Justice & Civil Liberties | Media Matters for America

Justice & Civil Liberties

Issues ››› Justice & Civil Liberties
  • Lessons to learn from Oklahoma media’s insufficient coverage of an abortion criminalization bill

    Blog ››› ››› MADELYN WEBB


    Sarah Wasko / Media Matters

    Since November, Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Joseph Silk has aggressively promoted a now-tabled bill that would criminalize all abortions without exception. Silk is deeply tied to an extreme anti-abortion community that supports the “abolition” of abortion rights, but Oklahoma media's reporting on his abortion criminalization bill failed to identify or explain these extreme affiliations -- to the detriment of pregnant people in the state.

    Silk introduced SB 13 to reclassify abortion as homicide, making felons of both the doctors who perform them and the patients who receive them. The bill makes no exceptions for cases of rape or incest, and it carries harsh punishments for patients who use many forms of contraception and even some forms of fertility treatment. Though the Oklahoma bill is likely unconstitutional, it has already inspired similar legislation in other states, including Texas, Colorado, and Indiana.

    Oklahoma media repeatedly stumbled when reporting on this extreme bill -- failing to adequately contextualize Silk’s extreme anti-abortion position and its consequences, downplaying his supporters’ history of harassment, and repeating anti-choice talking points without pushback. Although the bill did not make it out of committee, news outlets covering similar extreme anti-abortion bills in other states should learn from these mistakes.

    Media should contextualize connections between abortion criminalization bills and the extreme          anti-abortion communities supporting them

    Silk’s anti-abortion advocacy and support for so-called abortion “abolition” is not a recent development. He has a history of introducing anti-abortion legislation in the Oklahoma Senate, and he spoke at a March 2018 campaign rally for then-gubernatorial candidate Dan Fisher that was hosted by Operation Save America, an extreme anti-abortion group with a history of making threats and perpetuating harassment. Fisher’s campaign platform stated that he is “an abolitionist,” and it included a commitment to “defy the federal government” and “make Oklahoma the first abortion-free state.” After his campaign failed, Fisher’s staff founded the abortion abolition organization Free the States, which frequently hosts events supporting Silk and his bill.

    Abortion abolition groups differ from other anti-abortion groups by advocating for the immediate criminalization of abortion without any exceptions for cases of rape or incest. In addition to this extreme view, these so-called abolitionist groups also oppose most forms of birth control or reproductive intervention, including Plan B and in vitro fertilization. Silk is not an unwitting participant in the activities of this extremist community. In the past year alone, he has given multiple exclusive interviews to Free the States and endorsed the group’s extremist ideology. In return, the group announced that it will “gather our resources and put all hands on deck to demand that [Silk’s] bill is passed.”

    Almost no reporting on Silk's efforts to promote SB 13 included information about his ties to the abortion abolition community, despite the fact that he titled the bill the “Abolition of Abortion in Oklahoma Act.” Media’s failure to note both the extremism of Silk’s supporters and his individual endorsement of their ideology obscures the threat that bills like this present. 

    Outlets should avoid promoting or uncritically repeating anti-choice euphemisms and talking points

    Beyond the failure to note Silk’s involvement with the abortion abolition community, Oklahoma media also allowed Silk and his supporters to use these platforms to repeat anti-choice talking points. After Silk held a rally to promote his bill at the state Capitol, multiple Oklahoma outlets allowed Silk and his supporters to compare abortion to slavery and the holocaust with no pushback or context about why these statements are problematic.

    One segment featured a member of Free the States saying, “We have five free-standing child sacrifice centers. A lot of people call them abortion clinics.” Although this quote was irrelevant to the substance of the bill, its inclusion without pushback actively editorializes and fearmongers about abortion. Free the States later posted this clip to the group’s Facebook page, writing, “We can’t afford to run TV ads supporting #SB13 and our campaign to Free the States from their participation in the American Abortion Holocaust. But if we could, we would run them during the nightly news. Good thing they are running brief ads for us.”

    Outlets should be cautious about including quotes that do not provide information about the substance of criminalization bills. Quotes that reiterate anti-choice talking points -- scattered throughout articles with no counterpoint or pushback -- legitimize these extreme viewpoints and misrepresent the material harm these bills would have.

    Media should describe what these bill would actually mean for pregnant people’s ability to access desired health care options, including abortion

    Outlets reporting on abortion criminalization bills need to describe the realities of these policies, including the repercussions such extreme measures would have for pregnant people and abortion providers. For example, Oklahoma media published a series of articles covering Silk’s rally at the state Capitol, but the only pro-choice perspective included in many of these pieces was a brief quote from a Democratic lawmaker stating that the bill is unlikely to go anywhere. Some stories did not include any pro-choice perspectives at all. One exception to this trend was a February 13 article from The Oklahoman, which included a quote from the board president for Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice highlighting the dangers of the bill. Most news coverage of Silk’s event did not include the voices of people who provide or receive abortions, and many stories had no explanation of the consequences should the bill go into effect in Oklahoma. In covering Silk’s bill, some Oklahoma media outlets simply said that it would take “past efforts against abortion a step further.” While true, this characterization omits critical information and downplays the harmful impact such bills have.

    Already, patients across the country are being prosecuted for either miscarrying or self-managing abortions. In Indiana, a woman who attempted suicide when she was eight months pregnant was charged with murder. In Iowa, a pregnant woman was charged with feticide after she accidentally fell down the stairs. And bills such as Silk’s which further codify the criminalization of abortion care are guaranteed to exacerbate this problem. Under the Oklahoma bill, doctors who provide abortions could be charged with homicide. Silk’s bill would also criminalize selective embryo reduction, a common practice among patients who have received in vitro fertilization, making it more difficult for patients with fertility difficulties to receive treatment in Oklahoma.

    Reporting on abortion criminalization bills should center these kinds of consequences -- focusing on what happens if these harmful bills take effect, and specifically what they would mean for pregnant patients and their doctors. As more states introduce abortion criminalization bills, outlets can learn lessons from where Oklahoma media fell short. By providing context about the extreme background of the groups promoting these bills and ensuring that readers have access to information about their harmful impacts, outlets can avoid advertising for anti-abortion extremists.

    Correction (2/20/19): In the original version of this post, Media Matters incorrectly linked to a story from The Oklahoman when describing outlets that had failed to quote any pro-choice voices in coverage of SB 13. The link should have directed readers to a story from the Tulsa World.

  • CNN’s new political editor has a history of spreading anti-abortion misinformation

    Trump will reportedly spotlight anti-abortion extremism in 2020, and now CNN can get its anti-choice lies from in-house

    Blog ››› ››› SHARON KANN


    Melissa Joskow / Media Matters

    It’s no secret that CNN employs and repeatedly hosts political commentators with ties to President Donald Trump’s administration. But with the announced hire of Sarah Isgur as a political editor, the network seems set on making its intended “facts first” approach a sisyphean labor -- particularly when it comes to abortion-related coverage.

    Already, conservative media dominate cable news conversations about abortion with inaccurate information. And as a career Republican strategist, Isgur not only lacks formal journalism experience -- a seeming necessity for anyone in an editorial role -- but has also spent years promoting anti-abortion misinformation.

    Isgur’s installation at CNN comes at a tenuous time for abortion rights. The Supreme Court appears increasingly likely to overturn or weaken Roe v. Wade, and Trump -- after weeks of sensationalized and inaccurate Fox News coverage -- is reportedly committed to spotlighting abortion misinformation in his 2020 campaign. Anti-abortion groups and the Republican Party have similarly seized on allegations of Democratic extremism on abortion rights to rally a perceived base of support ahead of next year’s elections. Already in 2019, right-wing media have inundated audiences with a plethora of inaccurate and stigmatizing coverage about abortions and the people who have them. And some outlets outside of this echo chamber have also demonstrated an alarming proclivity for uncritically repeating Trump’s anti-abortion misinformation. If anything, Isgur’s hiring means that CNN doesn’t need to parrot Trump to spread anti-abortion misinformation anymore -- the lies can come from in-house.   

    Here’s a sample of the anti-abortion talking points Sarah Isgur has promoted.

    Isgur attacked Democrats as “extreme” for supporting abortion rights

    Right-wing media have frequently alleged that the Democratic Party holds “extreme” views on abortion rights. Although there is little truth to this claim, Isgur has repeated the allegation on a number of occasions:

    Isgur promoted deceptive videos from an anti-abortion group

    In 2015, the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress released a series of deceptive videos alleging wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. Notably, then-Republican presidential candidate (and Isgur’s former boss) Carly Fiorina was among those sharing the videos and claiming they showed wrongdoing -- a position Isgur promoted:

    Isgur unfairly maligned Planned Parenthood

    Isgur equated deaths from gun violence with abortion and attacked liberals for their alleged “hypocrisy” on the two issues

    In a 2016 piece for Townhall, Isgur equated advocacy for gun regulation with efforts to ban abortions after 20 weeks. She concluded by attacking “the Left” for allegedly “demonizing conservatives who want to preserve their Second Amendment rights while refusing to even consider restrictions on killing tens of thousands of babies that could live outside the womb”:

    As it happens, I’m also pro-life. And I’ll admit that I’m simply stunned that people on the Left can argue with a straight face that a mother has a right to kill a baby that can live outside the womb. But, this week in particular, I’m even more stunned at the Left’s hypocrisy on gun control—demonizing conservatives who want to preserve their Second Amendment rights while refusing to even consider restrictions on killing tens of thousands of babies that could live outside the womb. This is why it continues to be hard for conservatives to take liberal’s arguments at face value when it comes to guns. Their ideology trumps logic and facts too often.

    Isgur lambasted CNN’s abortion-related coverage as biased

     

  • MSNBC's Ari Melber calls out Sen. Susan Collins' hypocrisy on abortion

    Melber: Collins’ "stated views" on abortion "are openly, blatantly, repeatedly contradicted by her record"

    Blog ››› ››› JULIE TULBERT

    Media outlets have long touted Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) as one of the few pro-choice Republicans in Congress -- a label she herself has embraced. But on the February 13 edition of MSNBC’s The Beat with Ari Melber, host Ari Melber explained that Collins’ reputation is contradicted by her record, including her recent vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and her endorsement of his subsequent abortion-related decision.

    After Justice Anthony Kennedy retired from the Supreme Court in 2018, Collins said she wouldn’t vote for a replacement who “demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade.” After Collins met with Kavanaugh, she released a statement saying that she was reassured about his stance on Roe v. Wade because he claimed to believe that Roe was “settled precedent.” As many media outlets argued at the time, Collins had no reason to be reassured by Kavanaugh’s statements given his record on abortion-related matters. In fact, Kavanaugh’s nomination represented a substantial threat to the abortion protections in Roe. But Collins did not waver -- even after Christine Blasey Ford reported that Kavanaugh assaulted her when they were both in high school -- and she ultimately served as a key swing vote to confirm him.

    On The Beat, Melber explained that Collins’ vote to confirm Kavanaugh was both out of line with her stated “pro-choice” views and that it is already proving to be a mistake given Kavanaugh’s recent vote to deny a stay in a Louisiana case concerning abortion access. The case involved a law that required abortion providers to “have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals” and was “essentially identical” to the law the court struck down in 2016 in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. A majority of the court voted to block the law from going into effect while the case goes through litigation, but Kavanaugh voted against that decision and “wrote a four-page explanation of why he thought the law should go into effect.”

    In the report, Melber noted that Collins has voted to confirm nominees considered anti-abortion to the Supreme Court in the past:

    ARI MELBER (HOST): Note that Sen. Collins has some experience with a pattern here. We’re going to show it to you because she backed Trump and voted to confirm [Neil] Gorsuch as well as Kavanaugh just like she voted to confirm [Samuel] Alito. As for [Clarence] Thomas, the fourth vote [in the Louisiana case], well she wasn't even in office yet.

    Melber also explained that Kavanaugh’s first vote in an abortion-related case -- the Louisiana decision, which came almost “as soon as he joined the court” -- has already largely refuted Collins’ claim that he would protect Roe v. Wade:

    MELBER: The Collins vote helped ensure that Trump could put Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court while also claiming, as you just saw -- she claimed his words assured her that these abortion precedents were safe and wouldn't change. Was she right? When will we know? Why am I talking to you about this right now -- this important issue? Well, when will we know? It didn't take long. This is in the news right now because Justice Kavanaugh just voted to back a very restrictive state law to eliminate access to abortion for most people who live in Louisiana, making abortion unavailable everywhere there but a single clinic, according to abortion rights experts and advocates in the state. This was considered a very significant case.

    Kavanaugh taking a position in the minority against the current precedent protecting choice. And this is something he's doing as soon as he joined the court. Note, that's what his conservative backers expected, and note, that’s what his liberal critics expected. So it appears one of the only policy experts in the country who would claim to be surprised by this ruling to restrict choice would be Susan Collins. Now, if Kavanaugh had his way, that controversial ruling that I just described drastically restricting choice, that would be law today. And if that approach worked in that state it’d be open season in many other conservative states. The only reason this is so important, the only reason this is not law, is that other justices including a different Republican appointee, John Roberts, voted the other way. Roberts siding with several Democratic-appointed justices to block this law under -- you see where we’re going -- under the Roe precedent that Collins has discussed so much. Now, let’s look at the justices who voted with Kavanaugh. This is so important. Four of them there. So they’re now one vote shy of a majority to do this kind of thing to restrict, drastically, choice and abortion doctors in the United States.

    Melber also highlighted Collins’ continued defense of Kavanaugh -- even after his recent vote -- and her allegation that he wouldn’t vote to overturn or weaken Roe:

    MELBER: She still claims, even now, that she's doing her part to keep the court pro-choice against all this evidence. And responding to Kavanaugh’s new opinion, she cites this as a “very careful dissent” as proof the idea he would still repeal Roe is quote "absurd." Is it? Now, we asked Sen. Collins’ office whether, point-blank, she views Kavanaugh’s ruling as a limitation on abortion access, which it is, and a narrowing of Roe’s protection or not. She did not reply to those questions today. But if last fall anyone was unclear how then-Judge Kavanaugh would approach abortion laws on the Supreme Court, the answer is now clear. Facts matter. Now, our report tonight does not in any way pretend to address all the strongly held personal, moral, and religious beliefs on abortion in the Senate or across our nation. But it does reveal that in this important debate, full of people in power and out of power standing up for their views, taking risks for their views, fighting for years for their views -- Sen. Susan Collins’ record reveals herself to be on an unusual island where her stated views are openly, blatantly, repeatedly contradicted by her record.

  • Wash. Post health care newsletter repeats right-wing spin on abortion

    Blog ››› ››› JULIE TULBERT


    Sarah Wasko / Media Matters

    Following an avalanche of right-wing media coverage attacking Democratic efforts to protect abortion access at the state level, more mainstream outlets have begun to pick up and promote this anti-choice misinformation. A recent notable example comes from The Washington Post’s health care newsletter, The Health 202, which pushed right-wing misinformation about state abortion measures, medical procedures for abortions later in pregnancy, and Democrats' support for abortion rights.

    On January 22, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed the Reproductive Health Act, changing a pre-Roe v. Wade state law that criminalized abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy to allow abortions “when the fetus is not viable” or when there is a risk to the health of the pregnant person. Legislators in Virginia also introduced (and have since tabled) a bill in January that would eliminate some restrictions on abortion care, including reducing the number of doctors required to consent for a patient’s third-trimester abortion from three to one -- removing a medically unnecessary barrier to access.

    Right-wing media responded to these measures with a deluge of inaccurate coverage and extreme rhetoric, including claims that Democrats were endorsing “infanticide.” Right-wing media fearmongering has no basis in reality, but that didn’t stop President Donald Trump from repeating this fictitious talking point in his 2019 State of the Union address and at a recent rally in Texas, where he inaccurately characterized the Virginia measure as allowing providers to “execute the baby” after birth.

    Given the dangers of such extreme rhetoric for abortion providers and clinics, it’s important that media outlets not repeat these lies as if they were facts. But some outlets outside of the right-wing echo chamber did just that, repeating anti-abortion talking points and right-wing misinformation from the president’s State of the Union speech or promoting Trump’s lies in headlines and on social media without providing necessary context or refutation. Here’s how The Health 202 once again served as a conduit for right-wing and anti-abortion media's misinformation:

    The Health 202 newsletter did not push back on the right-wing lie that the New York and Virginia measures allow “infanticide”

    In the February 12 edition of the newsletter, The Health 202 repeated anti-choice allegations that the state measures would “allow the procedure up to the point of birth" and noted that Republicans are "characterizing those measures as permitting infanticide.” The Health 202 also uncritically quoted Trump’s State of the Union claim that the New York law would permit “a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth,” an inaccurate talking point Trump previously made during a 2016 presidential debate and repeated to The Daily Caller in an interview before his 2019 address.

    Abortion “moments before birth” or those that could be called “infanticide” are not medical procedures that actually happen. As Forbes’ Tara Haelle explained in 2016, people who have abortions later in pregnancy “are seeking them before a pregnancy reaches full term but often and unfortunately after they have discovered in the second or third trimester some problem with the fetus or danger to the mother.” Personal accounts of third-trimester abortions (which occur after roughly 28 weeks of pregnancy) include stories of ending wanted pregnancies and making painful decisions about quality of life. Other accounts speak of the negative impact that anti-choice restrictions have on the ability to access an abortion, causing unnecessary and dangerous delays in receiving care.

    The Health 202 also inaccurately claimed that there is a lack of support for allowing access to later abortions

    The Health 202 also framed the manufactured right-wing controversy around state abortion measures as a “tricky” issue for Democrats ahead of the 2020 election because “Republicans see a political opening as, they argue, some states have passed laws out of sync with most Americans.” The newsletter also characterized third-trimester abortion as “a procedure that, while exceedingly rare, is nonetheless opposed by an overwhelming majority of Americans,” and further alleged that Democrats’ support for abortion is in opposition to “views held by the public, which generally supports abortion rights in the early but not late part of a woman's pregnancy.”

    In reality, accurate polling on abortion has always been notoriously difficult, and support for both abortion rights and anti-choice restrictions is heavily dependent on how certain questions are asked. As Tresa Undem, founder and partner at the public opinion research firm PerryUndem, wrote for Vox, most “standard measures used to report the public’s views on abortion ... don’t capture how people really think” about the issue, but getting reliable polling on abortion requires asking questions “in a more real and accurate way” that takes into account “how people actually experience abortion.”

    In other words, audiences report greater support for abortion access when polls use real-life examples. Specifically, polls show a drastic drop in support for later abortion bans when people realize that abortions in later stages of pregnancy are often undertaken out of medical necessity or for particular personal circumstances. For example, a Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health study on the Zika virus found that when asked in the abstract about later abortion, “less than a quarter of people (23%) believe women should have access to a legal abortion after 24 weeks.” However, when people were asked about access to a later abortion when a pregnant person had been infected with the Zika virus, “a majority of Americans (59%) believe a woman should have access to a legal abortion after 24 weeks.” As Hart Research Associates found, “Once voters consider the range of circumstances in which abortions would be made illegal under most 20-week abortion ban proposals, a majority of Americans oppose them."

    The newsletter repeated right-wing media’s characterization of Democrats as extreme for supporting access to abortions later in pregnancy

    The February 12 edition of The Health 202 is framed around the right-wing media narrative that Democrats are “out of step with voters on [abortion] ahead of the 2020 elections.” To support this claim, The Health 202 relied on anti-choice misinformation and generalized polling on abortion detailed above.

    Right-wing media and even mainstream outlets continue to push the narrative that Democrats’ “extreme” views on abortions will cause them to lose voters. However, these claims not only mischaracterize those pushing for state abortion measures, but they also misrepresent broader public opinion. Suggestions that Democratic leaders should compromise or tone down their support for abortion rights are also unsupported by data. As PerryUndem found, “Just 8 percent of Democrats would be more likely to vote for a candidate who opposes abortion,” but “31 percent of Republicans would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights.” Undem told Vox, “By going after the 8 percent of Democrats who want a candidate who opposes abortion, the party risks losing the 71 percent of Democratic voters who want their candidates to support abortion rights.”

    The Health 202 failed to provide the full context on a story related to the New York law that right-wing media have been circulating to inaccurately fearmonger about state abortion measures

    In addition to repeating right-wing talking points, the February 12 edition of The Health 202 also fearmongered about a New York murder case being used to attack the state’s new abortion law. The newsletter mentioned that “an abortion charge was dropped in Queens against a man accused of fatally stabbing his 14-weeks-pregnant girlfriend,” which “reignited criticism by abortion foes who said the measure would eliminate criminal penalties for pregnancies lost due to violence.” The newsletter linked to a tweet from Dennis Poust, the director of communications for the New York State Catholic Conference, who said, “Thanks to the” new abortion law, “it’s open season on pregnant women in New York,” echoing comments about the case from national anti-abortion groups.

    This story has received plentiful coverage from right-wing media, but The Health 202 repeated it without providing the full context required to understand the specifics of the case or how it is being weaponized to spread misinformation about abortion. For example, The New York Timescoverage of the case clarified that “physical attacks that end pregnancies can be prosecuted as first-degree assault,” which carries a longer prison sentence than the charge of “unlawful abortion” under the old law. In addition, the Times reported that “Daniel R. Alonso, the former chief assistant prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, said in an interview on Sunday that charging” the suspect with committing an unlawful abortion “would not have affected [a] potential sentence for murder, which supersedes an assault charge.” The Times also wrote that “Prosecutors rarely used the charge” before the enactment of the New York law “because it did not add anything to the prosecution of a case,” discrediting right-wing media’s weaponization of the case against New York’s new abortion protections.

    Once again, The Health 202 allowed right-wing media to frame the story through selective inclusion of quotes

    The Health 202 quoted at length from right-wing figures, all of whom perpetuated the right-wing narrative that Democrats are “extreme” on abortion. While the newsletter did feature quotes from three Democratic 2020 presidential candidates, it did not include any from the doctors, medical experts, or pro-choice advocates mentioned in the original reporting the newsletter linked to, who could have provided better context and more accurate framing of this important issue.

    This isn’t the first time The Health 202 has relied on selective quotes to carry water for anti-abortion and right-wing media talking points. The Health 202 has previously featured imbalanced coverage of abortion-related issues, giving anti-abortion groups an uncritical platform to spread misinformation outside of the right-wing media bubble. In some cases, anti-abortion groups have even touted their inclusion and prominent placement in The Health 202 as evidence that anti-abortion viewpoints are garnering wider mainstream media credibility and attention -- using the publication to give otherwise inaccurate commentary about abortion a veneer of credibility.

    As anti-abortion groups and right-wing media ramp up their efforts ahead of the 2020 elections, media outlets should not be serving as conduits for faulty rhetoric and inaccurate right-wing talking points.

  • During the shutdown, the NRA embraced white nationalism in support of Trump’s wall

    Blog ››› ››› TIMOTHY JOHNSON

    More than half of the live news updates from the National Rifle Association’s media operation, NRATV, fearmongered about undocumented immigrants during the recent government shutdown, which was caused by President Donald Trump’s demand that Congress fund a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

    During the 35-day shutdown, which ended on January 25, NRATV broadcast 95 segments on its news program Stinchfield. The show, hosted by conservative radio host Grant Stinchfield, consists of 10- to 20-minute hourly updates on weekdays between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. EST. According to a Media Matters review, 54 of the segments aired during the shutdown fearmongered about undocumented immigrants to agitate for Trump’s fantastical and racist border wall proposal. In three instances, NRATV invited Michael Cutler, a frequent contributor to a white nationalist publication, on to the outlet to advocate for Trump’s wall. Additionally, NRATV correspondent Chuck Holton pushed explicitly white nationalist talking points during one of his appearances.

    While it may seem odd that an outlet dedicated to gun-related issues would devote so much time to pushing for Trump’s wall, NRATV is actually best understood as a pro-Trump propaganda network with an explicit aim of promoting whatever his agenda happens to be that day. (In once instance, Stinchfield did connect immigration to the NRA’s goal of loosening concealed carry laws nationwide, saying we should do so because of “the issues we face with immigration and crime.”)

    In this report:

    NRATV host Grant Stinchfield demonized undocumented immigrants as violent criminals

    Stinchfield frequently used the slur “illegals”

    Stinchfield made up a statistic and repeatedly used the same inflammatory talking points on immigration

    NRATV hosted a contributor to a white nationalist publication three times

    NRATV featured homegrown white nationalism from NRATV correspondent Chuck Holton

    Other ways NRATV fearmongered about undocumented immigrants

    The truth about NRATV and public safety

    NRATV host Grant Stinchfield demonized undocumented immigrants as violent criminals

    NRATV’s scapegoating of undocumented immigrants for problems in the U.S. began on December 28 -- the first day that the network broadcast Stinchfield after the partial government shutdown began. Throughout his broadcasts that day, Stinchfield repeatedly raised the murder of California police officer Ronil Singh by an undocumented immigrant to create the false perception that undocumented immigrants often pose a public safety threat to those in the U.S. Falsely claiming that Trump’s wall proposal would “stop the large majority of those sneaking in today,” Stinchfield said, “We are tired and fed up of seeing innocent people slaughtered at the hands of illegal immigrants,” and added, “It is time now to stand firm with President Trump. Let’s build this wall.” During another update later that day, NRATV correspondent Chuck Holton connected without evidence the murder of a Swiss man in Acapulco, Mexico, to a migrant caravan poised to enter Mexico from Central America. (Speaking of the migrants in the caravan, Holton also added, “You can bet that these are not doctors and accountants coming along. These are unskilled laborers coming to a place that’s absolutely chock full already of unskilled laborers. So you can imagine how that’s going to go.”)

    That trend would continue: During the 20 days NRATV broadcast during the shutdown, only one -- January 25 -- did not feature a segment fearmongering about undocumented immigrants. The implication that undocumented immigrants pose a grave public safety threat is meant to scare NRATV’s viewers, but it is not based on reality. Research has proved that undocumented immigrants commit crimes -- including murder -- at lower rates than people born in the U.S. do. There is no evidence that the wall would improve public safety (although Stinchfield stated that it “will instantly make us all safer” during a January 2 broadcast).

    Stinchfield frequently used the slur “illegals”

    Throughout shutdown broadcasts, Stinchfield repeatedly slurred and dehumanized undocumented immigrants with the term “illegals.” Some examples:

    • Stinchfield on January 4: “We’ve talked over and over again about people driving drunk, getting killed by illegals. … I argue that drunk driving among anybody -- but especially illegals who shouldn’t have been here -- put more people at risk than the gangbangers even do.”
    • Stinchfield on January 9: “With so many illegals in America today, and sadly so many of them that have turned to crime, no one is immune to the toll illegal aliens who turn to crime can take on all of us.”
    • Stinchfield on January 18: Singer Cardi B needs to talk to “people who lost loved ones to violent illegals who never should have been here in the first place.”

    Stinchfield made up a statistic and repeatedly used the same inflammatory talking points on immigration

    Stinchfield made up an outrageous statistic to push for the wall; during the January 8 and January 9 broadcasts, he claimed without evidence that undocumented immigrants have killed “tens of thousands” of people in the U.S. in recent years.

    Making matters worse, Stinchfield’s claims about immigration were often not off the cuff -- instead they were scripted and packaged, with the same talking points appearing during multiple Stinchfield updates. Some examples:

    • Stinchfield used similar language to repeatedly suggest that Trump deliver the 2019 State of the Union address at the border while surrounded by family members of people killed by undocumented immigrants. (That idea was pitched to him by Daily Caller White House correspondent Amber Athey, who was recently forced to apologize after racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-gay tweets she sent surfaced.)
    • Stinchfield repeatedly said that the impacts of undocumented immigrants “end in your hometown” with violence.
    • Stinchfield repeatedly claimed that the U.S. has “a problem with violent illegal aliens.”
    • Stinchfield repeatedly said that the U.S. is “under siege” by violent undocumented immigrants.

    NRATV hosted a contributor to a white nationalist publication three times

    NRATV hosted Michael Cutler during broadcasts on December 28, January 3, and January 21, identifying him in on-screen graphics as a “former INS agent.” Cutler, who is also a former fellow at the nativist Center for Immigration Studies, is a frequent contributor to white nationalist journal The Social Contract. The Southern Poverty Law Center notes that the publication “routinely publishes race-baiting articles penned by white nationalists” and that it was founded “by John Tanton, the racist founder and principal ideologue of the modern nativist movement.” According to SPLC, The Social Contract Press “puts an academic veneer of legitimacy over what are essentially racist arguments about the inferiority of today's immigrants.”

    A search of the journal’s website returns 21 articles authored by Cutler, including six articles published since 2017. Echoing Stinchfield, Cutler emphasized undocumented immigrant criminality during his appearances on the show. During his January 21 appearance, Cutler claimed that Democrats are betraying “national security and public safety,” and Stinchfield closed the segment by saying that Cutler “has a long history of defending our nation’s borders.”

    NRATV featured homegrown white nationalism from NRATV correspondent Chuck Holton

    Chuck Holton, an NRATV correspondent with a history of making racist remarks and promoting white nationalism, pushed a conspiratorial white nationalist talking point during a January 4 appearance. Holton alleged that Democrats are “trying to import a new populace that will vote for them by offering them all these free benefits” via the southern border from “Third World” countries such as India, Cameroon, Pakistan, Nepal, Afghanistan, and those “all over Africa.” Describing immigration as “trying to import a new populace” from “the Third World” is a common tactic advanced by white nationalist publications including VDare and American Renaissance.

    While speaking about immigration on NRATV before the shutdown, Holton repeatedly pushed the conspiracy theory that philanthropist George Soros was behind a migrant caravan -- a remarkably similar conspiracy theory to the one that motivated a gunman who carried out a mass shooting in a Pittsburgh, PA, synagogue in October. He has also said that the migrant caravan is “an invasion under the guise of migration.”

    Other ways NRATV fearmongered about undocumented immigrants

    On NRATV, Stinchfield mostly depicted undocumented immigrants as criminals poised to commit everyday violence like robbery or murder, but there were some exceptions. In one instance, he fearmongered about the prospect of undocumented immigrants getting national voting rights.

    In several other cases, Stinchfield and Holton took cues from the Trump administration to raise the prospect of undocumented immigrant terrorists. For example, citing a terrorist attack in Africa and incidents in the U.S., Holton said during the January 16 broadcast of Stinchfield, “This is yet another reason why we need that wall on the southern border.” While providing no examples of terrorists crossing the southern border, Stinchfield said during a January 18 update, “Look at what happens when terrorists make their way into this country. If you want to secure the border, you do it, you build a wall.” According to the libertarian Cato Institute, no U.S. terror attack has ever been carried out by someone who crossed the border illegally.

    The truth about NRATV and public safety

    The sickening irony of NRATV’s obsession with the supposed criminality of undocumented immigrants is that if the outlet was truly concerned about public safety and murder, it would devote its time to reporting that high gun availability and lax firearm laws are the driving factors behind the U.S.’s shockingly high homicide rate, with the vast majority of murders committed by people born in the U.S. But it doesn’t. The NRA, of course, opposes any meaningful action on gun laws to stem that epidemic of violence.

  • Right-wing media used state abortion measures to villainize people who have abortions

    Blog ››› ››› MADELYN WEBB


    Melissa Joskow / Media Matters

    After several states promoted measures protecting abortion access, right-wing media not only spread an immense amount of misinformation about the efforts, but also lashed out at people who have had abortions, stigmatizing and denigrating them for making a personal health care decision. In particular, these outlets and media figures targeted people who have had abortions later in pregnancy -- by suggesting that they are heartless murderers, misrepresenting them as callous and irresponsible, and even calling them “satanic.”

    The bills that instigated this outrage are far from radical: Democratic lawmakers in New York and Virginia were attempting to protect abortion access at the state level, not to legalize “infanticide” -- as some right-wing media alleged. Right-wing media seized on clips of Democratic Virginia lawmakers Rep. Kathy Tran and Gov. Ralph Northan alledgedly describing later abortion procedures, spurring the spread of further hyperbole and misinformation about proactive state abortion protection bills. In reality, these measures would legalize abortions later in pregnancy “when the fetus is not viable or a woman’s health is at risk,” a far cry from right-wing media’s allegations that such procedures (and the people who have or provide them) are “demonic.”

    Here are just some of the examples of right-wing media misrepresenting people who have received abortions, a legal and sometimes necessary medical procedure:

    • Fox News contributors and right-wing internet personalities Diamond and Silk (Lynette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson) tweeted that Democrats were trying to allow “abortions up to the birth” of a baby (they aren’t) and that this was “murder”: 

    • During the January 31 edition of his radio program, Fox News’ Sean Hannity claimed that people should take advantage of “birth control options” to avoid getting pregnant. He concluded that because of these options, someone who needs an abortion later in pregnancy is irresponsible because they either should have prevented the pregnancy or gotten an abortion “in the first three months.”
    • On Jeanine Pirro’s Fox News program, Justice with Judge Jeanine, political columnist Amy Holmes said, “There are women who kill their kids for selfish reasons."
    • In a series of tweets, Washington Examiner contributor Kimberly Ross attacked people who support access to abortions as "morally weak,” and accused patients who have received them of being “predatory” and of “stand[ing] on the backs of the unborn dead”:

    • During the January 31 edition of Fox News’ The Story with Martha MacCallum, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee alleged that people who have abortions later in pregnancy are doing so because they think having a child is “going to be an inconvenience.”
    • The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro also pushed the narrative that people who have abortions later in pregnancy are doing so callously, saying that people might argue “I’d be healthier if I didn’t have this 9-month-old baby right here that’s about to enter my vaginal canal. Cut its brains out,” and claiming, “That’s what this law now allows.”
    • During President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, Charlie Kirk, founder of the conservative group Turning Point USA, tweeted that later abortions are “despicable” and that anyone who supports efforts to protect or expand abortion access was endorsing “this savagery”:

    • After New York illuminated One World Trade Center with pink lights to honor the passage of abortion protections, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh claimed that New York was celebrating “legalized murder, calling it abortion."
    • During his Fox News program, Hannity, host Sean Hannity stated that because several laws that allow later abortion in order to protect the pregnant person’s health don’t further define what’s entailed in protecting health, “If someone says hours before [giving birth], ‘Oh, I'm having emotional second thoughts,’ and a doctor says, ’OK,’ then they're allowed to commit infanticide."
    • On Twitter, Turning Point USA’s Candace Owens said people celebrating state abortion protection measures -- which she said allow “slaughtering babies” -- were “satanic”:

    • During the January 31 edition of Fox News’ Fox News @ Night, actor Kevin Sorbo compared people who have abortions later in pregnancy to Nazis, saying: “You know, there's a group of people about 70 years ago that decided what lives were worth living, what lives were not, and they were called the Nazis.”
  • 8 must-read fact checks debunking Trump’s abortion lies from his State of the Union address

    ››› ››› JULIE TULBERT

    President Donald Trump used his 2019 State of the Union address to promote right-wing media lies about state measures protecting abortion access. While media outlets struggled at times to properly contextualize and refute Trump’s misinformation, some outlets held Trump accountable by debunking his false, anti-choice statements and providing their audiences with accurate information about abortion.

  • Fox News almost single-handedly manufactured anti-abortion outrage before Trump’s State of the Union

    Before the State of the Union, Fox News devoted over 6 and a half hours to inaccurately saying state abortion measures allow “infanticide”

    Blog ››› ››› SHARON KANN & ROB SAVILLO


    Sarah Wasko / Media Matters

    Fox News has responded to the recent state measures protecting abortion access in the only way the network knows how: with a barrage of inaccurate, bizarre, and sensationalized coverage. The network's coverage has driven misinformation about the realities of legal and medically necessary abortions later in pregnancy straight into President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, and Fox has continued this harmful narrative about abortion care beyond the speech.

    On January 22, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed the Reproductive Health Act, changing a pre-Roe v. Wade state law criminalizing abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy to now allow abortions with the consent of a doctor “when the fetus is not viable or a woman’s health is at risk.” This law sparked a meltdown at Fox News, with hosts and guests decrying its allegedly “Hitlerian” nature. When a Virginia lawmaker’s comment about a pro-choice bill went viral, the Fox News spin machine went into overdrive, manufacturing a scandal about Democratic lawmakers pushing legislation that supposedly allows “infanticide.”

    Between January 22 and February 5 (before Trump's State of the Union speech):

    • Fox News discussed abortion in the context of the New York and Virginia measures for over six and a half hours.
    • CNN, in comparison, covered these topics for only about eight and a half minutes, while MSNBC’s coverage clocked in around four minutes.

    Between February 5 (after Trump's State of the Union speech) and February 6:

    • Fox News still led coverage on these issues, discussing abortion for around 13 minutes.
    • CNN and MSNBC covered it for approximately five and a half minutes and nine minutes, respectively.


    Melissa Joskow / Media Matters


    Melissa Joskow / Media Matters

    Given Trump’s reliance on Fox News for his talking points and policy proposals, it’s unsurprising that he would soon take cues from the network’s breathless coverage. Indeed, both before and during the State of the Union address, Trump repeated several inaccurate right-wing media talking points.

    The consequences of allowing Fox News to rile up viewers -- including the president -- into adopting inaccurate and extreme rhetoric about abortion cannot be overstated. Trump is already calling for legislation based on right-wing lies about abortion and reportedly planning to center abortion-related fearmongering in his 2020 election messaging. Beyond this, incidents of anti-abortion violence and harassment have been on the rise, driven in part by right-wing hyperbole about abortion providers and patients.

    Media have a responsibility to correct Trump’s -- and by extension, Fox News’ -- inaccurate and sensationalized arguments about abortion. If the current response to this manufactured Fox News misinformation cycle is any indication, other outlets have some work to do.

    Methodology

    Media Matters searched the SnapStream video database for any mentions of “abortion” in close proximity of “New York” or “Virginia” on Fox News Channel, CNN, and MSNBC between 4 a.m. and midnight starting January 22 and ending February 6. (We included special post-State of the Union address coverage on February 5 and 6 that fell outside of this time range.)

    We timed segments, which we defined as instances in which either the New York or Virginia legislation or Trump’s comments about either legislation initiated a discussion about abortion. These included instances when abortion was the stated topic of discussion. We also timed as segments “substantive discussion,” which we defined as instances where two speakers discussed abortion with one another. For substantive discussion, we only timed the relevant speech. Segments included host monologues, news reports or packages, interviews, and guest panels. We did not include teasers for upcoming segments or passing mentions of abortion in segments about other topics. We did not include rebroadcasts.

  • On SiriusXM’s Signal BoostMedia Matters' Sharon Kann calls out Trump's State of the Union abortion lies

    Kann: Given the “well-worn pipeline” from Fox News to Trump, “it was unsurprising” to see him repeat right-wing misinformation during the address

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    On the February 7 edition of SiriusXM’s Signal Boost with Zerlina Maxwell and Jess McIntosh, Media Matters’ Sharon Kann discussed the anti-abortion lies President Donald Trump pushed during his 2019 State of the Union address. Trump incorrectly claimed that recent measures in Virginia and New York "would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother's womb moments before birth” and enable providers to "execute a baby after birth.” In reality, those measures were designed to protect abortion access at the state level, and right-wing media's claims of “infanticide” have no bearing on the medical reality of abortions that happen later in pregnancy, which are often undertaken due to health complications or nonviable fetuses.

    Kann told co-hosts Zerlina Maxwell and Jess McIntosh that the anti-abortion lies in Trump’s address had been predated by a “massive spike in coverage” of the issue on conservative media, and Fox News in particular, with media figures touting the same misinformation. As Kann noted, Trump's comments underscore the reality that there is a “well-worn pipeline between things that happen on Fox News and things that the president ends up saying”:

    JESS MCINTOSH (CO-HOST): So, the president stood up on Tuesday night and lied a whole bunch. And some of those lies are being clocked by the media and some of them seemed to -- I think there’s a bar, like where you get so crazy, the media gets tired and won’t fact-check you. And saying that doctors are murdering babies outside the womb maybe is just a bridge too far, and the media just lets it go, but they shouldn’t let it go because Republicans are using it and running on it, and it will be a theme in 2020. So, Sharon, talk to me about what we heard from the president and what we can do to combat that.

    SHARON KANN: Yeah. I mean, I think there are a couple of points that you just brought up that are really worth expanding on. The first is that, prior to the State of the Union, with the introduction of the law in New York and the bill in Virginia, we saw just sort of a massive spike in coverage about abortion-related issues from conservative media writ large, but specifically Fox News. And, as we know, there is a well-worn pipeline between things that happen on Fox News and things that the president ends up saying. So, it was unsurprising that some of the things that we’ve been seeing repeated on Fox News for the best couple of weeks showed up in that speech. Specifically, I think something that we’ve been seeing a lot in conservative media is this argument that Democrats are pushing these extreme bills that are allowing doctors to perform infanticide and there are so many different iteratives of sensationalized and inaccurate language about abortions that happen later in pregnancy that are being repeated. And those are things, like you said, that, like, “‘abortions are being performed after birth” or like “when somebody is dilating.” And that President Trump brought those things up at the State of the Union, I think, is predictable.

    Kann further explained that some major outlets like MSNBC are “repeating some of the really pernicious and inaccurate language” about abortion from Trump’s State of the Union address and from right-wing media. She said such further amplification of this misinformation contributes to the stigmatization of abortion and encourages harassment of providers and clinics:

    ZERLINA MAXWELL (CO-HOST): How do we get to a place where -- what do we do to combat rhetoric that is so inflammatory that you have to do a lot of explaining before you can get to the point?

    KANN: Yeah. I mean, I think that your sense is sort of -- I think the microcosm of post-State of the Union fact-checking is a really good example here because we actually did a piece yesterday sort of documenting some examples of social media and fact checks that occurred both during and immediately after the State of the Union, and even outlets that you would want and expect to do a better job were repeating some of the really pernicious and inaccurate language. They were saying things like, for example, “The president spoke about late-term abortion.” And it’s like, it’s not late-term abortion. That’s not a medically, or scientifically, sound term; it’s one that was in fact invented to villainize and shame people for having abortions. And, like you said, the implications of that are vast and very serious, ranging from personal harassment to things like clinic harassment, which we know is a very serious issue. I think in terms of stuff outlets should be doing or can be doing, I think we really shouldn’t -- I would like to underscore and I don’t think we should underplay the amount that this sort of echo chamber that exists around abortion-related issues, not just in conservative media, but on the internet discussions writ large, is something that, although sensationalized and at times may seem, like you said, sort of ridiculous, I think when they’re the only ones talking about it and they are talking about it in inaccurate ways, that has sort of a spillover effect, and it changes the way that even mainstream media engages in conversations. So, I think the first thing is that mainstream media, when they talk about abortion, need to be doing it accurately and need to not be afraid to talk about it because when we let abortion stigma dominate conversations, typically what happens is we see resulting coverage that is sensationalized and inaccurate.

  • Media outlets uncritically push Trump’s anti-abortion lies while reporting on the State of the Union

    Blog ››› ››› JULIE TULBERT


    Melissa Joskow / Media Matters

    Donald Trump’s presidency has created a requirement for outlets to hold themselves accountable for managing his often false and inflammatory rhetoric, by including context and accurate information about his statements directly in headlines and tweets, as well as supplying details in reports. Trump’s inaccurate claims about abortion during the 2019 State of the Union were a prime opportunity for media to provide important context -- an opportunity that some outlets missed, instead promoting Trump’s lies uncritically though headlines and social media.

    During his address, Trump repeated talking points from a scandal manufactured by right-wing media alleging that Democrats support state bills supposedly legalizing “infanticide” or abortions “up to moment of birth.” In his speech, Trump said that a law in New York "would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother's womb moments before birth," claimed a Virginia bill would allow providers to "execute a baby after birth,"and called on Congress "to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children." In reality, Democratic legislators in New York recently passed legislation to codify Roe v. Wade's abortion protections at the state level, and Virginia Democrats introduced a bill to remove unnecessary barriers to abortion access, which has since been tabled.

    Right-wing media have responded with an avalanche of inaccurate coverage and extreme rhetoric, including saying that abortions later in pregnancy are “murders” and that Democrats were endorsing “infanticide.” To be clear, neither of these claims has any basis in reality. Abortions that take place later in pregnancy are extremely rare and often performed for medical necessity or due to access barriers created by anti-choice politicians. Right-wing media’s characterization of these abortion procedures as happening “at birth” -- or in some cases, allegedly after -- is simply wrong; according to medical professionals, such a scenario “does not occur.” Indeed, as patients who have had abortions later in pregnancy wrote in an open letter: “The stories we hear being told about later abortion in this national discussion are not our stories. They do not reflect our choices or experiences.”

    Here are the some of the outlets that reported Trump’s comments on abortion without providing this necessary context:

    • ABC’s World News Tonight [Twitter, 2/5/19]

    • NBC News [Twitter, 2/5/19]
    • The New York Times [Twitter, 2/5/19]

    • PBS NewsHour [Twitter, 2/5/19]

  • Following the lead of Fox News and Trump, Morning Joe promoted misinformation about abortion

    Joe Scarborough inaccurately claims Democrats “do not understand how out of step with American they are” on abortion

    Blog ››› ››› JULIE TULBERT

    The morning after President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, MSNBC’s Morning Joe not only promoted his misleading comments about abortion procedures, but the hosts also echoed weeks of sensationalized and inaccurate right-wing media coverage about support for state measures to protect abortion access.

    During his 2019 State of the Union address, Trump repeated talking points from a scandal manufactured by right-wing media alleging that Democrats support state bills supposedly legalizing “infanticide” or abortions “up to moment of birth.” In his speech, Trump said that a law in New York "would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother's womb moments before birth" and that a Virginia bill would allow providers to "execute a baby after birth." He called on Congress "to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children." In reality, Democratic legislators in New York recently passed legislation to codify abortion protections from Roe v. Wade at the state level, and Virginia Democrats introduced a bill to remove unnecessary burdens to abortion access, which has since been tabled. In response, right-wing media have spent much of the past few weeks fearmongering about abortion procedures and spreading misinformation that Democrats are extreme for protecting abortion access.

    Although this misinformation has been primarily pushed by right-wing media, the February 6 edition of MSNBC’s Morning Joe was an example of a program repeating these inaccurate talking points to a broader audience. In discussing Trump's address, co-host Joe Scarborough said, “Democrats have a blind spot. They do not understand how out of step with America they are” for “passing extreme late-term abortion legislation,” and he further claimed that it “will cost them votes in states they will need in 2020 if they don't recognize it as a national party.” Co-host Willie Geist agreed, pointing to a June 2018 Gallup poll he said showed a lack of support for so-called “late-term abortion.”

    By repeating these anti-choice talking points, Morning Joe amplified right-wing misinformation to an audience beyond Fox News. For example, “late-term abortion” is a medically inaccurate term used to suggest that abortions that happen later in pregnancy are too “extreme,” as Scarborough claimed. In reality, abortions that take place later in pregnancy are extremely rare and often performed for medical necessity or due to access barriers created by anti-choice politicians. Some media outlets’ characterization of these abortion procedures as happening “at birth” -- or in some cases, allegedly after -- is simply wrong; according to medical professionals, such a scenario “does not occur.” Treating abortions later in pregnancy as an “extreme” procedure is stigmatizing to patients and glosses over the specifics of their experiences. As a number of later abortion patients explained in an open letter, “The stories we hear being told about later abortion in this national discussion are not our stories. They do not reflect our choices or experiences. These hypothetical patients don’t sound like us or the other patients we know.”

    Morning Joe similarly misinformed viewers about polls showing support for abortions that happen later in pregnancy. Although right-wing media often claim that supporting abortion rights is harmful to the Democratic Party's electoral chances, this is an oversimplification. Polling on abortion-related issues is notoriously complicated, requiring clear questions and language that accurately reflects the realities of abortion access and procedures. Support for abortions later in pregnancy increases when people are provided context explaining that abortions at this stage are often undertaken out of medical necessity or in response to complex personal circumstances.

    This isn’t even the first time that Morning Joe has uncritically adopted inaccurate abortion-related talking points from Republicans and right-wing media. During Sen. Doug Jones's (D-AL) special election in Alabama, a Morning Joe panel similarly attempted to make the case that Jones’ “extreme” stance on abortions after 20 weeks would ensure his defeat -- based, in part, on polling about support for abortion restrictions. They were wrong.

    From the February 6 edition of Morning Joe:

    JOE SCARBOROUGH (CO-HOST): I do want to just say for Democrats, because it hasn't been mentioned much in the mainstream media, and I’m glad you brought up the late-term abortion legislation passed in New York and Virginia. This is such a blind spot for Democrats, just like NRA actions after Sandy Hook, the video games and, again, refusing to pass any reasonable, rational legislation, painted Republicans as extremists. Democrats have a blind spot. They do not understand how out of step with America they are. Not only passing extreme late-term abortion legislation, but then celebrating it. It's a real blind spot for Democrats that will cost them votes in states they will need in 2020 if they don't recognize it as a national party.

    MIKA BRZEZINSKI (CO-HOST): Couple of other blind spots we’re going to get to.

    WILLIE GEIST (CO-HOST): The most recent reliable polling comes from last June from Gallup shows that 13 percent of Americans support late-term abortion -- 13 percent. By the way, that includes only 18 percent of Democrats --

    SCARBOROUGH: Which --

    GEIST: -- to your point.

    SCARBOROUGH: -- by the way, guess what, that's about the same number that are opposed to background checks for terrorists and domestic abusers and all the others.