Grading PolitiFact: Alan Grayson defines his opponent

Alan Grayson doesn't know when to quit.  Neither does PolitiFact.


The issue:

The fact checkers:

Louis Jacobson:  writer, researcher
Aaron Sharockman:  writer, researcher
John Bartosek:  editor

Analysis:

PolitiFact:

Here's a full transcript of the new ad:

Daniel Webster's Washington backers are attacking Alan Grayson on women's issues. The facts on Webster's record:

Fact: Webster sponsored a bill to create a form of marriage that would trap women in abusive relationships.

Fact: Webster is an advocate for a group that teaches that mothers should not work outside the home.

Fact: Webster would force victims of rape and incest to bear their attacker's child.

Those are the facts. Don't let Daniel Webster make the laws we will have to live with.

The story is obviously concerned with the third supposed "fact."

We checked with his campaign to confirm whether he is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape and incest, and a spokeswoman confirmed it.

Good move.  And from a pro-life standpoint an abortion is always a moral wrong.  Kathy Mears was apparently the "spokeswoman."  I'm not sure why she goes unnamed in the story.  The specific words of her statement on behalf of Webster may be important.  We do get specific words from Webster's campaign website: (under "Sanctity of Life"):

• As affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life is our first right.  Daniel Webster would support legislation that the Constitutional protections of life and liberty extend to the unborn.
• Dan would oppose any use of public revenues to promote or perform abortions or to support organizations that promote or perform abortions.

PolitiFact mentions the first part but not the second.  And the two bullet points seem mismatched to some degree.  Isn't the second one needless in light of the first?  The first is probably best understood as a legislative ideal with little chance of passage.  The latter represents a realistic goal.  But it doesn't sound quite as scary to claim that "Webster wants to prevent public revenues from being used to provide or support abortion services!"

PolitiFact:

So Grayson's ad is correct on Webster's philosophical beliefs about abortion. But does that mean that Webster "would force victims of rape and incest to bear their attacker's child"?

Grayson's ad provides an ambiguous take on Webster's philosophical beliefs about abortion.  One can oppose something philosophically without thinking it is the government's role to enforce that opposition.  Legislation recognizing rights of life and liberty for the unborn might fill that bill.  But then again it might not.  Credit goes to PolitiFact for asking the right question.

In trying to reach the answer to that question, the story goes over Webster's legislative career and notes a fairly consistent pragmatic streak, including Webster saying that Florida isn't ready for a broad abortion ban such as that proposed in Kansas.  Not ready in what way?

So where does this leave us? There is no question that Webster believes that abortion should be banned except to save the life of the mother, and that gives the Grayson campaign a lot of cover for its charge.

Is it true that there "is no question that Webster believes that abortion should be banned except to save the life of the mother"?  If there is no question on that point then PolitiFact should have settled it with evidence rather than with a statement lacking the benefit of clear evidential support.  Webster's legislative history did not offer that kind of support.

To review:

• Parental consent for minors seeking abortion (1988)
• Woman's Right To Know Act (1997)
• State ban on "partial birth" abortion (1997)
• Voted in favor of parental notification bill (1998)
• Guardians for unborn children (2004)
• Requirement that parents receive notification if minor child sought abortion (2005)
• Ultrasound requirement prior to abortion (2008)

That simply doesn't add up to "There is no question that Webster believes that abortion should be banned except to save the life of the mother."  Nowhere in the story does PolitiFact unequivocally support that claim with evidence.  Yet that supposed finding gives Grayson his cover.

Grayson's charge has a substantial grounding in the truth, so we rate it Mostly True.

Huh?

Mostly True – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.
Half True – The statement is accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.
Barely True – The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

The PolitiFact analysis found that it could not be known how Webster would act on abortion legislation.

It's impossible to know precisely what abortion bills Webster would propose or support if he were to be elected to the U.S. House.

So how can it follow that Grayson's "statement is accurate"?  Grayson's ad claims to know how Webster would legislate.  That was another PolitiFact finding:

So Grayson's ad is correct on Webster's philosophical beliefs about abortion. But does that mean that Webster "would force victims of rape and incest to bear their attacker's child"?

We don't think that's so clear-cut, since Webster's legislative efforts on abortion, while extensive, have stopped well short of what Grayson's ad suggests.

Taking into consideration PolitiFact's description of its grading system, this story is logically incoherent.  Grayson's claim cannot be ruled accurate and impossible to judge at the same time and in the same sense.  That is a contradiction.


A literalism interlude

Now a brief digression into my initial interest in this PolitiFact story.

Look again at the claim Grayson makes of Webster:

Fact: Webster would force victims of rape and incest to bear their attacker's child.

If I'm playing dumb as PolitiFact occasionally does (think Rudy Giuliani and his claim that no terrorist attacks happened under Bush), I can take Grayson as saying that if a woman is attacked then her attacker has the right to have her bear his children.  So let's say Joe Smith rapes Jane Doe.  After doing his time, Smith decides he wants to have kids.  So, thanks to the Webster Act of 2013, Smith's victim must then receive his seed and bear his child(ren).

Of course that's not what Grayson meant.  But it is the literal meaning of what he said, just as surely as when Giuliani was taken to task over the 9-11 attacks occurring during the Bush administration.

Everyone deserves charitable interpretation.  PolitiFact acted properly in not taking Grayson in wooden-literal fashion.  I look forward to the extension of that courtesy to all subjects of PolitiFact stories.

The grades:

Louis Jacobson:  F
Aaron Sharockman:  F
John Bartosek:  F

Internal inconsistency is one of the worst possible features of a journalistic account.  The problem is worse when the inconsistency represents the main point of the story.