Video ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
On Fox News’ The Story with Martha MacCallum, host Martha MacCallum slammed an Oregon bill that would protect reproductive health care for all -- including undocumented immigrants. MacCallum used the segment to misinform about the bill, combining xenophobic statements about immigrants with misinformation about so-called “sex-selective” and late-term abortions. In reality, the Oregon bill correctly treats abortion as an essential part of health care and ensures access for the most vulnerable communities -- measures that are particularly important as Congress threatens to decimate the Affordable Care Act and defund Planned Parenthood.
The Oregon bill, titled the Reproductive Health Equity Act, requires insurance providers to cover a range of reproductive services, including abortion, regardless of income, citizenship status, or gender identity. The bill also includes a trigger law that would go into effect to protect the legal right to an abortion if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. As Slate explained, “If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, abortion care won’t immediately become illegal,” but instead will go back to the states. Oregon’s trigger law therefore ensures the protections of Roe will remain in place, unless the Oregon legislature repeals the protection. The bill has passed Oregon’s legislature and is expected to be signed by Gov. Kate Brown.
Nevertheless, during the July 13 edition of The Story, MacCallum mischaracterized the bill, claiming it would force “insurers and taxpayers to fund free abortions for virtually any reason, at any time, including sex-selective and late-term abortions.” MacCallum alleged that the bill was “radical” and that opponents had called it “grisly” and “appalling.” MacCallum also continued the long history of Fox hosts invoking undocumented immigrants as a scare tactic to rile up their right-wing audience. As her colleagues on Special Report with Bret Baier, Happening Now, and America's Newsroom had previously done when reporting on the Oregon bill, MacCallum peppered her segment with outrage that bill provided so-called "illegal immigrants" with access to abortion and reproductive health care.
As the United States Congress threatens to eliminate access to abortion and reproductive health care, Oregon is moving to protect access -- for everyone, regardless of their citizenship status, gender identity, or income. Here are the myths MacCallum presented about "sex-selective" and late-term abortions to attack the Oregon bill, and the facts that counter them:
During the July 13 segment, MacCallum repeatedly pushed the myth that the Oregon bill would enable so-called “sex-selective” abortions, alleging that the bill would say “it’s OK for someone to decide because they don’t like the sex of their baby to abort it at eight months." Fox News and the right-wing media have long promoted this myth, which was pushed by anti-abortion groups in order to encourage state and federal legislatures to introduce or pass bills restricting abortion.
The Oregon bill includes no language about "sex-selective" abortions -- probably because no such procedure is legally practiced or promoted in the United States. Instead, the discussion of "sex-selective" abortions appears to be an allegation conjured directly from right-wing media. As the National Review speciously complained, because the bill did not expressly "prohibit sex-selective abortions," the natural consequences would be that an "insurer has no choice but to cover that."
Bans against “sex-selective” abortion have no basis in scientific research or the medical practices of abortion providers. In a study conducted in Illinois and Pennsylvania following the enactment of “sex-selective” abortion bans in those states, researchers found that “the bans were not associated with changes in sex ratios at birth.” Laws banning “sex-selective” abortions also rely on “false stereotypes and misleading language” to allow providers to deny access to people of color, particularly Asian Americans. The National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum found that “these bans are detrimental to the reproductive health of Black and Asian American women” and violate the trust in a doctor and patient relationship by “turning a doctor into an interrogator of any woman seeking an abortion, especially women of color.”
MacCallum consistently fearmongered about what she described as the Oregon bill’s promotion of “abortion on demand” or even “full-term” abortions. At one point, MacCallum argued that the bill would allow “free abortions for virtually any reason at any time” and alleged that it would enable “late-term, even full-term, abortions.” These are all talking points used by right-wing media to create unease about late-term abortions and promote limitations on abortion access. In reality, abortion is a personal decision, like any other health care decision, and has been specifically protected by the Supreme Court as such. In contrast to MacCallum’s argument, late-term abortions are extremely rare and performed largely for medically necessary, or health-related, reasons.
The personal accounts of the people who’ve actually had late-term abortions are far more representative than what Fox News continually invokes. A woman profiled in a ThinkProgress article about late-term abortion described her pregnancy with twins as “the most wanted and planned pregnancy ever,” but after her one of the twins died and the other was discovered to have a fatal birth defect, an abortion was necessary to save her life.
Although MacCallum used the Oregon bill as an opportunity to recycle all of right-wing media’s favorite myths about late-term abortion, in reality it has little to do with the type of abortion allowed. Instead, the bill prevents insurance providers from denying people coverage based on immigration status, income, or gender identity. Unfortunately, segments like this are not uncommon on Fox. As a study by Media Matters found, Fox News frequently and consistently uses its platform to advance inaccurate information on abortion.
Fox News’ inaccurate report on Nevada marijuana sales is lazy reporting at best, reefer madness at worst
On July 11, FoxNews.com published an article claiming that Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) had “declared a state of emergency on Friday” over inadequate supplies of marijuana for retail sales. In reality, the governor had “authorized state regulators to consider an emergency regulation” to deal with a marijuana shortage.
On July 10, Fox’s Salt Lake City affiliate, Fox 13, reported that the Nevada Tax Commission issued a statement that it will, according to the report, “consider emergency regulations … to provide a structure for marijuana distribution to retailers.” The piece also said that Nevada’s governor had “endorsed” the “statement of emergency declared for recreational marijuana regulations.”
The next day, Fox News’ website published an article citing Fox 13’s story to report that “Gov. Brian Sandoval, R-Nev., issued the state of emergency on Friday” with the intention of allowing the state’s Department of Taxation to “contemplate emergency regulations that would permit liquor wholesalers to cash in on the marijuana sales.” The New York Post, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch along with Fox News, also claimed that “Gov. Brian Sandoval is calling for a ‘state of emergency’.” But the governor has categorically not “declared a state of emergency,” as FoxNews.com and the New York Post claim.
In reality, as The Associated Press reported, Sandoval only (emphasis added) “authorized state regulators to consider an emergency regulation that would allow officials to determine whether the state has enough marijuana distributors to keep its retail shops supplied.” Several Nevada-based news outlets reported accurately on the possible “emergency regulation,” with The Nevada Independent explaining that the regulation would “pave the way for opening up the distribution role to more than just liquor distributors.” Even Fox News’ Las Vegas affiliate reported that “Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) endorsed an emergency marijuana regulation on behalf of the Department of Taxation's Statement of Emergency that is set to be considered for adoption on July 13 by the Nevada Tax Commission.”
For over a decade, Fox News has made embarrassingly inaccurate marijuana claims, including to smear academics, poor people, and criminal justice reform. In 2005, Sean Hannity called an illegal marijuana-growing facility a “secret liberal lab” because it was underneath a State University of New York campus. In 2012, Steve Doocy criticized Amendment 64, Colorado’s legalization of marijuana, by falsely claiming it offers “nothing” to stop people from “getting all potted up on weed” and driving, even though the bill states that “driving under the influence of marijuana shall remain illegal.” In 2014, Fox’s Martha MacCallum ignored statistics that show that black people are arrested for using marijuana more often than white people even though they have similar rates of usage, when she suggested that the real problem was black people smoking too much weed.
The effect of Fox’s marijuana smears has even been felt in Congress. In 2014 the network successfully brought into the mainstream narrative an absurd urban myth that Colorado allowed people to buy marijuana with food stamps, spawning a misinformation campaign that resulted in two proposed congressional bills and is referenced by Fox guests to this day.
Fox has a history of shaming low-income Americans
In defense of the Senate Republican health care bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Fox News is shaming the bill’s beneficiaries, claiming it helps “people who didn’t need it,” people who Fox claims get “handouts” and “goodies.” Fox News has a history of shaming recipients of public assistance, such as subsidized health insurance and nutritional assistance programs.
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Fox Spent Years Urging Republicans To Default On The National Debt To Hurt President Obama
Since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 2011, Fox News personalities have urged them to use the threat of defaulting on the sovereign debt obligations of the United States government as a means of winning political concessions. With Republicans now in full control of Congress, will the talking heads at Fox finally come to terms with this monumental threat to the global economy and urge the GOP to raise the debt ceiling?
Judges Highlight Senior Trump Advisor Stephen Miller's Statement On Fox As A Reason “Muslim Ban 2.0” Could Be Just As Unconstitutional As The Original
Senior presidential advisor Stephen Miller’s February 21 admission of intent on Fox News has ensnared President Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban in its second attempted rollout.
The Trump administration’s first version of the likely unconstitutional Muslim ban was previously blocked by multiple federal judges, and one of the decisions was already unanimously upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit court noted that Trump and his supporters’ previous statements expressing their intent to discriminate on the basis of religion and ban Muslim immigration can “be used in proceedings” to prove the policy’s unconstitutionality.
For example, Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani admitted to Fox News that after Trump announced the original “Muslim ban” the then-presidential candidate asked Giuliani to show him “the right way to do it legally.”
On March 6, Trump enacted a slightly altered version of the first Muslim ban, hoping to avoid judicial concerns with the possible unconstitutionality of the original. This new “Muslim Ban 2.0” was also immediately challenged and on March 15, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii issued a temporary restraining order on the ban.
In addition to referencing Giuliani’s admission of the unconstitutional religious discrimination behind the original ban, the district court’s decision also cites Miller’s February 21 appearance on Fox News. In that interview, while defending the second version of the Muslim ban currently under challenge, Miller argued that “nothing was wrong with the first executive order” and admitted to host Martha MacCallum that this redraft of Trump’s executive order would be designed to “have the same basic policy outcome” as Trump’s original rejected Muslim ban.
As the court explained, "These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose. Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the Court for purposes of the instant Motion for TRO, that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, 'secondary to a religious objective' of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims."
From the February 21 edition of Fox News’ The First 100 Days:
MARTHA MACCALLUM (HOST): So, everybody is anticipating the next rollout of the next executive order, which is supposed to clarify some of the issues that were perhaps wrong with the first one and then got too caught up in the courts. So how is it going to be different this time?
STEPHEN MILLER: Well, nothing was wrong with the first executive order. However, there was a flawed judicial ruling that was erroneous. The president recently read the statute from the Immigration and Nationality Act, which clearly states, he has the power as president to impose any restrictions he deems necessary when it's in the national interest.
However, because of the exigency of the situation and the need to protect our country, and to protect our citizens, the president is going to be issuing a new executive action based off of the judicial ruling, flawed though it may be, to protect our country and to keep our people safe, and that is going to be coming very soon.
MACCALLUM: Alright. Grant Burschet is 18 years old, but he wants to know specifically how the second order is going to be different.
MILLER: Well, one of the big differences that you're going to see in the executive order is that it's going to be responsive to the judicial ruling, which didn't exist previously. And so these are mostly minor technical differences. Fundamentally, you're still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you're going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues that were brought up by the court and those will be addressed. But in terms of protecting the country, those basic policies are still going to be in effect.
UPDATE: A March 16 decision from a federal court in Maryland, which blocked the revised Muslim ban as well, also cited Miller’s quote that the revised ban would keep the “basic policies … in effect.” The ruling noted, “The history of public statements continues to provide a convincing case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban. The Trump Administration acknowledged that the core substance of the First Executive Order remained intact. ... These statements thus continue to explain the religious purpose behind the travel ban in the Second Executive Order. Under these circumstances, the fact that the Second Executive Order is facially neutral in terms of religion is not dispositive.”
Spread By Infowars, Reddit, Breitbart, And Other Conspiracy Sites, The Wiretap Claim Goes Back To The Person Who Said There Was An Obama "Whitey" Tape
Fox News’ senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, claimed that former President Barack Obama asked a British intelligence agency to spy on President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign and the transition period and to provide the former president with transcripts of Trump's conversations. Napolitano’s claim can be traced in part back to an interview on the state-sponsored Russian network RT with a former CIA official who has accused John Kerry of war crimes, spread the 2008 rumor about a supposed recording of former first lady Michelle Obama “railing against ‘whitey,’” and now is floating "sedition" charges against former Obama officials.
Brigitte Gabriel Is The Founder Of An Anti-Muslim Extremist Group
On February 9, Fox News hosted Brigitte Gabriel to give commentary on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ refusal to reinstate President Trump’s Muslim. Gabriel, the founder of an anti-Muslim extremist organization, used the opportunity to propagate Islamophobic lies.
Gabriel is the founder of ACT! for America, which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says has "eagerly tapped into a groundswell of anti-Muslim rage and done what it could to fan the flames." She appeared on Fox several times after the Charlie Hebdo attack, despite her history of extreme Islamophobia. Gabriel was a guest on the January 7, 2015, edition of Hannity, where she said that Muslims in Europe "started multiplying" after World War II and did not assimilate and that Europe is "paying the price" because it "ignored the cancer growing within its body when it was at Stage Two." In her appearance on the January 8, 2015, edition of The Kelly File, she argued that the "Islamic religion" forbids Muslims to assimilate.
In September 2014, Gabriel told an audience at the Values Voter Summit that "180 million to 300 million" Muslims are "radical Islamists who are willing to strap bombs on their bodies and walk into this room and blow us all up to smithereens." In June 2014, Gabriel berated a Muslim student who had criticized members of a Heritage Foundation panel on Islam, calling her a liar and saying, "Your loyalty is somewhere else. It's time we see more patriotism from the Muslim community and less terrorism." During the 2016 presidential campaign, Gabriel accused Hillary Clinton of trying to “appeal to the Islamic vote” because the father of a Muslim mass shooter was seen at one of her rallies. In July 2016, Gabriel also claimed that “the majority of Muslims around the world … do not believe in man-made law” and are thus “not compatible with our constitution.” A prominent Middle East expert and editor of The Oxford History of Islam called Gabriel "a professional Muslim basher." From the February 9 edition of Fox News’ The First 100 Days:
Loading the player reg...
On the February 3 edition of Fox News' The First 100 Days, host Martha MacCallum asked an audience member if it was "true" that Iraqis who helped US soldiers in the Iraq War "feel slighted" by the Muslim ban. The audience member, American former Navy SEAL and Trump supporter Carl Higbie, had previously defended the prospect of a Muslim registry by referencing World War II Japanese internment camps in America as "precedent," a defense he later blamed on Megyn Kelly.
MARTHA MACCALLUM (HOST): Carl, you also served, Carl Higbie, in Iraq. you lost friends there. You worked with interpreters, no doubt. You worked with people in Iraq who were there to help. The feeling is that they feel slighted by this. That they’re not sort of embraced in this, is that true? Or not?
CARL HIGBIE: No. And the thing is, there are many interpreters who do feel that way and there's many that don't, such as Johnny Walker, who's been out on this program with you. To the issue of the fact that we are finally beating back ISIS, we’re not. Geographically they are shrinking in Iraq and Syria places like that, but the problem is they’ve metastasized now down to 20 or 30 different countries and that’s the fundamental misunderstanding of people who worked with the Obama administration that think they're winning the war against ISIS. We are fundamentally not. Anyone who says that we are should obviously take a look at the global prospects of this thing. The Syrian refugee thing that we stopped along with six other countries, we have to acknowledge the fact that Iran and places like that, some of these attackers didn’t come from Iran, they are the world’s largest state sponsor of terror. This is a start, much like Obamacare, nothing was perfect when they rolled it out, it’s not perfect now anyway, they made changes as they go along. Same with this. This is a 120 day moratorium. Things will be changed down the line and they'll be added and taken off and improved. This is a start to protect the United States of America.
President-elect Donald Trump agreed to pay $25 million to settle lawsuits alleging his for-profit business Trump University used aggressive sales tactics and unqualified instructors to scam students. Throughout the lawsuit’s litigation, right-wing news outlets helped shield Trump University from criticism by enabling Trump to lie about the institution and aiding his racist attacks on the judge overseeing the case.
Loading the player reg...