The potent political attack of saying someone 'sued nuns' Over and over, Doug Mastriano, a Republican candidate for governor, has claimed that his Democratic opponent, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, sued a group of nuns, aiming to force them to "violate their religious beliefs." This is a great example of how a complex legal dispute is weaponized, through misleading rhetoric, for political purposes. Ever since passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, litigation has ensued over the law's requirement that employers with more than 50 employees provide a preventive-care package that includes contraceptive coverage. There had been a set of rules put in place to carve out exceptions, followed by several court rulings that clarified matters. When Donald Trump became president, his administration shifted course and made it easier for any entity exercising a religious or moral exemption — even big for-profit corporations — to deny contraceptive coverage. Pennsylvania and California filed separate lawsuits, challenging the new policy as overly broad and permitting too many exemptions for businesses. Little Sisters, a charity run by Catholic nuns that serves the elderly poor, sued to intervene in the case. By the time Shapiro filed his lawsuit against the expanded exemptions ordered by Trump, the group had basically secured what it desired and was not subject to the mandate. In other words, the nuns sued to join a case that was aimed at the federal government; Shapiro did not sue the nuns. Mastriano is falsely claiming otherwise. He earned Three Pinocchios. Enjoy this newsletter? Forward it to someone else who'd like it! If this email was forwarded to you, sign up here. Did you hear something fact-checkable? Send it here; we'll check it out. Will a deal on prescription drugs combat inflation? After months of negotiations, the president's expansive "Build Back Better" plan has shrunk to a handful of items, principally in the area of health care. In particular, the emerging bill would achieve a long-sought Democratic goal of allowing Medicare to begin to negotiate the price of certain prescription drugs. With overall inflation raging at 9 percent, the White House is eager to portray any action as a tool to bring price inflation down. "This will not only lower the cost of prescription drugs and health care for families, it will reduce the deficit and help fight inflation," the president said. But how likely is it that the prescription-drug provision in this bill will make a difference? On the face of it, the latest U.S. government report would suggest prescription-drug costs are not a big part of the inflation problem. While inflation rages at 9 percent a year, prescription drug prices have gained less than 3 percent. But that reflects the impact of generic drugs — while brand-name drugs — with no generic equivalent — make up a significant portion of the spending. At least one provision of this bill might begin to lower the cost of some expensive drugs next year, but a plan for the government to directly negotiate prices of some drugs will not begin until midway through the next presidential term. Readers should be aware that any inflation impact of this bill would not be instantaneous. We're always looking for fact-check suggestions. You can reach us via email, Twitter (@GlennKesslerWP and @AdriUsero) or Facebook. Read about our process and rating scale here, and sign up for the newsletter here. Scroll down for this week's Pinocchio roundup. | 
Email
No comments:
Post a Comment