Concerns about lack of oversight on how tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are spent in the program
Texas Alternatives to Abortion program budget grew from $5 million in 2005 to $140 million after Roe v. Wade overturned
In the wake of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Texas has come under scrutiny for its handling of funds allocated to the Alternatives to Abortion program. According to an investigation by ProPublica and CBS News, legislators in Texas have passed measures limiting access to abortion and added funds to the program since 2005. The budget for the Alternatives to Abortion program has grown from $5 million in 2005 to $140 million after Roe v. Wade was overturned. However, there are concerns about the lack of oversight on how tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are spent in the program. Texas lawmakers aim to
Republican Representative Jeff Leach aims to provide support and resources for women with unexpected pregnancies.
Officials don’t know how tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent or if they’re addressing families’ needs.
Anti-abortion centers, which may look like clinics performing abortions, have been paid millions to distribute educational materials and goods obtained for free.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the authors' position about the lack of accountability in Texas' Alternatives to Abortion program. The authors do not provide any context or counterarguments, and they use emotional manipulation by describing how Texas legislators have passed measures limiting access to abortion while adding millions of dollars to the program. The article also contains sensationalism with phrases like 'riddled with waste' and 'millions to anti-abortion nonprofits.'
But an investigation by ProPublica and CBS News found that the system that funnels a growing pot of state money to anti-abortion nonprofits has few safeguards and is riddled with waste.
Year after year, while Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, Texas legislators passed measures limiting access to abortion...And with the same cadence, they added millions of dollars to a program designed to discourage people from terminating pregnancies.
Fallacies
(85%)
The authors make an appeal to authority by quoting Rep. Jeff Leach's statement about the program's goal without providing any evidence or context that supports this claim. Additionally, they use inflammatory rhetoric by describing the anti-abortion nonprofits as 'riddled with waste' and 'funneling a growing pot of state money to anti-abortion nonprofits with few safeguards.' However, no specific examples or evidence are provided to support these claims.
]The goal is to provide the full support and resources of the state government ... to come alongside of these thousands of women and their families who might find themselves with unexpected, unplanned pregnancies.[/
Bias
(90%)
The authors use loaded language in describing the Alternatives to Abortion program as 'designed to discourage people from terminating pregnancies' and 'shifted the purpose' of the program after Roe v. Wade was overturned. They also imply that these organizations may be misrepresenting themselves by using the term 'crisis pregnancy centers' which may lead readers to believe they offer abortion services.
But an investigation by ProPublica and CBS News found that the system that funnels a growing pot of state money to anti-abortion nonprofits has few safeguards and is riddled with waste.
Distributing a single pamphlet can net the same $14 fee.
Their budget infusions for the Alternatives to Abortion program grew with almost every legislative session – first gradually, then dramatically – from $5 million starting in 2005 to $140 million after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the right to an abortion.
An investigation found that there are few safeguards and waste in the system that funnels state money to anti-abortion nonprofits.
Officials with the Health and Human Services Commission don’t know how tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent or if they are addressing families’ needs.
Some taxpayer funds have been used for anti-abortion centers to bill $14 for handing out a couple of donated diapers or distributing educational materials.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article by CBS News contains selective reporting and emotional manipulation. The author focuses on the growing budget for the Alternatives to Abortion program in Texas while omitting important context about why this funding exists. The author also implies that the program's shift in purpose is a recent development, when it has been a long-standing trend. Furthermore, the article uses emotionally charged language such as 'now that abortion is largely illegal in Texas' and 'their budget infusions for the Alternatives to Abortion program grew with almost every legislative session'. These statements are intended to elicit an emotional response from readers without providing factual evidence.
Now that abortion is largely illegal in Texas
Their budget infusions for the Alternatives to Abortion program grew with almost every legislative session
Fallacies
(80%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting Rep. Jeff Leach's statement about the program's goal without questioning or providing evidence that the shift in purpose has occurred. Additionally, there is a lack of specificity regarding how millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent and whether they are addressing families' needs, which could be considered a fallacy by omission.
]The goal is to provide the full support and resources of the state government ... to come alongside of these thousands of women and their families who might find themselves with unexpected, unplanned pregnancies.[/
Rep. Jeff Leach, Republican from Plano
Bias
(90%)
CBS News demonstrates a clear bias towards criticizing the Texas Alternatives to Abortion program by focusing on potential waste and lack of oversight. The author implies that the program is being misused and that taxpayer dollars are not being used effectively to support families affected by the state's ban on abortion.
But an investigation by ProPublica and CBS News found that the system that funnels a growing pot of state money to anti-abortion nonprofits has few safeguards and is riddled with waste.
In some cases, taxpayers are paying these groups to distribute goods they obtained for free
Officials with the Health and Human Services Commission, which oversees the program, don’t know the specifics of how tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent or whether that money is addressing families’ needs.
The state has paid the charities millions to distribute such ‘educational materials’ about topics including parenting and adoption;
Texas legislators have passed measures limiting access to abortion and added funds to the Alternatives to Abortion program since 2005.
The Alternatives to Abortion program's budget grew from $5 million in 2005 to $140 million after Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Texas lawmakers aim to ‘provide the full support and resources of the state government’ for families affected by the state’s abortion ban.
ProPublica and CBS News investigation found that Texas Health and Human Services Commission has little oversight on how tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are spent in the program.
Some anti-abortion centers, which may look like clinics performing abortions, have billed taxpayers for distributing free goods.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position about the lack of oversight in Texas' Alternatives to Abortion program. The author does not provide any information on how much of the program's budget goes towards actual support for families or how much goes to anti-abortion groups. This selective reporting allows readers to form a biased opinion about the program without a complete understanding of its purpose and usage of funds.
But an investigation by ProPublica and CBS News found that the system that funnels a growing pot of state money to anti-abortion nonprofits has few safeguards and is riddled with waste.
Year after year, while Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, Texas legislators passed measures limiting access to abortion... And with the same cadence, they added millions of dollars to a program designed to discourage people from terminating pregnancies.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting Rep. Jeff Leach's statement without questioning or providing evidence that the goal of the program has shifted to supporting families affected by the state's ban on abortion. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing anti-abortion centers as 'often called crisis pregnancy centers which may be set up to look like clinics that perform abortions'.
The goal is to provide the full support and resources of the state government … to come alongside of these thousands of women and their families who might find themselves with unexpected, unplanned pregnancies.
anti-abortion centers which may be set up to look like clinics that perform abortions
Bias
(95%)
The article does not directly express bias towards any particular political or ideological stance, but it does demonstrate a clear monetary bias by highlighting the large sums of money being funneled to anti-abortion groups with little oversight. The author also uses language that depicts these groups as 'anti-abortion centers' and 'crisis pregnancy centers', which could be perceived as having a negative connotation towards pro-choice organizations.
But an investigation by ProPublica and CBS News found that the system that funnels a growing pot of state money to anti-abortion nonprofits has few safeguards and is riddled with waste.
Their budget infusions for the Alternatives to Abortion program grew with almost every legislative session – first gradually, then dramatically – from $5 million starting in 2005 to $140 million after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the right to an abortion.
