Wallace falsely claims under health bills task force "will determine what services ... aren't covered"

From the November 22 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW [D-MI]: As the only woman on this panel, let me say, first of all, I don't agree with that recommendation, and thank goodness it's not going to have any impact. It was only a recommendation. But the bigger issue here for us is the fact that what we're doing is, for the first time, making sure that women have maternity care and actually have mammograms covered. That's what's in our basic plan.

WALLACE: If I may bring Senator [Arlen] Specter [D-PA] in, because you have had a battle -- a personal battle with cancer yourself for years, sir. While the mammograms study set off a political storm and Health Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius backed away from it, the fact is both in the House bill and in the Senate bill, it repeatedly refers to this preventative services task force and says that it will determine what services, what tests, screening, are covered and aren't covered. Isn't that going to be government rationing?

SPECTER: The legislation pending specifically provides for testing. The report made on mammograms and pap tests not binding on us in any way. The bill up -- provides for testing just as I had an MRI, which was very, very beneficial to me. Listen, Chris, the real issue here is whether we're going to have governance.

Fact: Neither Senate nor House health bills require insurers to adopt recommendations against preventive services

The Senate health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires insurance companies only to cover screenings that the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends, those rated as an A or B recommendation; it does not require insurers to adopt guidelines that recommend against preventive screenings:

SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for -

(1)   evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of 'A' or 'B' in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force

Similarly, the House health care reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, requires insurance companies to cover the A or B recommendations of a new task force, the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services, but does not require that insurers adopt recommendations against preventive services:

SEC. 3143. RESEARCH ON SUBSIDIES AND REWARDS TO ENCOURAGE WELLNESS AND HEALTHY BEHAVIORS.

[...]

(c) INCLUSION IN ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE. -- If, on the basis of the findings of research and demonstration projects under subsection (a) or other sources consistent with section 3131, the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services determines that a subsidy or reward meets the Task Force's standards for a grade A or B, the Secretary shall ensure that the subsidy or reward is included in the essential benefits package under section 222.

Jeffrey: Senate bill "would mandate federally subsidized abortion" 

In his November 19 study by the Guttmacher Institute, 17 states provide coverage under Medicaid for "all or most medically necessary abortions," not just abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. Those states "us[e] their own funds" -- not federal funds -- "to pay" for the procedures. Therefore, in 17 states, Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program, covers abortions in circumstances in which federal money is prohibited from being spent on abortion.

From the November 21 edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report:

FREEMAN: $800 billion is a lot of money. The cost is huge, and that's probably an underestimate. But, you know, there's also that little detail that there hasn't been any warming since 1998, so.

STUART VARNEY (host): But what really killed it here? Was it economics, was it the cost that killed it, or something else?

FREEMAN: Well, what is the argument for it? If you're saying this is a massive cost, even bigger than this crazy stimulus, even bigger than the TARP, and by the way, there's no proof that this is happening as a result of man's activities, in fact, lately, it's not even happening anymore. So it basically has no premise right now.

Fact: Climate scientists reject conservative claim that recent global average temperatures indicate global warming has stopped

Climate experts reject the idea that the relatively cooler global average temperatures in several of the last 10 years are any indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist. Scientists have identified a long-term warming trend spanning several decades that is independent from the normal climate variability -- which includes relatively short-term changes in climate due to events like El Niño and La Niña -- to which they attribute the recent cooler temperatures.

Fact: Climate experts overwhelmingly believe global warming caused by "man's activities"

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 "Synthesis Report" concluded that "[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level" and that "[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [defined in the report as a ">90%" chance] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations." According to its website, IPCC is "the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)," and "[t]housands of scientists from all over the world contribute to" its work.

From the November 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: Well, [Gore's] claiming that this court decision actually, you know, favored his point of view, that is absolutely false. 

MCALEER: That is false. 

HANNITY: Explain. 

MCALEER: Well, the court case, it was a lengthy hearing, maybe a month of hearings, there was nine aspects of An Inconvenient Truth they looked at and they found nine significant errors or exaggerations.

Fact: British judge concluded film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact"

In his October 10, 2007, ruling, High Court Judge Michael Burton stated that while he had identified nine "errors and omissions" in the film, it is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact." The judge also said he had "no doubt" that the defendant's expert was "right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.' "

From the November 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

FORMER MD GOV. ROBERT ERLICH: We're on the threshold of quadrupling the national debt.

DEGRAFF: We're on the threshold of taking care of 31 million Americans who don't have health insurance.

HANNITY: It's actually 12 million, but that's a whole different story.

Fact: CBO says Senate and House health bills would each reduce the number of uninsured in 2019 by more than 30 million

According to the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) cost estimate of the Senate health care bill, "the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 31 million" in 2019 compared to current law. Similarly, the CBO's score of the House bill as passed estimated the bill would have the net effect of reducing the number of uninsured Americans by 36 million in 2019 compared to current law.

From the November 20 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:

BAIER: I want to turn to this, the second day in a row that a federal panel has come out with guidelines and recommendations that the White House is not too please about. First we had the mammograms that they said this is not administration policy to move the age up to 50. Now the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or ACOG advises women to start pap tests for cervical cancer at 21, not 18.

[...]

LIASSON: Is ACOG actually a government panel? I think it's more --

BAIER: Independent.

LIASSON: It's, no, well I don't know if it's a government panel, I think the first one was definitely a government panel, the preventative task force--

BAIER: Right, right, right but it opens the door to this conversation about rationing.

LIASSON: There's no doubt. I think the mammogram thing was a huge kinda bowling ball rolling right down towards health reform because it's one of the most emotional issues for women. Breast cancer is the number one concern among women when they are asked to rate what they worry about. And here is the governmental panel, independent but in the Senate bill it says that when it comes to writing the basic health care package that insurers who participate in these exchanges are going to offer they are going to look to panels including this preventative task force and others to decide what should be in the package.

Fact: ACOG is "a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization" that issued nonbinding guidelines unconnected to health reform

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which on November 20 announced new recommendations for cervical cancer screenings, is not a "federal panel." In fact, it is a private membership organization. From the organization's website:

Founded in 1951 in Chicago, Illinois, ACOG has over 52,000 members and is the nation's leading group of professionals providing health care for women. Now based in Washington, DC, it is a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization.

ACOG works primarily in four areas:

• Serving as a strong advocate for quality health care for women.
• Maintaining the highest standards of clinical practice and continuing education for its members.
• Promoting patient education and stimulating patient understanding of and involvement in medical care.
• Increasing awareness among its members and the public of the changing issues facing women's health care. [ACOG website]

Additionally, the guidelines ACOG issued are Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires insurance companies only to cover screenings that the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends, those rated as an A or B recommendation; it requires insurance companies to cover the A or B recommendations of a new task force, the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services, but does not require that insurers adopt recommendations against preventive services:

SEC. 3143. RESEARCH ON SUBSIDIES AND REWARDS TO ENCOURAGE WELLNESS AND HEALTHY BEHAVIORS.

[....]

(c) INCLUSION IN ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE. -- If, on the basis of the findings of research and demonstration projects under subsection (a) or other sources consistent with section 3131, the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services determines that a subsidy or reward meets the Task Force's standards for a grade A or B, the Secretary shall ensure that the subsidy or reward is included in the essential benefits package under section 222.

Limbaugh distorts email apparently stolen by hacker, claims global warming is "made up" and scientists are engaged in "fraud"

On his November 20 radio show, Limbaugh referenced the alleged theft of CRU emails by what he described as a "hacker." Limbaugh went on to read from an email sent in 1999 by CRU director Phil Jones. Limbaugh falsely suggested that a phrase in the email -- "hide the decline" -- was somehow "evidence" of "substantial fraud."

From the November 20 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: By the way, folks, I want to give you a website to go to when you get a chance. It's called climatedepot.com. Something fascinating has happened, and I was first alerted to this today by our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer. A hacker has gotten into the computers at Hadley CRU. That is Britain's largest climate research institute. They are a huge proponent of global warming.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: I don't know if the jury's still out on that, but more and more people are picking up on this. The whole thing as we've -- I've instinctively known this from the get-go 20 years ago. The whole thing's made up. And the reason I know it is because liberals are behind it. When they're pushing something, folks, it's always bogus. It's never what they say it is. There's always a hidden reason behind the objective. The objective -- stated objective is just designed just to get you feeling guilty, responsible, frightened, scared -- and your kids as well. But it looks like substantial fraud, a lot of evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the evidence on global warming. And Clarice Feldman at the AmericanThinker.com is posted one this, and she's got a sample of the purportedly hacked materials on here -- of the 1,079 emails and 72 documents, and they are available online -- the hackers put them up.

"Dear Roy -- or Ray, Mike, and Malcolm, Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years, i.e., from 1981 onwards, and from the 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline in temperature." To hide the decline in temperature. "Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-September for NH land N of 20 north. The latter two are real for 1999 while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is --" blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.

NASA scientist: Emails do not show that "global warming is a hoax"

NASA's Gavin Schmidt: Critics "are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Schmidt is a contributor to the Real Climate blog, which has stated that some of the stolen CRU emails "involve people" at Real Climate.

Email Limbaugh read was distorted, "pulled out of context"

Real Climate: Jones email "pulled out of context." In a November 20 post, Real Climate's staff, which is made up of several working climate scientists, cited Jones' 1999 email -- which Limbaugh read -- as "one example" of "instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded 'gotcha' phrases [being] pulled out of context." Jones' November 16, 1999, email reads:

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

LSE Prof: Scientists use "trick" to mean "a clever way of doing something." A November 20 Guardian article reported that Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said of Jones' email: "It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating. ... You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something - a short cut can be a trick."

Real Climate: "trick" Jones referenced is a method for making the "context of the recent warming ... clear" and isn't "problematic ... at all." Noting that "[s]cientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to a 'a good way to deal with a problem,' " Real Climate explained:

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.

Real Climate: "hiding the decline" refers to method that is "completely appropriate." Real Climate further explained:

As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Jones reportedly "explained he was not trying to mislead." The New Zealand magazine Investigate reported on November 20:

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing hiding "the decline", and Jones explained he was not trying to mislead.

"No, that's completely wrong. In the sense that they're talking about two different things here. They're talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered -- but they're talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it's just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don't always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years."

Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words "hide the decline".

"That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?

Limbaugh previously denounced Palin email hackers as "Obama thugs"

Limbaugh called Palin email hackers "thugs" and asked: "Do we live in a sick era, or what?" On the September 18, 2008, edition of his show, Limbaugh decried the "thugs" who hacked Palin's email account:

And then of course Obama, folks, is showing who he really is. The community organizer, the street agitator, the Chicago thug, clear the playing field, it's on display for everybody to see. Sarah Palin's e-mails, personal e-mails have been hacked, no doubt by Obama thugs, they dropped 30 people up there in Alaska trying to dig up dirt on her. Now they got some thugs that found her personal e-mail address, and the reaction to this is stunning. The Drive-Bys are not upset about this at all.

In fact, ABC, get this headline: "Palin's E-mail Habits Echo Worst Practices of Bush Administration, Expert Says." So we have the vice presidential candidate on the Republican ticket's personal e-mail hacked, they post screen shots on the Internet of her personal e-mails, she's now being criticized for using a personal account to conduct state business. This is why, by the way, presidents and vice presidents do not use e-mail, be it personal or business. And now we've got people coming around saying that she's irresponsible, the hackers have uncovered some fraud on her part. Do we live in a sick era, or what?

ACORN employee refused to assist in obtaining house for "illegal activities"

O'Keefe: LA worker "was the only ACORN employee ... who would not assist us obtain a house for our illegal activities." In a video article on the conservative website Human Events, Mike Flynn, the editor-in-chief of BigGovernment.com, said in an exclusive interview: "It's not even just one random employee, it's so comprehensive, it's everywhere [O'Keefe] went. What shocks me is when you watch the videos, they don't even flinch."

O'Keefe dodged questions about whether ACORN employees refused to help

O'Keefe didn't disclose LA tape when asked whether any ACORN employees "were not willing to cooperate." During the September 13 edition of Fox News' America's News HQ, Shawn asked, "Were there some that refused your offers, that actually did not -- were not willing to cooperate?" But rather than acknowledge at the time what happened in Los Angeles, O'Keefe responded:

O'KEEFE: No -- in none of the facil -- [laughs] none of the facilities kicked us out. That's a lie.

O'Keefe waited more than two months after this exchange to acknowledge that Harris "would not assist us obtain a house for our illegal activities."

In September, Fox's Chris Wallace reported that O'Keefe "says he'll release all the tapes soon to show if any ACORN offices did the right thing." On the September 27 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace reported that "O'Keefe wants to set the record straight" and aired the following:

WALLACE: O'Keefe wants to set the record straight. He denies reports on left-wing blogs he got any money from conservative backers. And he says he'll release all the tapes soon to show if any ACORN offices did the right thing. Why not release all the tapes at the start?

O'KEEFE: We knew that they would lie and they would say, "Oh, you've got nothing," or, "You're dubbing your voice in." But you release a little bit at a time, and they get caught in their lie.

ACORN employees in other cities contacted the police

Philadelphia and San Diego area ACORN employees contacted police after O'Keefe's visits. Contrary to O'Keefe's assertion that the Los Angeles ACORN worker "was the only ACORN employee in our nationwide investigation who would not assist us obtain a house for our illegal activities," ACORN employees in Philadelphia and the San Diego area contacted the police following their encounters with O'Keefe and Giles.

Right-wing media figures discuss what's "wrong" with Obama, identify "deep psychological problems"

Beck and psychiatrist Ablow not psychoanalyzing the president -- just discussing what's "wrong" with him. On the November 11 edition of his Fox news program, Beck stated to Ablow: "I wrote to you, and I said, 'Do you see anything wrong here as a -- ' I'm not asking you to psychoanalyze the president. I'm saying, psychoanalyze the American people. Are we crazy for saying something is not right?" In his reply, Ablow stated: "We're not crazy for saying something's not right. It's a little crazy that more people aren't saying it more loudly." Ablow later stated: "[T]here is a big, cavernous gulf, apparently, between the president's ability to generate emotion and charisma and gripping words that move people when he's scripted. And then, when there's less time to prepare, there's some sort of lack of connectedness, a true lack of connectedness with at least what moves the majority of us." In discussing Obama's statements about the Fort Hood shooting, which Beck claimed were "disconnected," Ablow said: "[I]f he's not scripted to deliver the emotional cues, if he's not scripted to have lots of time and a teleprompter to do it, then he tends to stumble. And this was a huge stumble. This was a big, big window on the man's soul, I think." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 11/11/09]

Savage's psychoanalysis: Obama has "deep psychological problems," "deep-seated inferiority feelings." While discussing Obama's bow to Japanese Emperor Akihito, Savage stated that "this man has deep psychological problems" and that "since we know he is only a man, and therefore since all men suffer from psychological problems, is it not logical to assume that he may have psychological problems? And if so, what are his psychological problems, and how do they affect this man's behavior and his overt contempt for America, its history, and its people and his love of everything third-world?" He later claimed that "you start to put a picture together of a guy who has such deep-seated inferiority feelings, it seems as though he's looking for his father all over the world." [Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation, 11/17/09]

Pruden: "Obama's curious compulsion to travel the world to make endless apologies for America could stem from his spending the most formative years of his childhood in the Third World." In a November 17 column, Pruden, The Washington Times' editor emeritus, wrote that Obama's bow to Emperor Akihito was "a sign of a really deep sense of inferiority." In a November 20 column, Pruden wrote: "Barack Obama's curious compulsion to travel the world to make endless apologies for America could stem from his spending the most formative years of his childhood in the Third World."

Morning Joe quoted Lieberman's claim that "you can't find a mention of public option" during presidential campaign

From the November 20 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

BRZEZINSKI: He's engaging in a battle where there is absolutely no margin for error. He has to -- he must, must, must get all 60 Democratic votes in the Senate to keep his bill moving forward. But this morning, more reports of Democrats who seem willing to stand in the way of the White House's top priority.

In his toughest language yet, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is now accusing the Democratic Party of using bait-and-switch tactics on the American people. He says, quote, this, "It's classic politics of our time that if you look at the campaign last year, the presidential, you can't find a mention of public option. It was added after the election as a part of what we normally consider health insurance reform -- insurance market reforms, cover people ... who are not covered." Lieberman says the support for the public option has now become a litmus test for Democrats, adding, quote, "I thought Democrats were against litmus tests."

SCARBOROUGH: Oh, that's bad.

BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.

SCARBOROUGH: Again, you need Lieberman to get over the top and 60.

[...]

SCARBOROUGH: Here we are a month later, a month after the president wanted to get this behind him and start talking about jobs, and let me read you what Joe Lieberman said yesterday about the Democrats' efforts on the public option. Quote, "It's classic politics of our time and if you look at the campaign last year, you can't find a mention of the public option. It was added after the election as a part of what we normally consider health care insurance reform -- insurance market reforms, cover people ... who are not covered. I thought Democrats were against litmus tests." That's tough talk.

In fact, Obama campaigned on public option throughout 2007, 2008

Politico: "[T]he 2008 Democratic Party Platform referred to the need for a 'public plan.' " On November 20, Politico stated of Lieberman's claim, "In fact, the 2008 Democratic Party Platform referred to the need for a 'public plan,' and candidate Barack Obama referred more than once to the idea of providing people who can't get private insurance with government-backed insurance similar to that which members of Congress get."

NY Times, May 2007: "Obama would create a public plan for individuals who cannot obtain group coverage." The New York Times reported on May 30, 2007, that in a major health care speech, "Mr. Obama would create a public plan for individuals who cannot obtain group coverage through their employers or the existing government programs, like Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Children would be required to have health insurance. Subsidies would be available for those who need help with the cost of coverage."

Wash. Post, February 2008: Both Obama and Clinton propose "option to buy into a public plan." The Washington Post reported on February 24, 2008, "There is a growing political consensus among Democrats that universal health care can be achieved by subsidizing coverage for low-income people, establishing new purchasing pools to help others buy affordable insurance, and requiring most businesses to offer health plans to their workers or pay a fee. Both the Obama and Clinton proposals contain these elements, as well as the option to buy into a public plan. Their most striking difference is on whether to require everyone to get a policy."

Chicago Tribune, October 2008: Obama's proposal "[c]reates a new public plan as another option." In an article on Obama's and Sen. John McCain's health care proposals, the Chicago Tribune stated that Obama's proposal "[w]ould require private insurers to accept all applicants. Creates a new public plan as another option. Gives subsidies to low-income citizens who buy insurance. Requires businesses to cover employees or pay into a fund; small businesses get refundable tax credit. Estimated 10-year cost: $1.6 trillion."

Rove, Kilmeade criticize Obama administration for releasing news on Friday

Rove: "What is unusual is the degree to which this White House has relied on this tactic." In a November 19 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Rove wrote: "Every modern White House has put out news on contentious issues late on Friday in the hope that doing so will bury it, or reduce the amount of critical scrutiny it would otherwise receive. What is unusual is the degree to which this White House has relied on this tactic."

From Rove's November 19 op-ed:

Every modern White House has put out news on contentious issues late on Friday in the hope that doing so will bury it, or reduce the amount of critical scrutiny it would otherwise receive. What is unusual is the degree to which this White House has relied on this tactic.

[...]

Do Friday news dumps work? Yes, but marginally. The White House press corps is generally exhausted at the end of a long week. Congressional critics are either in route back home to their districts or already there. Friday night network television news and Saturday newspapers and cable coverage are traditionally less seen or read. By Sunday morning, a Friday announcement is often considered old news. Monday is the first opportunity White House correspondents get to ask the president's press secretary on camera about whatever was released Friday. By then there is almost always other news occupying the headlines.

Such tactics, however, can look disingenuous if they undercut public debate on substantive policy changes -- such as deciding to bring terrorists to New York for trial.

Kilmeade: Friday news means "you don't have to confront the questioners -- not Robert Gibbs, not the president." While interviewing Michelle Malkin on the November 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Kilmeade cited Rove's op-ed and said: "He says they do so many big stories, and so many controversial -- make so many controversial decisions over the last year on Fridays, a traditional day where you dump news, Friday to Saturday. And by the time Monday rolls around, it's not a big story and you don't have to confront the questioners -- not Robert Gibbs, not the president." Malkin replied that it's "business as usual" because "[t]hey've done huge document dumps on Friday nights and over the weekends."

But the Bush administration routinely released controversial news on Fridays

Steve Benen: Friday news releases were Rove's "signature move." On his Washington Monthly blog, Political Animal, Steve Benen wrote: "I nearly fell out of my chair reading [Rove's op-ed]. It was, after all, Karl Rove's signature move -- release bad news late on Friday afternoons, in the hopes it would generate less attention. Rove is going after the president's team for occasionally using the same media trick Rove personally perfected while helping run the White House."

Indeed, the following are examples of substantial and often controversial "Friday news dumps" from the Bush administration:

DOD inspector general report on military analyst program released on Friday. According to a Washington Post article, the Department of Defense inspector general released a report Friday, January 16, 2009, that concluded an investigation into whether the Pentagon's connections with numerous media military analysts were inappropriate.

Information related to Abu Ghraib released on Fridays, Saturday. According to reports, many of the decisions related to the Abu Ghraib torture scandal were made public on Fridays and a Saturday. The United States Central Command reportedly announced its investigation of the abuses on Friday, January 16, 2004; an Army spokesman announced that six soldiers had been charged with the abuses on Saturday, March 20, 2004; and the military released more than 600 Abu Ghraib detainees on Friday, May 28, 2004.

From a March 21, 2004, Washington Post article (accessed via Nexis):

Six U.S. soldiers were criminally charged Saturday in the abuse and mistreatment of about 20 Iraqis at a military jail west of Baghdad. The charges, which include assault and sexual abuse, are among the most serious involving military detainees since the start of the war in Iraq one year ago.

[...]

The criminal charges announced Saturday resulted from an investigation into abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison ordered by Sanchez on Jan. 14.

Bush appointed controversial judicial nominee Pryor on a Friday, during recess. Despite a Senate filibuster, Bush reportedly appointed William H. Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, February 20, 2004, while Congress was in recess.

Bush released his Air National Guard records on a Friday. According to a Friday, February 13, 2004, Associated Press article, "President Bush, trying to calm a political storm, released his Vietnam-era military records Friday to counter Democrats' suggestions that he shirked his duty in the Texas Air National Guard. But there was no new evidence that he was in Alabama during a period when Democrats have questioned whether he showed up for service."

Department of Justice approved a Texas redistricting plan on a Friday. The Bush Justice Department announced on Friday, December 19, 2003, that it approved a controversial GOP plan to redistrict Texas, which would have reportedly given the Republican Party several seats in the House of Representatives.

From the AP article (accessed via Nexis):

The U.S. Department of Justice approved a Republican-backed congressional redistricting map Friday, disappointing Democrats who staged two legislative boycotts over redistricting and have sued over the new plan.

A federal court panel considering legal challenges to the new map also gave Republicans a victory Friday, ruling that that mid-decade redistricting is permissible under state law.

The Justice Department evaluated the map to see if it adhered to the federal Voting Rights Act, a law that protects minority voting rights.

[...]

Republicans hold every statewide-elected post and rule both the state Senate and House, but have 15 U.S. representatives to Democrats' 17. The new map is expected to give the GOP several more seats.

Several Bush administration advisers resigned on Fridays. Former Cheney adviser I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby resigned on Friday, October 28, 2005, after he was indicted that day for lying during an investigation into a CIA operative leak; Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey resigned on Friday, December 6, 2002, after the administration reportedly asked them to step down; Army Secretary Thomas E. White resigned on Friday, April 25, 2003, reportedly following a controversy over his investments in Enron; and Bush's pick to head the Department of Homeland Security, Bernard Kerik, withdrew his nomination on Friday, December 10, 2004, after he reportedly failed to pay taxes on a nanny/housekeeper he employed.

The Commerce Department released news that 1.7 million people had fallen into poverty on a Friday. According to a Friday, September 26, 2003, CBS News/AP article, "Poverty rose and income levels declined in 2002 for the second straight year as the nation's economy continued struggling after the first recession in a decade, the Census Bureau reported Friday." The article continued: "Even before the data was made public, House Democrats charged the Bush administration was trying to hide bad economic news by releasing the numbers on a Friday when people are paying more attention to the upcoming weekend. In previous years, the estimates were released either on a Tuesday or Thursday."

EPA announced its decision not to regulate toxins in land-sewage sludge on a Friday. According to a Friday, October 17, 2003, Environmental Protection Agency press release, "Today, EPA has made a final decision not to regulate dioxins in land-applied sewage sludge. After five years of study, including outside peer review, the Agency has determined that dioxins from this source do not pose a significant risk to human health or the environment. ... Dioxins are a group of highly toxic persistent compounds which are a byproduct of certain combustion and chemical manufacturing processes. Sewage sludge is the byproduct of the treatment processes which purifies wastewater before it is released into local waterways."

From the November 19 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Laura Ingraham Show:

INGRAHAM: What's your take?

PALIN: I think that you have been brilliant on this, because the mammogram recommendation -- this whole issue is demonstrating precisely what you've pointed out, the problem about the panels, the death panels of government bureaucrats, and I think you call it the hospice chuting, the -- but those panels of bureaucrats having more and more input into Americans' personal decisions, decisions, really, that belong between them and their doctors. And this is what rationed care is going to be about.

Undermining Palin's claims, task force recommendations not legally binding

Task force recommendations not legally binding. Contrary to Palin's claims about the mammogram recommendations, the task force recommendations are not legally binding. Moreover, the task force encouraged policymakers to include additional considerations and "individualize decision making to the specific patient or situation." In a Nightly News report on the task force recommendations, NBC chief medical correspondent Dr. Nancy Snyderman stated, "It's important to remember that these new recommendations from this independent task force are just that -- they're recommendations. They don't mandate any changes in who should get mammograms and when."

Wash. Post: Chairman states all task force members were seated under or chosen by Bush

Task force appointed under Bush. The Washington Post reported on November 18:

Ned Calonge, who chairs the 16-member panel, defended the recommendations and denied that cost or the debate over health-care reform played any role in the decision. "Cost just isn't a consideration when the task force deliberates," said Calonge, who is also the chief medical officer for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Twelve of the task force members were seated during the Bush administration, and the remaining four were chosen before President George W. Bush left office, he said.

Right-wing media have repeatedly revived debunked "death panel" claim

Fox News personalities advance Palin's "death panel" claim. In an August 7 Facebook posting, Palin claimed that under Democratic health care reform, "Obama's 'death panel' " would "decide" whether her parents or her son Trig, who has Down syndrome, were "worthy of health care." Over the following days, conservative media figures adopted Palin's "death panel" term or advanced or expressed support for her assertion -- which is based on the widely debunked claim that the House health care reform bill would require end-of-life counseling. Media Matters for America subsequently identified more than 40 instances of media reporting that these claims are false.

From a November 19 Gateway Pundit post:

Fact: Senate to vote Saturday on whether to debate the health care bill, not on whether to pass the bill

As the Los Angeles Times noted on November 20, "The Senate today began debate on the next phase of healthcare reform, arguing over whether to bring the Democratic bill to the floor. The vote to allow full debate is scheduled for Saturday night. The vote, called cloture, requires 60 votes to pass, and if that hurdle is cleared, debate would begin after Thanksgiving."

Siegel claims cervical cancer guidelines are indicative of government rationing under health care reform

Siegel: "[H]ealth choices commissioner" will use "guidelines like this to tell insurance companies not to cover pap tests." During the November 20 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Siegel responded to co-host Alisyn Camerota's question about recent guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and stated, "[A]s we go forward with health reform, we're going to see more and more mandates, more and more commissioners, more and more committees that are going to have to look to guidelines to decide what insurance can cover." He further claimed, "I don't know if we're getting a health choices commissioner or not, but if we are, that person is going to be using guidelines like this to tell insurance companies not to cover pap tests."

ACOG guidelines not binding and in no way connected to health care reform

ACOG issued nonbinding guidelines, not mandates. On November 20, ACOG announced new recommendations for cervical cancer screenings, stating: "Women should have their first cervical cancer screening at age 21 and can be rescreened less frequently than previously recommended, according to newly revised evidence-based guidelines issued today by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and published in the December issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Most women younger than 30 should undergo cervical screening once every two years instead of annually, and those age 30 and older can be rescreened once every three years."

ACOG: "[A] private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is not a government entity; it is a private membership organization. From the organization's website:

Founded in 1951 in Chicago, Illinois, ACOG has over 52,000 members and is the nation's leading group of professionals providing health care for women. Now based in Washington, DC, it is a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization.

ACOG works primarily in four areas:

• Serving as a strong advocate for quality health care for women.
• Maintaining the highest standards of clinical practice and continuing education for its members.
• Promoting patient education and stimulating patient understanding of and involvement in medical care.
• Increasing awareness among its members and the public of the changing issues facing women's health care. [ACOG website]

NY Times: "It is by no means clear that doctors or patients will follow the new guidelines." Further undermining Siegel's attempt to connect the ACOG guidance with health care reform, a November 20 New York Times article reported: "It is by no means clear that doctors or patients will follow the new guidelines. Medical groups, including the American Cancer Society, have been suggesting for years that women with repeated normal Pap tests could begin to have the test less frequently, but many have gone on to have them year after year anyway."

Recommendations reportedly "in the works for several years, 'long before the Obama health plan came into existence.' " Notwithstanding Siegel's efforts, the updated guidelines are in no way connected to President Obama or health care reform. The New York Times article reported, "Arriving on the heels of hotly disputed guidelines calling for less use of mammography, the new recommendations might seem like part of a larger plan to slash cancer screening for women. But the timing was coincidental, said Dr. Cheryl B. Iglesia, the chairwoman of a panel in the obstetricians' group that developed the Pap smear guidelines. The group updates its advice regularly based on new medical information, and Dr. Iglesia said the latest recommendations had been in the works for several years, 'long before the Obama health plan came into existence.' "

Senate bill does not require insurers to adopt task force recommendations against preventive screenings, only those in favor of preventive screenings. The Senate health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires insurance companies only to cover screenings that the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends, those rated as an A or B recommendation; it does not require insurers to adopt guidelines that recommend against preventive screenings:

SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for --

(1) evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of 'A' or 'B' in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force

House bill requires insurers to adopt task force recommendations for coverage, but not those against coverage. Similarly, the House health care reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, requires insurance companies to cover the A or B recommendations of a new task force, the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services, but does not require that insurers adopt recommendations against preventive services:

SEC. 3143. RESEARCH ON SUBSIDIES AND REWARDS TO ENCOURAGE WELLNESS AND HEALTHY BEHAVIORS.

[....]

(c) INCLUSION IN ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE. -- If, on the basis of the findings of research and demonstration projects under subsection (a) or other sources consistent with section 3131, the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services determines that a subsidy or reward meets the Task Force's standards for a grade A or B, the Secretary shall ensure that the subsidy or reward is included in the essential benefits package under section 222.

Media conservatives -- including Siegel -- previously fearmongered that nonbinding mammogram recommendations represented government rationing

Conservatives fearmonger that breast cancer screening recommendations foreshadowed government rationing. In the aftermath of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation that women receive fewer breast cancer screenings, media conservatives have fearmongered that the nonbinding recommendations represent government rationing -- with some tying the guidelines to the debunked "death panel" smear. Siegel himself appeared on Fox News to claim that the recommendations were "absolutely" about health care reform, adding, "[T]his kind of health reform is not what we need." In fact, the task force recommendations are not legally binding, and the claim is undermined by the fact that the task force previously recommended against certain preventive cancer screenings under President Bush.

Siegel misleadingly claims that health care reform bills empower panels like preventive task force to "suggest things that doctors shouldn't do" and turn guidelines into mandates

Siegel: "[U]nder Obama care, guidelines will quickly become mandates"; "All the major 'reform' bills create lots of new panels and other bureaucrats empowered to suggest things that doctors shouldn't do." In his column, Siegel wrote of the new mammogram guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF):

This week's decision by a government panel to discourage most women in their 40s from having routine mammograms isn't just bad medicine, but also a small taste of what ObamaCare will mean.

[...]

Happily, these rulings from on high don't have much force now. But under ObamaCare, guidelines will quickly become mandates, and patients will routinely face the choice of paying hundreds of dollars out of pocket or accept higher risks of cancer. It will take government bureaucrats years to admit mistakes, if they ever do -- and by that time thousands of women will have needlessly gotten sick or even died of cancer.

All the major "reform" bills create lots of new panels and other bureaucrats empowered to "suggest" things doctors shouldn't do -- and even to penalize doctors who order "too many" tests.

Senate bill does not require insurers to adopt USPSTF recommendations against preventive screenings, only those in favor of specific preventive screenings. The Senate health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires insurance companies to cover screenings that the USPSTF rates as A or B recommendations. It does not require insurers to adopt guidelines -- like those cited by Siegel -- that recommend against preventive screenings:

''SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.

''(a) IN GENERAL. -- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for --

''(1) evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of 'A' or 'B' in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force;

House bill requires insurers to adopt task force recommendations in favor of specific coverage, but not those against coverage. Similarly, the House health care reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, requires insurance companies to cover the A or B recommendations of a new task force, the "Task Force on Community Preventive Services," but does not require that lower-rated recommendations against preventive services be denied:

''SEC. 3143. RESEARCH ON SUBSIDIES AND REWARDS TO ENCOURAGE WELLNESS AND HEALTHY BEHAVIORS.

[...]

''(c) INCLUSION IN ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE. -- If, on the basis of the findings of research and demonstration projects under subsection (a) or other sources consistent with section 3131, the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services determines that a subsidy or reward meets the Task Force's standards for a grade A or B, the Secretary shall ensure that the subsidy or reward is included in the essential benefits package under section 222.

Media conservatives -- including Siegel -- have repeatedly fearmongered that task force recommendations represent government rationing

Conservatives fearmonger that breast cancer screening recommendations foreshadow government rationing. Media conservatives have repeatedly fearmongered that the nonbinding recommendations represent government rationing -- with some tying the guidelines to the debunked "death panel" smear. Siegel himself appeared on Fox News to claim that the recommendations were "absolutely" about health care reform, adding, "[T]his kind of health reform is not what we need." In fact, the task force recommendations are not legally binding, and the claim is undermined by the fact that the task force previously recommended against certain preventive cancer screenings under President Bush.