Opinion | Can Michigan learn the right lessons from two child welfare cases? 76%

By Richard Wexler91%

7/21/2026, 2:45:19 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Appeal to Emotion, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 33.4% saturation with 249 hits. Analysis detected 1,921 faulty-reasoning hits from 745 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.3% and a BS Rank of 76% (5,415 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.30% of the article peer group.

Two cases involving Michigan’s child welfare system have been in the news lately. 
So far, Michigan lawmakers are ignoring one and learning the wrong lessons from the other. 
At least eight times, educators reported to Child Protective Services that the children of Arturo and Dulce Bazan looked like they had been starved and beaten. 
Only when one nearly died were they rescued. 
The Bazans have been charged with starving and torturing the children. 
So State Sen. 
Jeremy Moss has introduced a bill to “prioritize a written report from a member of the staff of a school in the online reporting system and place the written report on a priority list for investigation.” 
But in the case of the Bazan children, it appears the reports were investigated; the problem was the failure to act afterwards. 
Had Moss’ bill been law, it would have changed nothing  except possibly to make things worse. 
Under this bill, had there been a report from a doctor who saw the abuse and starvation of the Bazan children, it would have gotten a lower priority than, say, a report from a teacher who said a child had inadequate winter clothing. 
That’s already the kind of confusion of poverty with neglect that deluges child welfare systems and steals time from finding children in real danger. 
In Michigan, even among children forced into foster care, 74% of cases did not involve even an allegation of physical or sexual abuse; 55% didn’t involve an allegation of any form of drug abuse. 
But more than one-third involved housing issues. 
Stealing time is the lesson Michigan lawmakers should learn from the other case in the news: the false, malicious, anonymous report against former transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. 
Buttigieg writes that even in a situation where child protective services and law enforcement did everything possible to minimize the trauma to his 4-year-old children, 
“I worry about any unseen effects this had on our kids, on Chasten and me, and on the rest of our family. 
Even though the accusation was absurdly and obviously false, and was promptly rejected by law enforcement, I still worry about the harm it has done.” 
The overwhelming majority of the falsely accused, almost always poor and disproportionately nonwhite, don’t necessarily get the same kid-gloves treatment. 
Their trauma is likely to be far worse . 
But even that may not have been the worst of it. 
As the Michigan State Police point out : 
“False reports are dangerous and divert law enforcement officers and Child Protective Services workers from responding to legitimate emergencies and protecting vulnerable children and families.” 
So now let’s go back to the case of the Bazan children. 
Almost always, in such horrific cases, it turns out that the caseworkers were so deluged. 
They were overloaded with false reports, like the one against Buttigieg, or cases in which family poverty was confused with neglect, or “CYA referrals” from teachers and other mandated reporters afraid not to report even when they don’t really believe there’s abuse. 
So they had no time to investigate any case properly. 
No system will find every genuinely endangered child. 
But if we want to find more of them in time, there are real solutions: 
Replace anonymous reporting with confidential reporting. 
Two states, New York and Texas, have done that. 
This does not mean the accused gets to know who accused them; it means only that Child Protective Services has to know, in order to discourage false, malicious reports, while protecting reporters who genuinely fear retaliation or other harm. 
Replace mandatory reporting, which research shows has backfired , with permissive reporting. 
Let professionals working with children exercise their professional judgment, so they don’t deluge the system with reports called in just because they were afraid not to. 
Bolster screening at the Michigan child abuse hotline. 
Under state law, if what is alleged even “minimally” meets the statutory definition of abuse or neglect, it must be screened in and investigated  there is no discretion. 
In an attempt to ensure that no child in danger is missed, we have created a massive child welfare surveillance state. 
More than one-third of all children and more than half of Black children will endure what the Buttigieg children endured; for many, if not most, the experience will be far worse . 
And yet, we still miss children in real danger. 
Isn’t it time to try a better way? 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.3%Richard Wexler: 7.4%Bridge: 3.0%Confirmation Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 1.2%Bridge: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Richard Wexler: 4.9%Bridge: 3.0%Availability Heuristic7.0%This article: 2.7%Richard Wexler: 0.9%Bridge: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic2.7%This article: 3.0%Richard Wexler: 2.0%Bridge: 0.2%Hindsight Bias3.0%This article: 2.3%Richard Wexler: 2.7%Bridge: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias2.3%This article: 9.3%Richard Wexler: 11.5%Bridge: 6.8%Framing Effect9.3%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.4%Richard Wexler: 2.1%Bridge: 0.7%Status Quo Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Richard Wexler: 0.7%Bridge: 2.3%Optimism Bias2.0%This article: 7.0%Richard Wexler: 4.2%Bridge: 1.6%Pessimism Bias7.0%This article: 33.4%Richard Wexler: 14.2%Bridge: 7.0%Negativity Bias33.4%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Richard Wexler: 1.9%Bridge: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error5.6%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Richard Wexler: 1.8%Bridge: 1.6%In-Group Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 2.3%Bridge: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 1.9%Bridge: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.2%Richard Wexler: 4.3%Bridge: 3.4%Appeal to Authority6.2%This article: 5.6%Richard Wexler: 3.0%Bridge: 1.0%False Dilemma5.6%This article: 5.8%Richard Wexler: 2.7%Bridge: 1.2%Slippery Slope5.8%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.8%Richard Wexler: 16.4%Bridge: 4.1%Hasty Generalization16.8%This article: 1.6%Richard Wexler: 0.5%Bridge: 0.7%Red Herring1.6%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.4%Bridge: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 21.9%Richard Wexler: 11.5%Bridge: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion21.9%This article: 1.1%Richard Wexler: 1.4%Bridge: 0.6%Begging the Question1.1%This article: 5.4%Richard Wexler: 3.7%Bridge: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.4%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.5%Richard Wexler: 3.2%Bridge: 1.0%Burden of Proof9.5%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.1%Richard Wexler: 0.7%Bridge: 0.2%Composition/Division1.1%This article: 8.9%Richard Wexler: 4.8%Bridge: 1.3%Anecdotal8.9%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 23.0%Richard Wexler: 7.7%Bridge: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)23.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.0%Richard Wexler: 1.3%Bridge: 0.9%Unattributed Quote4.0%This article: 8.2%Richard Wexler: 2.7%Bridge: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection8.2%This article: 21.5%Richard Wexler: 11.3%Bridge: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice21.5%This article: 19.3%Richard Wexler: 12.6%Bridge: 1.7%Indoctrination19.3%This article: 5.5%Richard Wexler: 1.8%Bridge: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Wexler: 0.0%Bridge: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

745 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers19%attributed speech604writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJeremy Moss • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 25 words • 0.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 22 words • 100.0% coveragePete Buttigieg • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMichigan State Police • 8 words • 0.0% coverageMichigan State Police • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Pete Buttigieg

65%flagged-word coverage
72 attributed words51% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Unattributed Quote+29.2 ptsWriter: 1.3%Pete Buttigieg: 30.6%30.6%Biased Writer Voice-26.5 ptsWriter: 26.5%Pete Buttigieg: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-23.8 ptsWriter: 23.8%Pete Buttigieg: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-6.8 ptsWriter: 6.8%Pete Buttigieg: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.