Breitbart81%

GOP Lawmakers Rebuke Elissa Slotkin Saying SAVE Act Would Hurt Women 62%

By Paul Bois56%

7/13/2026, 11:26:41 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Negativity Bias, and In-Group Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 22.2% saturation with 86 hits. Analysis detected 988 faulty-reasoning hits from 388 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57% and a BS Rank of 62% (8,504 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.10% of the article peer group.

GOP Lawmakers Rebuke Elissa Slotkin Saying SAVE Act Would Hurt Women 
Several Republican lawmakers, including Sen. 
Rand Paul (R-KY), have rebuked Sen. 
Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) for saying that the SAVE Act would hurt women voters. 
Speaking at a town hall, Slotkin said that the SAVE Act was designed to “rig our democracy so that it would be hard for any Democrat in any state to win any election.” 
She also said it would “disenfranchise all married women,” adding that they would have to show their birth certificates at the polls if they have a married name. 
Sen. 
Rand Paul and other lawmakers clapped back in posts on X, dismissing her claims as “false.” 
“This talking point from the Left is not only false, but it also paints women as incapable, which we all know is not the case. 
Showing up to the polls to vote with an ID that proves you’re an American citizen  whether you’re married or not  is common sense. 
We need to pass the SAVE America Act,” said Rand Paul. 
“By that same logic, no married woman in America could fill out an I-9 form—which every American must do when starting a new job. 
This is absurd. 
And it highlights why we need to pass the SAVE America Act,” said Sen. 
Mike Lee (R-UT). 
Slotkin’s claim that voter ID would disenfranchise voters falls short when examining the facts. 
In Georgia, for instance, where similar laws were put into effect, voter turnout either went up or stayed relatively the same. 
During the 2022 midterms, following several reforms, early voting actually tripled from 2018 and doubled from 2020, with black voters casting over 100,000 more early ballots than they did in 2018. 
Just this year, Georgia voters saw a record turnout for a primary election, with reports that even Republican Gov. 
Brian Kemp has grown “concerned about the Democratic turnout advantage,” per WABE. 
“About 1 million people turned out for early voting as polls closed Friday, according to the Georgia secretary of state’s office. 
The previous record for early voting in a Georgia primary was about 857,000 in 2022,” noted the outlet. 
“And Democrats have flipped the script on Republicans this year compared to the early voting period in the 2022 primary,” it added. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.6%Paul Bois: 3.8%Breitbart: 4.5%Confirmation Bias11.6%This article: 6.2%Paul Bois: 0.5%Breitbart: 0.6%Anchoring Bias6.2%This article: 5.4%Paul Bois: 3.0%Breitbart: 3.9%Availability Heuristic5.4%This article: 7.2%Paul Bois: 0.3%Breitbart: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic7.2%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.4%Breitbart: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.5%Breitbart: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%Paul Bois: 9.9%Breitbart: 11.9%Framing Effect14.7%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.7%Paul Bois: 0.3%Breitbart: 0.5%Status Quo Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.4%Breitbart: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Paul Bois: 0.1%Breitbart: 1.7%Pessimism Bias2.8%This article: 18.6%Paul Bois: 7.9%Breitbart: 9.7%Negativity Bias18.6%This article: 6.4%Paul Bois: 2.7%Breitbart: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.3%Breitbart: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 16.2%Paul Bois: 2.4%Breitbart: 4.7%In-Group Bias16.2%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.3%Breitbart: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.9%Breitbart: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.5%Paul Bois: 2.4%Breitbart: 1.8%Recency Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 1.7%Breitbart: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Paul Bois: 2.9%Breitbart: 2.9%Ad Hominem6.4%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 1.1%Breitbart: 1.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.1%Paul Bois: 3.5%Breitbart: 4.2%Appeal to Authority13.1%This article: 6.7%Paul Bois: 0.9%Breitbart: 2.5%False Dilemma6.7%This article: 6.2%Paul Bois: 0.6%Breitbart: 1.3%Slippery Slope6.2%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.6%Paul Bois: 4.1%Breitbart: 7.9%Hasty Generalization12.6%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 2.0%Breitbart: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.8%Paul Bois: 4.0%Breitbart: 1.2%Bandwagon2.8%This article: 22.2%Paul Bois: 6.1%Breitbart: 8.8%Appeal to Emotion22.2%This article: 6.4%Paul Bois: 2.3%Breitbart: 1.8%Begging the Question6.4%This article: 13.4%Paul Bois: 3.4%Breitbart: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.4%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.3%Breitbart: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.7%Paul Bois: 0.5%Breitbart: 1.0%Burden of Proof7.7%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.6%Breitbart: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 22.2%Paul Bois: 6.6%Breitbart: 2.5%Anecdotal22.2%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 1.1%Breitbart: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.8%Paul Bois: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.8%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 0.6%Breitbart: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 2.9%Breitbart: 2.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 15.7%Paul Bois: 3.3%Breitbart: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection15.7%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 6.3%Breitbart: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 6.4%Paul Bois: 1.0%Breitbart: 1.9%Indoctrination6.4%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 2.9%Breitbart: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Bois: 2.3%Breitbart: 7.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Paul Bois: 0.3%Breitbart: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.4%

388 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers47%attributed speech205writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageElissa Slotkin • 33 words • 100.0% coverageElissa Slotkin • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageRand Paul • 16 words • 0.0% coverageRand Paul • 25 words • 100.0% coverageRand Paul • 26 words • 0.0% coverageRand Paul • 11 words • 100.0% coverageRand Paul • 24 words • 0.0% coverageRand Paul • 3 words • 0.0% coverageMike Lee • 14 words • 100.0% coverageMike Lee • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Elissa Slotkin

100%flagged-word coverage
61 attributed words33% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Elissa Slotkin: 100.0%100.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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