Author Page | Page 4 | Media Matters for America

Alexandrea Boguhn

Author ››› Alexandrea Boguhn
  • Attack On Planned Parenthood: 3 Deceptive Edits In The Video Claiming Planned Parenthood Is "Selling Aborted Baby Parts"


    A deceptive video from a conservative group purports to show a Planned Parenthood official discussing prices for the illegal sale of fetal tissue from abortions. But the full, unedited footage and transcript released by the group undermines their sensationalist claims, showing at least three crucial edits that reveal the Planned Parenthood official was instead discussing the reimbursement cost for consensual, legal tissue donations.

  • Conservative Media Complain That Seattle Teens Have Access To Long-Term Contraceptive Options


    Conservative media are attacking a Seattle program that has offered teens access to long-term contraceptive options through their schools since 2010. But long-term birth control methods such as those offered at the schools are recommended by experts as "first-line" options for teens, and efforts to provide access to such methods to teens and low-income women in Colorado have been wildly successful in reducing teen pregnancy in the state.

  • What Media Miss In Coverage Of Texas' Restrictive Anti-Abortion Legislation

    Blog ››› ››› ALEXANDREA BOGUHN


    Media coverage of Texas' restrictive anti-abortion legislation often presents a false equivalence between arguments from proponents of the legislation and women's health advocates, despite medical experts agreement that such measures are dangerous to women.

    The Supreme Court temporarily blocked implementation of two provisions of Texas' extreme efforts to restrict abortion through a targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) law. The provisions in question required all clinics providing abortions "in the state to meet the standards for 'ambulatory surgical centers,' including regulations concerning buildings, equipment and staffing," The New York Times explained, and required doctors who performed the procedure "to have admitting privileges at nearby hospital[s]."

    Media coverage of Texas' anti-abortion laws often provides equal coverage to both sides of the debate, at the expense of fact-checking anti-abortion proponents who claim, against the advice of medical experts, that the legislation helps women, as Amanda Marcotte noted in a July 2 post for RH Reality Check. Pointing to a recent article from NPR on the Supreme Court's move to temporarily block the state's restrictions, Marcotte explained that although the piece's efforts to quote both sides "is not, in itself, an issue," a statement from a representative from Texas Right to Life, which claimed the law was simply meant to protect women's health, went unquestioned. "What is frustrating is that there is not a whiff of an effort to provide actual real-world facts to give the audience context," wrote Marcotte. She went on:

    NPR framed the story like it was two parties making value claims, with no way to measure their statements against evidence. The problem here is that the debate is not about values. Both sides claim to have the same goal--protecting women's health--and the fight is over who has a better strategy to get there.

    Similarly, in their reporting on the Supreme Court's block, The New York TimesThe Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal each included statements from both sides of the debate arguing that they were protecting women's health while failing to note that medical experts don't support the legislation.

    Health experts have roundly backed abortion access advocates in their assertion that laws of this nature are both medically unnecessary and dangerous to women. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Health Association condemned such measures in a joint amicus brief, writing that the measure to be implemented in Texas "jeopardize[s] the health of women" and "denies them access" to safe abortions. Yet despite the health community's denouncement of the provisions, the media often fails to interrogate anti-abortion proponents' false claims on the law.

  • What The Media Should Know About July 1st's Rollback Of Abortion Access In Florida And Tennessee


    Anti-choice legislation will be enacted in Tennessee and Florida starting July 1, imposing unnecessarily extended waiting periods before women can obtain abortion procedures. But media should note that these restrictions to abortion access are discriminatory and will prevent many women from receiving vital reproductive health care.

  • "The End Of America As We Know It": Conservative Media React To Supreme Court's Health Care Decision

    Right-Wing Commentators Savage Chief Justice Roberts As "Scumbag," "Disgrace" For Preserving Affordable Health Care For Millions


    Conservative media were outraged after the Supreme Court ruled to uphold health insurance tax credits for millions of Americans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), just as Congress intended.

  • Fox & Friends Revives Debunked Clinton Cash Talking Points To Attack Hillary Clinton

    Blog ››› ››› ALEXANDREA BOGUHN

    Fox & Friends uncritically parroted debunked allegations made by Republican activist and strategist Peter Schweizer in his book Clinton Cash in order to falsely suggest wrong-doing at Hillary Clinton's State Department regarding the Uranium One deal that gave the Russian government ownership of U.S. uranium mines. 

    During a June 21 interview on WMUR's CloseUP with Josh McElveen, Hillary Clinton shut down Schweizer's false claims made in Clinton Cash that the former secretary of state had pushed through the Uranium One deal after the Clinton Foundation received donations from stakeholders in the deal, noting that the claims had "no basis" behind them. Peter Schweizer responded in a June 22 op-ed for The New York Post, suggesting that Clinton's interview showed "grave incompetence or brazen dishonesty" and doubling-down on his assertion of a quid pro quo in the Russian uranium deal. Schweizer called Clinton's statement "an admission of extreme executive negligence," and said it "strains credulity."

    Fox News parroted Schweizer's attacks on Clinton during the June 23 edition of Fox & Friends. Asking whether Clinton's involvement in the Uranium One deal was evidence of "incompetence" or "deceit," host Elisabeth Hasselbeck speculated that donations to the Clinton Foundation may have influenced the outcome of the deal. Reciting Schweizer's talking points, Hasselbeck called into question Clinton's statement that nine government agencies were involved in approving the deal:

    ED HENRY: As you can imagine, Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, believes that was pointed at him when she said that there was a partisan axe that was dealt here. So he's got an op-ed  in the New York Post today.

    HASSELBECK: Yeah, and it said this, quote 'The transfer of 20% of U.S. uranium -- the stuff used to build nuclear weapons -- to Vladimir Putin did not rise to the level of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's time and attention? Beyond being an admission of extreme executive negligence on an issue of utmost national security, Hillary's statement strains credulity to the breaking point for at least three other reasons.' And those three are this: at least nine of the investors who profited from that uranium deal collectively donated $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Okay, one of them happened to go globe trotting with her husband and donated $100 million in pledges there. The second point that would bring up, and his third, is that Clinton said that there were nine government agencies. Okay, so she's correct in saying that who signed off on the deal. She forgets to mention that her State Department was one of the nine and happened to be the only agency whose chief, he states, received $145 million in donations from shareholders in that deal. Who, by the way, brings you back to point one -- who ended up donating to the Clinton Foundation. And by the way, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a single speech he delivered in Moscow, and she couldn't answer to that either. 

  • For Father's Day, CBS Highlights The Country's Lagging Paid Family Leave Policies

    Blog ››› ››› ALEXANDREA BOGUHN

    Paid Leave

    On Father's Day Sunday, CBS' Sunday Morning highlighted the importance of paid family leave policies for parents in the United States and how our country's related policies drastically lag behind those of other developed nations.

    During the June 21 edition of Sunday Morning, network correspondent Lee Cowan reported on America's abysmal family leave policies. Pointing to data from the United Nations, Cowan noted that "71 countries offer paid leave for new fathers, but the United States isn't one of them." In fact, "the U.S. also lags behind in paid leave for mothers" -- It's one of only two countries in the world that doesn't offer guaranteed paid maternity leave. CBS noted that paid leave policies are overwhelmingly popular with the public, with a recent CBS News and New York Times poll finding that 80 percent of respondents supported them.

    As noted in the segment, although President Bill Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act into law in 1993, granting up to 12 weeks of paid leave for employees, that time off is unpaid and only offered to full-time workers at companies and organizations with more than 50 employees -- disqualifying over 40 percent of Americans. According to the National Partnership for Women & Families, only 13 percent of workers in the U.S. have access to paid family leave at their jobs.

    CBS' Father's Day coverage was a vast improvement from last month, when Sunday news programs were noticeably silent on paid family leave and maternal health on Mother's Day.