What’s happening with police reform, 1 year after George Floyd’s death

Uncertainty, fact-checking and COVID-19

View this email in your browser  This week:  Congress still grappling with police reform ... Fact-checking COVID-19 uncertainty ... Can a business ask customers about vaccination? ... Sorting out the new guidance on masks ... How PolitiFact got started A weekly note from the editor-in-chief of    (AP) One year after George Floyd's death, police reform talks continue George Floyd's death on May 25, 2020, launched one of the loudest, most sustained national calls for lawmakers to reexamine decades-long policing practices. But on the first anniversary of Floyd's death, Congress finds itself in the same place as it was a year ago: partisan disagreement over how to move forward.  Following Floyd's murder at the hands of a police officer, Senate Republicans and House Democrats wrote separate proposals for police reform. Amid partisan bickering, efforts fizzled out just weeks later. But the April conviction of former police officer Derek Chauvin on murder and manslaughter charges renewed the sense of urgency to change law. President Joe Biden called on Congress to pass a police reform bill by the anniversary of Floyd's death, a deadline that wasn't met. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina is leading the negotiations on the Republican side while U.S. Rep. Karen Bass of California and Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey are directing negotiations for the Democrats. While those discussions are active, no final agreement has been reached. David A. Harris, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said he thinks it's still possible Congress will enact some change.  "It seems like there has never been a stronger public climate for police reform, and it's not just an issue for African Americans," Harris said. "The desire for this is strong almost everywhere. But it's both a fact that Congress is hyper partisan, and that the party on the right has taken positions that strongly adhere to law enforcement desires so often that it's very hard to envision a compromise." There were similarities in the proposals that Scott and House Democrats put forward. Both proposals, for example, made lynching a federal hate crime, increased data collection and provided funding for body cameras. While Scott's bill called for incentives, grants and study, the Democrats' version created more mandates. The proposals also had other key differences: Qualified immunity: Democrats sought to limit qualified immunity, a judicial standard that protects officers from lawsuits if they were acting in their official capacity — unless they have violated a "clearly established" statutory or constitutional right. While the Democrats want to make it easier to sue police in civil cases, Scott's bill didn't propose any change. Chokeholds: Both aimed to curtail police use of chokeholds — a manner of restraining a person that can restrict breathing — but Scott's bill had a more narrow definition of chokeholds than the Democrats' bill. Both cut off grant funding to agencies as an incentive to create chokehold policies. No-knock warrants: The Democrats' bill banned the use of federal no-knock warrants in drug cases. It also prohibited state and local agencies from receiving funds if they didn't have a law prohibiting no-knock warrants in drug cases. Scott's bill called for police agencies to report their use of no-knock warrants to the attorney general. Those differences remain sticking points in negotiations between the two sides, with qualified immunity causing perhaps the biggest divide. The U.S. Supreme Court created the qualified immunity defense in 1967, wrote UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz in the University of Chicago Law Review.  "At the time, they called it a good faith immunity for constitutional violations," Schwartz told WBUR. "But now the way the court has defined qualified immunity, it protects government officers, including law enforcement, from damages, civil damages. So it doesn't apply to criminal cases, unless an officer has violated what the court calls clearly established law." Some Democrats believe that qualified immunity allows officers to use excessive force without fear of consequences or accountability, said Carol A. Archbold, a criminal justice professor at North Dakota State University. But Republicans assert that qualified immunity allows officers to make split second decisions in dangerous situations without worrying about being held liable.  Scott has offered a compromise: allowing victims to sue police departments rather than individual officers.  "The real question is how do we change the culture of policing?" Scott said May 2 on CBS' Face the Nation. "I think we do that by making the employer responsible for the actions of the employee. We do that with doctors. We do that with lawyers. We do that in almost all of our industries. And if we do that in law enforcement, the employer will change the culture." It's unclear how many Democrats would accept such a compromise. Ten progressive House members sent a letter to leadership opposing removal of  provision that would end qualified immunity. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, on the other hand, has said he would not support police reform bills that do not keep qualified immunity. Scott, Booker and Bass haven't divulged much about the details, but on May 24 — the eve of the one-year anniversary of Floyd's death — they released a joint statement indicating that they will continue negotiations. "While we are still working through our differences on key issues, we continue to make progress toward a compromise and remain optimistic about the prospects of achieving that goal," they wrote. — Amy Sherman Share Tweet Forward The Latest from PolitiFact Can businesses ask customers about vaccinations? Social media posts claim that businesses aren't allowed to ask customers if they've received a COVID-19 vaccine because it would violate health privacy laws, specifically the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, better known as HIPAA. We rated that False. HIPAA rules prohibit health care professionals from sharing people's health information without their permission. It doesn't prevent businesses from asking customers about vaccination status. Customers don't have to answer, but business could decline to serve them. Video game footage passed off as Israeli military. Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile defense system has intercepted rockets from Gaza, but a video clip that's being shared on social media does not show the technology in action. We rated the claim False. The clip is from a video game called Arma 3. Colorado's Boebert wrong on Texas COVID-19 deaths. U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., said in an interview that since Texas removed its mask mandate, the state "has not reported a single COVID death. Not one." We rated that Pants on Fire! A quick look at the state-run COVID-19 dashboard, which tracks coronavirus cases, deaths and other metrics, shows that more than 3,700 Texans have died of COVID-19 since Abbott lifted the mandate on March 10.  Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy. We need your help   Yes, I support PolitiFact! Make a tax-deductible donation to make this message go away. Opinion: Can COVID-19 uncertainty be fact-checked? I recently wrote an essay for Poynter.org about fact-checking COVID-19 and the many areas where we had to grapple with limited knowledge and basic uncertainty.  Whether it was masks, virus transmission, cures or the origins of COVID-19, we've seen many presumptions overtaken by more fact-finding and knowledge. Ultimately, I concluded that "willingness to assimilate new information is the kind of mindset that will keep us and our families safe. We need to challenge misinformation and its seemingly fast answers, knowing that true knowledge may come slowly. "What helps this process along, though, is a big dose of humility, and no one needs it more than journalists, doctors, scientists and, yes, fact-checkers. We all face the temptation to write and speak with authority, even when we know in our hearts that our knowledge is human and therefore limited. Using words that say this is the best we know now, and that circumstances may change, is one of the most powerful ways of conveying this." Read the full essay.  About-face on mask-wearing: Why did the federal guidance change? The federal government's guidance on wearing masks to curb the spread of the coronavirus changed dramatically twice during the pandemic. The most recent change, which said that fully vaccinated people could largely stop wearing masks, came in May, and its suddenness surprised many Americans. While some critics raised questions about the rapid turnabout, experts say that progress in vaccination, declines in cases, new scientific research, and real-world evidence from other countries justified the change in policy. Despite this, public health experts acknowledged that the federal government's messaging over masks has been flawed and has prompted needless confusion among the public. Read our full report for a review of the evidence that drove the change. PolitiFact: The origin story PolitiFact started as a simple desire: To bring more truth to politics. Our fact-checking newsroom has come a long way since, but we wanted to take you back to the beginning with PolitiFact's founders. So we made a video for our recent fact-checking festival, United Facts of America. Watch the video via YouTube.   Quick links to more fact-checks & reports  What is critical race theory, and why are conservatives blocking it?   Democratic bill moves forward Biden's pledge to invest $4 billion in Central America    Fowl play? Social media users falsely claim Arizona ballots were destroyed in chicken farm fire    Feds pay for fish treadmills, earthquake-proof gingerbread houses? Not quite   What is the scope of the proposed Jan. 6 commission? And is there a Plan B? Do you smell smoke?  Here's your Pants on Fire fact-check of the week:  "Biden agrees to Pelosi's request to resign." See what else we've rated Pants on Fire this week.  Have questions or ideas for our coverage? Send me an email at holan@politifact.com. Put "Fact-checking" in the subject line. Thanks for reading! Angie Drobnic Holan  PolitiFact Editor-in-Chief  Send this link to your friends so they can sign up for this email! Share Tweet Forward Send this link to your friends so they can sign up for this email! Copyright © 2021 PolitiFact, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website, attended one of our events, or communicated with us. Our mailing address is: PolitiFact 801 3rd St S 33701 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can *update your preferences or *unsubscribe from this list.  Subscription Information This email was sent to Webmaster220 Bible Study Blog  *the blog owner has deleted the hyperlink intentionally