note on Tuesday's election, did you hear the nasty anti-Obama election night story that Fox News concocted out of thin air? The conservative cable outlet reported, remember this is not true, that President Obama watched an HBO documentary about himself, rather than following the election results. A story so grand -- gosh the president is such a narcissist! -- that the fact-challenged liberal media bias hunters at Newsbusters wet themselves over it before eventually conceding that Fox News had "misreported" the incident -- a nice way of saying "made it up."

I guess, in addition to the analysis, they haven't a clue when it comes to reporting either.

This Week's Media Columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert looks at the myth of Fox News' ratings spike; and Jamison Foser takes on Howard Kurtz's bogus conflict-of-interest defense.

Greg Lewis notes that for conservatives, $400 million buys them defeat at the ballot box in The Friday Rush, a review of Limbaugh's radio shows over the past week.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and MySpace

Media Matters maintains active online communities on the nation's leading social networking sites. Be sure to join us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and MySpace, and join in the discussion.

Do you listen to podcasts? Try the Media Matters Minute

For months, radio shows and stations across the country have been carrying the Media Matters Minute, a daily minute-long recap of our work topped off with the "most outrageous comment" of the day. We encourage you to subscribe (iTunes / RSS) to the Minute's daily podcast, hosted by Media Matters' Ben Fishel.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled and edited by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, or sign-up to receive his columns by email.

Greg Lewis: The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box

G.L. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:24:21 EST

If you're a masochist, like me, then I know exactly where you were last Sunday morning: in front of your television, eyes fixed to Rush Limbaugh's 30-minute tee-ball interview, courtesy of Fox News Sunday and Chris Wallace.

If you're a regular listener of The Rush Limbaugh Show -- or, better yet, a regular reader of Media Matters' Limbaugh Wire -- then you probably recognized that every morsel Limbaugh fed to ratings-hungry Wallace on the subject of Obama's destruction of the economy was just a regurgitation of what Rush passes off as compelling radio on a daily basis.

But aside from Limbaugh's deluge of misinformation -- how many times do we need to point out that issue expertise is as common on The Rush Limbaugh Show as insightful commentary is on a Fox World Series broadcast with Joe Buck and Tim McCarver? -- there was one revealing exchange between Limbaugh and Wallace. Wallace brought up that Limbaugh's current contract is reported to be worth $400 million over eight years. He and Rush then had the following exchange:

WALLACE: And don't get me wrong. I think you're a great broadcaster. How can you possibly be worth that kind of money?

LIMBAUGH: Very simply. Value is determined by what somebody will pay you to do what you do. I'm probably worth more.

Rush tried to pass off this comment the next day on his radio show as one of his many "media tweaks." But he surely tweaked Wallace with the comment, whose expression after Limbaugh gave that answer was as dumbfounded as ours:

But what do you get for $400 million? For conservatives, $400 million bought them electoral failure.

There's a lot to be said about what Democratic losses in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races mean (and, of course, what they don't mean). But if we're talking about Rush Limbaugh, then the most important race to talk about is the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District and Limbaugh's failure to help deliver a win for Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.

Like the rest of the conservative media, Limbaugh promoted the third-party candidacy of Doug Hoffman over GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava (who ended up dropping out days before the election) and Democratic candidate Bill Owens. It was clear that Limbaugh preferred Hoffman by the way he absolutely trashed Scozzafava for being a Republican in name only (or, "RINO"):

LIMBAUGH: Scozzafava has screwed every RINO in the coun -- we can say that she's guilty of widespread bestiality. She has screwed every RINO in the country. Everyone can see just how phony and dangerous they are.

On Tuesday's program, a few hours before the polls closed in New York, Limbaugh predicted a Hoffman victory and explained the importance of the race as such (subscription required):

LIMBAUGH: This is where conservative Americans are drawing the line. New York-23. This is where we are fighting, this is where we will take a stand against both the liberal wing of the Republican Party and Obama and the Democrat [sic] Party.

Later that night, Hoffman was declared the loser. Regardless, Limbaugh went on the air the next day to spin a clear defeat into a moral victory. "What did not lose was conservatism," proclaimed Limbaugh as he went over the results. He also bragged that Hoffman had the highest percentage of votes ever won by a Conservative Party candidate running for the House or Senate. And referencing a blog post by Erick Erickson at RedState.com, Limbaugh added:

LIMBAUGH: [T]he message out of this is, we took out a horrible Republican. We kept a horrible Republican from possibly winning and totally redefining the party in a way that would make it a permanent minority party. So in Erick's view, yeah, it would've been great if Hoffman won, but the real victory was making sure that a Republican in Name Only did not win.

I don't have a problem with trying to be optimistic about losing or trying to pick out the positive morsels of a bitter defeat. But you know who used to? Rush Limbaugh.

Back in 2006, Rush was busy mocking Democrats for claiming a "moral victory" in special elections that they lost:

LIMBAUGH: So I would say to you Democrats who want to continue to redefine victory as when you narrowly lose, "Keep it up, because for all the moral victories in the world you think you're having, it's just a bunch of sophistry. You're just stroking yourselves trying to tell yourself something good happened when you lost," and of course for the country at large, it is a good thing when liberal Democrats lose.

That's what he said on the day of the 2006 special election in California's 50th Congressional District between Republican Brian Bilbray and Democrat Francine Busby. The next day, after Busby had been defeated, Limbaugh basked under the heat lamp of his self-described brilliance for predicting that Democrats would declare a moral victory after losing "by four-and-a-half to five points."

So back in NY-23, why did the conservative Hoffman lose? Election analysis guru Nate Silver took a stab at that question:

Why? Because those [conservative] activists -- however well-meaning they might have been -- misunderstood the district. The 23rd is a Republican district, but it is not a particularly conservative one, having split its vote between Barack Obama and the moderate Republican John McHugh last November.

If Nancy Pelosi is regarded suspiciously in the 23rd, so are Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson, who cut commercials and robocalls on behalf of Hoffman. What the voters there wanted was a candidate who understood them. Owens -- superior to Hoffman in his command of local issues -- provided the best approximation. [Emphasis added]

So instead of being the harbinger of conservative ascendancy that Limbaugh and his followers had hoped, NY-23 ended up being proof that Limbaugh's daily platitudes about the universality of conservative values had literally no application in the real world.

Which brings us back to the issue of Limbaugh's pay. There's no mystery as to what makes Rush Limbaugh the highest paid person in his field of work: He knows how to get attention.

But that's all his paycheck is for: getting people's attention. He doesn't have to advance the cause of conservatism. He's not responsible for making sure conservatives win at the ballot. His job is to get his legion of Dittoheads to pay for a subscription to the Heritage Foundation and use Zicam. In other words, his job is to sell ads.

Is Rush Limbaugh worth $400 million over eight years to his syndication company? Like Limbaugh said during his interview with Wallace, that's what the free market determined he was worth. Fine.

But is Rush Limbaugh worth $400 million over eight years to the conservative movement?

Following the outcome of NY-23, there may be some conservative activists out there who would want to reconsider that investment.

Media continue to misrepresent abortion provisions in health reform bill

A.H.S. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:40:56 EST

Media figures continue to falsely claim that a proposed anti-abortion amendment to the House health care reform bill would only have the effect of prohibiting government money from being used to pay for abortions, echoing a myth previously advanced about a proposed amendment to a prior version of that legislation. In fact, language in the current House bill already segregates federal money so it cannot be used directly to fund abortions, and the proposed amendment would effectively ban abortion coverage for some who have it now.

Media advance false, misleading claims on abortion language, push anti-abortion alternative

On Dobbs, Donohue falsely claimed bill "explicitly" says on Page 110 that in the public option "you're going to have paying for abortion." On November 5, Catholic League president Bill Donohue stated: "[House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi is one of the problems here. She continues to deny that abortion is in the bill. Yet I have the bill in front of me. And on Page 110 of this 2,000-page bill, it explicitly says that in the public option that you're going to have paying for abortion." [United Stations Radio Network's The Lou Dobbs Show, 11/5/09]

Malkin: Current bill has "government abortion subsidies." In her November 6 syndicated column, Malkin wrote: "Upwards of 40 pro-life Democrats have objected to the plan's government abortion subsidies. Majority leaders evaded sunlight by keeping a compromise amendment on the matter out of the version of the bill made available to the public. As of Thursday afternoon (less than two days before the scheduled vote), Pelosi had yet to decide whether to permit an abortion ban amendment to her health care bill." [MichelleMalkin.com, 11/6/09]

NRO's Capretta/Washington Times: Democrats won't "back down on their unwavering commitment to abortion radicalism." In a post on National Review Online's "critical condition" blog that was quoted at length in The Washington Times' Inside Politics column, James C. Capretta wrote:

But there's apparently one thing most Democrats aren't willing to do, even if it jeopardizes their health care ambitions. And that's back down on their unwavering commitment to abortion radicalism.

For months, pro-life Democratic congressman Bart Stupak [MI] has warned Democratic leaders that he and a sizeable bloc of like-minded colleagues would vote against the Democratic health care bill in the House if it didn't clearly and unambiguously preclude taxpayer funding of elective abortions in a reformed system of subsidized health insurance.

This should be a no-brainer for House Democratic leaders. Giving Rep. Stupak what he wants -- which is a clean vote on a no-funding-for-abortion amendment -- would remove one more roadblock on their way to the nirvana of government-run health insurance. [National Review Online, 11/5/09]

RedState.com post hyped Stupak-Pitts anti-abortion alternative that would have effectively banned abortion coverage for many. From a RedState.com post by Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life Action:

Of course the false pro-life label is designed to give legislators cover back home. So we are working to get the word out to the grass roots. The Ellsworth Amendment allows the public option to pay for abortion on demand and allows government dollars to go to private plans that cover abortion. This amendment would undermine the only pro-life amendment that truly protects life in health care reform: the Stupak- [Rep. Joe] Pitts [R-PA] Amendment.

In order to stop unprecedented abortion funding in the guise of health care reform, we need everyone in pro-life America to contact Congress to prevent their tax dollars from going to abortion. [11/5/09]

Limbaugh fill-in Davis attacked "Cruella Pelosi," hyped Stupak actions on bill. From the November 5 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

DAVIS: Just a quick shout-out to a couple of folks: Bart Stupak of Michigan. Now this is a courageous Democrat. This is a guy who has essentially drawn a line in the sand and told Speaker Pelosi, "I've got about at least 40 people, you know, Democrats, who cannot, will not, support this thing, because it facilitates -- because of the degree to which it facilitates abortion," which it does.

And so, brother Stupak there in Michigan fighting the good fight in that regard and probably with a heavy price that lies ahead for him to pay, because woe be unto the Democrats who run afoul of, you know, Cruella Pelosi on this. There will be a price.

And the fact that they seem willing to pay it is the kind of thing that is kind of energizing, because you have to have 218 votes, and Speaker Pelosi herself doesn't know if she has them. [11/5/09]

Current bill forbids government money from being used to directly fund abortion

Page 110 does not say that public option requires government payments for abortion. Page 110 of the bill states: "PROHIBITION OF USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR ABORTION COVERAGE. -- An affordability credit may not be used for payment for services described in section 222(d)(4)(A)."

Current bill provides that premiums must cover costs of public option. The bill requires that premiums be set at a rate to "fully finance the costs of ... health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and ... administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option." Thus, since the bill requires that the public option be fully paid for by premiums and bans the use of affordability credits from the government for most abortions, the bill bans the use of government money to directly pay for abortions.

Status quo already allows people participating in federally funded plans to obtain abortions as long as funds are segregated. The bill's treatment of abortion -- allowing people participating in a government-administered health care insurance plan to use their own money to pay for abortion but forbidding federal funding of abortion -- is consistent with current law. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Hyde Amendment was originally passed to prohibit federal funding for abortions through the Medicaid program and has since been expanded to other areas. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the prohibition on federal funding for most abortions under Medicaid, according to a September 1 study by the Guttmacher Institute, 17 states provide coverage under Medicaid for "all or most medically necessary abortions," not just abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. Therefore, in 17 states, Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program, covers abortions in circumstances in which federal money is prohibited from being spent on abortion.

Current bill also prohibits government from requiring abortion coverage for insurance plans participating in exchange. From Section 222(e) of the bill:

(e) ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE.--

(1) PROHIBITION OF REQUIRED COVERAGE. -- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee may not recommend under section 223(b), and the Secretary may not adopt in standards under section 224(b), the services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B) as part of the essential benefits package and the Commissioner may not require such services for qualified health benefits plans to participate in the Health Insurance Exchange.

(2) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE BY PLAN. -- In the case of a qualified health benefits plan, the plan is not required (or prohibited) under this Act from providing coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B) and the QHBP offering entity shall determine whether such coverage is provided.

Anti-abortion alternative would have effect of banning abortion coverage for some who have it now

An amendment hyped by conservatives would have the effect of banning all coverage through insurance offered through the exchange. A failed amendment to the previous version of the House bill offered by Stupak and Pitts would effectively bar insurance companies from offering plans through the health insurance exchange that cover abortion. As Media Matters for America documented, such a provision -- if implemented as part of the current House health care reform bill -- would effectively cause a number of people who currently have abortion coverage to lose that coverage.

Media forwarded same myth about previous version of bill

Parker advanced myth that conservative proposal merely about "exclud[ing] abortion" from health reform bill. In her September 6 Washington Post column, Kathleen Parker described an amendment to the House's health care reform bill by anti-abortion members of Congress merely as a proposal "to exclude abortion from the bills" and suggested that a compromise provision in one of the versions of the House bills would change current law by allowing federally subsidized insurance plans to cover abortion as long as federal funds are not used. In fact, the anti-abortion proposal would effectively ban abortion coverage for those participating in health insurance plans that would be part of the proposed health insurance exchange -- including those who currently have such coverage -- and contrary to Parker's suggestion that "[s]egregating funding" would reverse current law, Medicaid already allows states to cover abortion so long as they don't use federal funds.

Additionally, on the September 1 edition of Hannity, Fox News contributor Dana Perino falsely suggested that allowing federally subsidized health plans to cover abortion is inconsistent with current law

Media fact-checks failed to note effect of Stupak-Pitts amendment. CBS, ABC, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and the Los Angeles Times all purported to fact-check claims about government funding for abortion but have ignored the fact that the Stupak-Pitts amendment by abortion opponents would have had the effect of forcing many who currently have abortion coverage to lose such coverage even if they receive no government subsidy.

Right-wing media respond to Fort Hood shooting by attacking American Muslims

B.C.O. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:18:56 EST

Right-wing media figures have used the shooting at Fort Hood as an excuse to attack Islam and American Muslims in particular, with Debbie Schlussel, for example, urging readers to think of the alleged shooter "whenever you hear about how Muslims serve their country in the U.S. military." Additionally, commentators have blamed the shooting on "political correctness," with Fox News host Brian Kilmeade suggesting the implementation of "special debriefings" for Muslim American soldiers to prevent future attacks.

Right-wing media respond to attack by demonizing Muslims

Schulssel: Think of Hasan "whenever you hear about how Muslims serve their country in the U.S. military." In a November 5 post -- headlined "Shocker: Man Who Shot Up Ft. Hood Soldiers Was Muslim" -- right-wing commentator Debbie Schulssel wrote:

UPDATE: Nidal Malik Hasan isPalestinian. Figures...Yeah, I wonder if that "Palestinian" town is actually Palestinian or part of the Islamic encroachment on Israel. Either way, he had every opportunity given to him by American taxpayers. And he murdered them anyway. This isn't just the Palestinian way. It's the Islamic way. And we expect Israel to make peace with guys like this? Even in the midst of the land of plenty, look at how they behave.

[...]

And, oh, yeah, think of Major Malik Nadal Hasan (and all of the other Muslim American traitorous soldiers in the U.S. military who've shot their fellow soldiers up and killed them or otherwise helped the enemy), whenever you hear about how Muslims serve their country in the U.S. military.

Well, actually, they do serve "their country" in the U.S. military. And their country is Dar Al-Islam and greater Koranistan.

"It's Islamic terrorism, stupid. Wait, that's repetitive. It's Islam, stupid."

Geller: Shooter is in the "pious Muslim category," has "such Islamic bravery." In a November 5 blog post, Pamela Geller wrote: " 'Six months ago Major Hasan came to law enforcement attention for posting blogs supporting suicide bombing.' This puts him in the pious Muslim category." In a November 6 post, she wrote: "The pig jumped on a table and was shooting down on the crowd, which is why he could get so many off. Jihad Hasan was shooting soldiers in the back. Such Islamic bravery."

Malkin links shooter to other "Muslim Soldiers with Attitude." In her November 6 post headlined "The massacre at Fort Hood and Muslim soldiers with attitude," Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin linked the alleged Fort Hood shooter to "all those who came before Hasan," highlighting her March 2003 column on "Muslim soldiers with attitude" who are "suspected of infiltrating our military, endangering our troops and undermining national security" and referencing "Muslim sniper" John Muhammad and "Muslim US soldier Hasan Abujihaad."

Right-wing media blame shooting on "political correctness," call for "special debriefings" of American Muslims

Carlson: "Could it be that our military is so politically correct... to be careful about treatment of Muslims" that this happened? On the November 6 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson asked: "Could it be that our own military is so politically correct right now ... to be careful about treatment of Muslims that they would have allowed this to go by?"

Michelle Malkin: "Political correctness is the handmaiden of terror." Commenting on "The whitewashing of jihad by the MSM," Michelle Malkin wrote: "I've said it many times over the years and it bears repeating again as cable TV talking heads ask in bewilderment how all the red flags Hasan raised could have been ignored: Political correctness is the handmaiden of terror."

Steyn: People afraid to report suspicious Muslim activity, lest they end up "in sensitivity-training hell for the next six months." On the November 6 edition of Rush Limbaugh's radio show, guest host Mark Steyn said: "You think about the next time you see some behavior that's suspicious -- guys praying, they're doing goofy things, they're talking about Saddam Hussein, all the things that the flying imams did. And you think to yourself, 'Do I call Homeland Security? No, I'm going to be tied up in sensitivity-training hell for the next six months. Maybe it's better to just forget about it, to ignore it.' And that is becoming the problem now, that we're conditioned to ignore it."

Kilmeade suggested that "it's time for the military to have special debriefings" of U.S. soldiers who are Muslim. On the November 6 edition of Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade asked Geraldo Rivera, "Do you think it's time for the military to have special debriefings of Muslim Army civili-- officers, anybody enlisted?" He added: "Because if I'm going to be deployed in a foxhole, if I'm going to be sitting in an outpost, I've got to know that the guy next to me is not going to want to kill me."

Farah falsely claimed official "confirm[ed]" WND falsehood that alleged shooter "advised Obama transition"

M.G. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:17:04 EST

WorldNetDaily CEO and editor-in-chief Joseph Farah claimed that WND's false report that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan "advised" the "Obama transition" -- previously debunked by Media Matters for America -- had been subsequently "confirm[ed]" by an official with the Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) at George Washington University, which had listed Hasan as a member of its Presidential Transition Task Force "Event Participants." But the updated article reported only that the official confirmed that the Hasan listed as a "participant" was the alleged shooter, not that he had advised the "Obama transition" -- a falsehood undermined by WND's own reporting that there is no evidence that "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition."

**Farah falsehood: GW official "confirm[ed]" WND article; "take that, Media Matters!"**

Guest-hosting the November 6 edition of Radio America's The G. Gordon Liddy Show, Farah said:

FARAH: Despite reports to the contrary yesterday, Major Malik Nadal Assan, the alleged shooter in the massacre at Fort Hood, is alive. And our report today, which is being disputed by Media Matters, says that he played a Homeland Security advisory role in the President-elect -- President-elect Barack Obama's transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document. We now have confirmation of that report from the man that actually chaired that institute. His name is Daniel Kaniewski, deputy director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University -- affirmed to WND in a telephone interview this morning that the Nidal Hasan listed as attending the meetings of that transition task force was the same person as the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood massacre. So, take that, Media Matters!

Media Matters debunked WND article's false headline, "Shooter advised Obama transition"

WND's confirmation of Hasan's identity is irrelevant to the glaring falsehood documented by Media Matters. In a November 6 item headlined "WND falsely claimed alleged Fort Hood shooter 'advised Obama transition,' " Media Matters stated:

WorldNetDaily falsely claimed that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan "advised Obama transition" in the headline of an article by Jerome Corsi highlighting his listing as a "participant" in a report for the Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) at George Washington University's Presidential Transition Task Force. However, Corsi himself acknowledges that there is no evidence that "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition" -- indeed, the Task Force was initiated in April 2008. Moreover, while Hasan was listed as one of approximately 300 "Task Force Event Participants" in the report's appendix, HSPI has reportedly said he was not a "member" of the Task Force, and was listed because he RSVP'd for several of the group's open events.

WND report: GW official "confirm[ed]" only that Hasan was an "Event Participant"

From the updated November 6 WND article:

Daniel Kaniewski, deputy director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University affirmed to WND in a telephone interview this morning that the Nidal Hasan listed as attending the meetings of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force was the same person as the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood massacre.

Kaniewski said Hasan attended the meetings in his capacity as a member of the faculty of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine, not as a member of the HSPI Presidential Task Force.

Kaniewski believed Hasan applied on the institute's website to attend the meeting and was accepted because of his professional credentials.

Kaniewski could not tell WND whether or not Hasan made comments from the audience that influenced the task force recommendations or not.

He further confirmed Hasan had attended several meetings held by the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University and that the institute is currently searching conference records to see if it is possible to determine what additional institute conferences he attended.

**As Media Matters documented, WND claim contradicted by HSPI report and WND article itself**

Corsi: No evidence "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition." In his article, Corsi wrote: "While the GWU task force participants included several members of government, including representatives of the Department of Justice and the U.S Department of Homeland Security, there is no indication in the document that the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition, other than to serve in a university-based advisory capacity."

HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force initiated in April 2008 -- well before Obama's election. According to the HSPI Presidential Task Force report Corsi cited to establish the link between Hasan and the organization, "in April 2008 The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) established the Presidential Transition Task Force, comprised of national and homeland security experts, policymakers and practitioners."

According to Kaniewski, Hasan not a Task Force member, listed because he RSVP'd for groups' open events. In a November 6 blog post, Gawker reported:

FRIDAY MORNING UPDATE: Daniel Kaniewski, the institute's deputy director, confirms that Hasan attended task force meetings as an audience member, and stresses that he was not a member of the task force. "All of our events are open to the public," Kaniewski says, "and when someone RSVPs we put their name in the [report] so everyone knows who was in the room." He says institute staffers recall Hasan attending at least one task force event, and that he RSVP'd for several. "We do recall him speaking at one of our events as an audience member," he says, "but none of us recall what he actually said. Generally, our events are attended by people in the homeland security community, and Hasan had a very legitimate reason to be there. He was a fellow at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences."

Fox News advances false claim that "House Call" protest was "spontaneous"

J.V.B. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:05:34 EST

Fox News has repeatedly advanced, and in Sean Hannity's case adopted, Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-MN) false claim that her November 5 House Call protest in opposition of health care reform was "organic" and "spontaneous." In fact, the protest was organized by House Republicans in collaboration with conservative activist groups, and was promoted by right-wing media outlets in advance of the actual event.

Fox News advances false claim that "House Call" protest was "spontaneous," "organic," organized by "word of mouth"

Napolitano does not dispute Bachmann's description of protest as "spontaneous...organic." Appearing on the November 4 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Bachmann asked "real freedom-loving Americans" to come to the steps of the Capitol, and said to guest-host Andrew Napolitano: "Judge, we're going to have a meet-up. And it's spontaneous. It's organic. Just last Thursday afternoon, I had the idea to really kill this bill. We need to have members of Congress see real freedom-loving Americans." After Bachmann pitched the protest, Napolitano said: "Alright. You and I have been at these tea parties. We have each spoken at them. And you know what the fire in the belly is like when freedom-loving Americans hear the words that they want to hear."

Bachmann on Hannity: "[T]his was totally word of mouth. This was nothing that we organized, nothing that we planned. We didn't order one bus, one carload. Nothing." On the November 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity, after registering surprise at the number of people who attended the rally, Bachmann claimed "this was totally word of mouth. This was nothing that we organized, nothing that we planned. We didn't order one bus, one carload. Nothing. Complete word of mouth. And estimates are anywhere between 20 and 45,000 people" attended.

Brent Bozell: Protest was "spontaneous combustion." On the November 5 edition of Hannity, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell responded to Hannity's claim that there was a "huge march on Washington today" by calling it "spontaneous combustion. This wasn't an instant tea party, this was a coffee urn exploding."

Peter Johnson Jr. advances GOP claim of no organization. Discussing the protest on the November 6 edition of Fox & Friends, guest host Peter Johnson Jr. uncritically advanced the claim that the protest came together without planning or organization on the part of GOP leadership, stating "the thing just kind of grew, the Congresspeople claim that there was no organization for it, and it kind of was a word of mouth thing."

Hannity: "This is a last minute thing." On the November 3 edition of The Sean Hannity Show, after guest Mark Levin discussed how "we're hoping to put together a pretty good little rally," Hannity responded by stating, "can I add one thing? I don't want to interrupt you. ...This is a last-minute thing."

In fact, the event was organized in collaboration with prominent Astroturf group

Bachmann worked with Americans for Prosperity on the "House Call" protest. Fox News hosts repeatedly ignored that, despite Bachmann's claim that "[t]his was nothing we organized, nothing that we planned," health care opposition group Americans for Prosperity [AFP] hosted a conference call with Bachmann and RedState.com's Erick Erickson before the protest. A November 4 their website, AFP organized and ran numerous buses to bring people to the protest. AFP listed free bus rides for supporters in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Think Progress: Americans for Prosperity staffed the protest, organized buses from multiple states. Think Progress reported that at the protest, there were several AFP staffers organizing the arrival of buses. According to one of those staffers, "We have about 40 buses coming" from multiple states, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

And, it was aggressively promoted by Fox News days in advance

Beck: "We'll get the word out ... and we'll continue to have you make the pitch for people going to Washington, DC, noon this Thursday." On the November 2 edition of Glenn Beck's radio show, Bachmann stated, "I really believe, Glenn, if we can get good normal patriot, freedom loving Americans to D.C., converge at noon on Thursday on the Capitol steps, and what we need to do is literally go into these members of Congress' offices, look in the whites of their eyes and tell them don't take away my healthcare, don't take away my freedom. Because once government gets this power, Glenn, they can use healthcare as cradle to grave, they can use that as a pretext for controlling every other aspect of our life." Beck stated at the end of the interview, "Michele, God bless you. We'll get the word out and let's have you on a little bit later on this week and we'll continue to have you make the pitch for people going to Washington, D.C., noon this Thursday, and look them in the whites of their eyes." Bachmann again promoted the protest on the November 4 edition of Beck's radio program.

Bachmann: "[W]e began this on Sean Hannity's show." Also during the November 4 Glenn Beck broadcast, Bachmann further detailed her motivations to organize the protest, saying, "what we've done, and we began this on Sean Hannity's show, is just to - the only thing I know to do at this point to kill this bill is to ask and plead for real freedom-loving Americans to come to the steps of the US Capitol tomorrow."

Fox and Friends posts details of the protest on their website. On the November 3 edition of Fox & Friends, two days before the protest, host Gretchen Carlson interviewed Bachmann. Calling the planned protest "the Super Bowl of freedom," Bachmann asked the show's viewers to join her on the steps of the Capitol, and listed guests who were scheduled to show up. While Bachmann was speaking, the on-screen text read: "Thursday reform bill protest planned." At the end of the segment, Carlson told viewers that "people can get more information, they can go to FoxandFriends.com. We'll link it to your website."

Fox Nation, conservative media launch political attack on Obama's shooting remarks

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:24:51 EST

Following the shootings at the Fort Hood Army Post, the Fox Nation and right-wing blogs launched political attacks on President Obama's remarks at a the Tribal Nations conference at the Interior Department, in which he addressed the tragedy after making introductory remarks.

Right-wing media attack Obama's introductory remarks

Fox Nation: "Appropriate? Obama Gives 'Shout Out' Before Fort Hood Remarks." Fox Nation posted a video of the press conference on November 5 with the headline, "Appropriate? Obama Gives 'Shout Out' Before Fort Hood Remarks":

Drudge headline: "Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting..." Drudge posted a link to a column by Robert A. George under the headline "Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting..." From the Drudge Report on November 6:

Commentary's Chavez: "He treated the event like a pep rally." Linda Chavez wrote in a November 5 blog post for Commentary Magazine that "President Obama's rushed press conference was surprising in its flippancy nonetheless. Before he got to the issue on everyone's mind - namely the deaths of Americans in uniform - the president gave a 'shout-out' to government bureaucrats gathered for a previously scheduled conference at the Interior Department, complete with appreciative chuckles. He treated the event like a pep rally rather than a tragic occasion with a wider audience than those gathered in the room. I wonder how many media outlets will compare Obama's performance to President Bush's 'Pet Goat' moment on 9/11. I won't hold my breath."

GatewayPundit: Obama addressed shooting "[a]fter two minutes of smiling, pointing and dithering." GatewayPundit blogger Jim Hoft wrote on November 5, "After two minutes of smiling, pointing and dithering... Barack Obama finally got around to mentioning the massacre at Fort Hood in Texas. The president then went on to tell the audience what great admiration he has for the men and women in uniform...Except, of course, for those serving in Afghanistan who he refuses to support."

Ben Johnson: Obama "feels there is no event so serious that it cannot be prefaced by a moment of glib hipness." On November 5 Johnson wrote on David Horowitz' Newsreal website that Obama's "shout out" "says it all: our commander-in-chief feels there is no event so serious that it cannot be prefaced by a moment of glib hipness, no solemn loss so sacred he will deny himself a moment of wry self-indulgence. Soldiers were killed? Let's say hi to Joe first. An entire theater of war needs a plan to defeat the terrorists who struck America on 9/11? No reason I can't go golfing, shoot some hoops, and hit the town with Michelle." Johnson added, "We desperately need an adult in the White House. Sadly, today's press conference proves we do not have one."

American Thinker: "Our clueless C in C." American Thinker blogger Clarice Feldman wrote on November 5, "Twelve soldiers were murdered in cold blood at Fort Hood. Thirty others were wounded. Our Commander in Chief calls a press conference and begins it with a long thanks to the Interior Department and Indians who just concluded a conference and then gives a good natured 'shout out' to an attendee, all with a studied nonchalance, before he even mentions the outrage on our military base."

Right-wing media falsely claim Pelosi broke pledge to post health care bill online 72 hours in advance

D.C.P. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:05:19 EST

Right-wing media are claiming Speaker Nancy Pelosi broke a pledge to post the "final" House health care bill online 72 hours before it comes to a vote, echoing a Weekly Standard blog post that claimed amendments allowed by the House Rules Committee the day prior to the vote will change the bill. However, Pelosi's office posted both the text of the bill and the "manager's amendment" -- which The Sunlight Foundation called an "extra final version of legislation" -- 72 hours in advance; those actions meet guidelines set by a House transparency measure that Pelosi told the Weekly Standard she "absolutely" supported.

Right-wing media falsely claim Pelosi broke 72 hours pledge

The Weekly Standard: "Pelosi's agreement to leave the 'final' bill online 'at the very end' of the process wasn't such a straightforward pledge." In a November 5 blog post, the Weekly Standard's John McCormack wrote that Pelosi broke her pledge to put the "final" health care bill online 72 hours before it comes to a vote because, even though she posted the text of the bill and the manager's amendment online, "House members are still negotiating important issues in the bill--whether it will provide taxpayer-funding for abortions, for example." McCormack wrote that this is because the "Rules Committee hasn't yet released its resolution, or rule, that must be passed before the bill can move from committee to the floor. The rule will set the terms of debate and determine what amendments are in order." From McCormack's Weekly Standard report in a July 14 post, a July 15-17 Republican press release for the Education & Labor Committee linked to its report, and the Ways & Means Committee linked to its report in an October 15 post.

Rules committee amendments don't apply to 72 hour measure

Sunlight Foundation: H. Res. 554 does not cover amendments to bills, and manager's amendment is "an extra-final version of legislation." According to a post on The Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit organization that advocates for government transparency, "the proposed 72 hour rule written into H. Res. 554 (the Read the Bill bill) does not cover amendments to bills," and the manager's amendment "amount[s] to an extra-final version of legislation." The post stated that Pelosi's decision to put the Manager's Amendment online 72 hours in advance was "commendable." From the post:

A Manager's Amendment is a partial substitute for the underlying legislation that often includes many last minute compromises to gain support from lawmakers on the fence. There is no required procedure for the public disclosure of Manager's Amendments, but most are posted with the list amendments to be considered on the Rules Committee web site, usually the day before consideration.

[...]

While the proposed 72 hour rule written into H. Res. 554 (the Read the Bill bill) does not cover amendments to bills, the decision to provide adequate time for the health care bill Manager's Amendment is highly commendable. These long amendments are farther reaching in scope than other amendments and amount to an extra-final version of legislation that is not recognized in most people's mental image of "How A Bill Becomes A Law." Acknowledging that the bill's language should be available at all stages for at least 72 hours before action is taken is an extremely important step in the right direction.

Sunlight Foundation: "A milestone" that the text was posted online. The Sunlight Foundation's John Wonderlich also wrote in a November 1 blog post of the text of the bill: "September 24th, Speaker Pelosi said that the healthcare bill would be online for 72 hours.... That 72 hours is now. The bill is online... We should recognize this as a milestone."

Hoyer: Adding an abortion compromise is not a violation of the pledge. According to a November 4 The Hill article, "Lawmakers said the abortion compromise may not be included in the final version of the bill to be released as soon as Wednesday, called the 'manager's amendment.' Instead, it may be included in the 'rule,' which is done the day before the vote. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday he did not consider that a violation of his pledge to have the bill language available for three days before a vote." According to the article, Hoyer said: "We said the manager's amendment we would give 72 hours for...Obviously, we have had 72 hours on the bill. So I don't think that is a violation."

WND falsely claimed alleged Fort Hood shooter "advised Obama transition"

M.G. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:03:46 EST

WorldNetDaily falsely claimed that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan "advised Obama transition" in the headline of an article by Jerome Corsi highlighting his listing as a "participant" in a report for the Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) at George Washington University's Presidential Transition Task Force. However, Corsi himself acknowledges that there is no evidence that "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition" -- indeed, the Task Force was initiated in April 2008. Moreover, while Hasan was listed as one of approximately 300 "Task Force Event Participants" in the report's appendix, HSPI has reportedly said he was not a "member" of the Task Force, and was listed because he RSVP'd for several of the group's open events.

WND article featured false headline "Shooter advised Obama transition"

From the November 6 WND article:

WND claim contradicted by HSPI report and WND article itself

HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force initiated in April 2008 -- well before Obama's election. According to the HSPI Presidential Task Force report Corsi uses to establish the link between Hasan and the organization, "in April 2008 The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) established the Presidential Transition Task Force, comprised of national and homeland security experts, policymakers and practitioners."

According to HSPI, Hasan not a Task Force member, listed because he RSVP'd for groups' open events. In a November 6 blog post, Gawker reported:

FRIDAY MORNING UPDATE: Daniel Kaniewski, the institute's deputy director, confirms that Hasan attended task force meetings as an audience member, and stresses that he was not a member of the task force. "All of our events are open to the public," Kaniewski says, "and when someone RSVPs we put their name in the [report] so everyone knows who was in the room." He says institute staffers recall Hasan attending at least one task force event, and that he RSVP'd for several. "We do recall him speaking at one of our events as an audience member," he says, "but none of us recall what he actually said. Generally, our events are attended by people in the homeland security community, and Hasan had a very legitimate reason to be there. He was a fellow at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences."

Hasan was listed in the group's report as one of roughly 300 "Task Force Event Participants."

Citing no evidence, Hannity estimates that 20,000 attended Fox-promoted GOP health care protest

K.E.C. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:10:43 EST

Citing no evidence, Sean Hannity twice stated that 20,000 people gathered to protest health care reform at a GOP rally on Capitol Hill -- a claim he later walked back drastically -- while MSNBC reported that Capitol police estimated the crowd at only 4,000; prior to the rally, Hannity said crowds at the event -- which he and other Fox News figures heavily promoted -- would be "massive." Conservative media previously inflated crowd estimates for the 9-12 March on Washington.

Hannity twice stated that the Capitol Hill crowd numbered 20,000 -- before drastically walking it back

Hannity: "20,000 people showed up today." During the November 5 edition of ABC Radio Network's The Sean Hannity Show, Hannity stated, "We announced on Hannity Friday night on the Fox News Channel, we had Congresswoman Michele Bachmann [R-MN] on, and she mentioned that there was going to be on Thursday, she was going to put together in less than a week a little town hall on -- what do you want to call it -- march on our nation's Capitol. And anyway, 20,000 people showed up today."

Hannity: "[W]hat, 20,000 people showed up today." Hannity subsequently stated, "That was Jon Voight, the actor, who on his own heard -- I guess was watching Hannity last Friday -- and heard Congresswoman Michele Bachmann announce that she was going to have this rally today in preparation for what we expect to be a vote on a rare Saturday edition of Congress, and, what, 20,000 people showed up today."

Hannity: "I heard there was, like, 5,000 people plus there." Toward the end of his radio show, Hannity backtracked from his earlier estimates, responding to a caller's statement that "there was more than 1,000 people here," by stating, "I heard there was, like, 5,000 people plus there."

Citing U.S. Capitol Police, MSNBC's First Read reported much lower crowd estimates

MSNBC.com: "Three Capitol Hill police officers all guessed that the crowd numbered at about 4,000." In a November 5 First Read blog post, MSNBC.com reported, "The crowd, per [NBC'S Luke] Russert, is so far about 3,000 to 3,500, according to Capitol Police estimates." In a subsequent update, MSNBC reported, "Three Capitol Hill police officers all guessed that the crowd numbered at about 4,000."

Prior to the Fox News-promoted rally, Hannity predicted a "massive" crowd

Hannity: "I hear there's going to be a lot of people -- thousands of people." During the November 4 edition of his Fox News' show, Hannity stated, "All right, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann announced on this program last Friday that at noon tomorrow -- by the way, anybody that wants to go, you can go to the nation's capitol -- they're going to have a press conference, and then I hear there's going to be a lot of people -- thousands of people. Our cameras are going to be there. We'll have full coverage on the program tomorrow night."

Hannity: "I am told the crowd is going to be massive." During the November 4 edition his radio show, Hannity responded to a caller who said, "There's nine of us traveling in an RV with three buses behind us heading out of Georgia to go see Michele Bachmann tomorrow at noon," by stating, "I can tell you, I am told the crowd is going to be massive."

Fox News and its personalities, including Hannity, aggressively promoted protest. In the days leading up to the November 5 protest, and following its pattern of advocacy of right-wing events, Fox News and its personalities' repeatedly promoted the anti-health care reform protest spearheaded by Bachmann. Fox News previously promoted numerous other rallies such as the April 15 tea party protests, health care town hall protests, and the 9-12 march on Washington.

Conservative media previously inflated crowd estimates for the 9-12 March on Washington

Media conservatives ran wild with 9-12 protest crowd estimates. Although a D.C. Fire Department official estimated 9-12 March crowds at 60,000 to 75,000 people, media conservatives including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and Fox & Friends co-hosts Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson cited participant numbers in the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions.

PolitiFact.com: D.C. Fire Department official said "he thought between 60,000 and 75,000" participated. PolitiFact.com investigated whether conservative bloggers were falsely attributing a picture of a large crowd on the National Mall to the 9-12 events and concluded that they were. From PolitiFact:

We spoke with Pete Piringer, public affairs officer for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Department, who said that the local government no longer provides official crowd estimates because they can become politicized. That said, on the morning of Sept. 12, Piringer unofficially told one reporter that he thought between 60,000 and 75,000 people had shown up.

"It was in no way an official estimate," he said.

We asked Piringer whether there were enough protesters to fill the National Mall, as depicted in the photograph.

"It was an impressive crowd," he said. But after marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol the crowd "only filled the Capitol grounds, maybe up to Third Street," he said.

Fox News owns the extremist images featured at Capitol Hill rally it promoted

B.C.O. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:27:38 EST

In aggressively promoting Rep. Michele Bachmann's November 5 anti-health care reform rally on Capitol Hill, Fox News has chosen to associate itself with the offensive and extremist rhetoric emanating from that event. This rhetoric includes the disturbing signs -- such as one of a pile of Holocaust victims' bodies captioned "National Socialist Health Care, Dachau, Germany - 1945" -- displayed at the event.

Anti-reform rally featured extremist images

"National Socialist Health Care, Dachau, Germany - 1945" From a blog post by the Center for American Progress' Matthew Yglesias:

"Got Good Health Care? Let me cure that for you. Stop Obamunism." From a November 5 Huffington Post slide show:

"OBAMA - Gov't TAKE OVER ... JUST LIKE NAZI GERMANY!" From the Huffington Post slide show:

Pelosi: "UnAmerican McCarthyite." From MSNBC.com:

"Maoism is not reform." From the Huffington Post slide show:

"Obama Listens to Mao, I listen to Fox News." From the Huffington Post slide show:

"KEN-YA TRUST OBAMA." From MSNBC.com:

NBC's First Read reports on "jaw-dropping signs." In a November 5 post on the rally, the MSNBC.com blog First Read reported:

Here are some of the more jaw-dropping signs seen at the rally:

"Get the Red Out of the White House."

"Waterboard Congress"

"Traitor to the U.S. Constitution" (Picture of Obama on sign)

"Ken-Ya Trust Obama?" (Rep. Steve King, R-IA, autographing the sign)

"Un-American McCarthyite" (with picture of Pelosi)

"I'm the King of the World: Remember the Titanic?" (Drawing of Obama in the mold of the 'Jovial Sambo' from the Jim Crow era doing the Leo Titanic pose."

Fox News personalities aggressively promoted Bachmann's protest against health care reform bill

Fox News follows pattern of advocacy in promoting November 5 rally. Fox News and its personalities -- including judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, contributor Newt Gingrich, hosts Gretchen Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, and their website The Fox Nation -- repeatedly promoted Bachmann's November 5 anti-reform protest.

Fox News has repeatedly engaged in conservative advocacy by promoting protests

Fox News promoted April 15 tea parties. In the lead-up to the April 15 tea parties, which the channel repeatedly described as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties," Fox News frequently aired segments publicizing the events and encouraging viewers to get involved. A Media Matters for America study found that from April 6 to 13, Fox News featured at least 20 segments on the "tea party" protests. A subsequent Media Matters study found that from April 6 to 15, Fox News aired at least 107 commercial promotions for its coverage of the April 15 tea parties.

Fox News promoted town hall disruptions. Fox News promoted disruptions of Democratic town hall events by protesters opposed to health care reform -- protests that were touted by Republican leaders and supported by conservative groups. Following the August 2 disruption of a town hall event hosted by Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Fox News personalities repeatedly lauded such protesters and urged viewers to take similar action.

Fox News promoted 9-12 protests. In the lead-up to the 9-12 protest, Beck's website worked with others organizing the September 12 "March on Washington," and Beck repeatedly encouraged viewers to attend the protest. Fox News also heavily promoted the Tea Party Express tour -- the final stop of which was the 9-12 protest -- on Fox News, Fox Business, The Fox Nation, and FoxNews.com.