Trump Orders Schools to Make Chilling Change to Sex Ed Programs 68%

By Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling59%

7/22/2026, 8:38:57 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Confirmation Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 24% saturation with 104 hits. Analysis detected 753 faulty-reasoning hits from 433 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62% and a BS Rank of 68% (6,564 of 20,473 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.90% of the article peer group.

The Trump administration has canceled millions of dollars’ worth of federal grants to organizations running teen pregnancy education programs nationwide, suggesting that the widely effective underage pregnancy prevention services were inappropriately promoting premarital sex. 
The funding did not align with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health’s outlined priorities, according to a government fact sheet that specified the office would not support “content that encourages, normalizes or promotes sexual activity for minors.” 
One such organization interrogated by the assistant secretary—South Carolina nonprofit Fact Forward—was accused of including lessons with “advice on making condom use more pleasurable” and promoting discussions that normalize “use of pornography,” according to a copy of the letter obtained by The New York Times . 
“That information was just not true,” Rena Dixon, who runs the group, told the Times. 
Dixon added that Fact Forward had never used the lessons or materials to which the assistant secretary referred. 
Other program directors that spoke with the Times also said that the government had distorted the materials they were using in order to make erroneous claims about their education plans. 
Several noted that the grants they won required them to use “courses from a federally approved list shown by research to be age-appropriate and effective,” according to the Times . 
The federal government first got involved in preventing teen pregnancy in 2010, allocating roughly $100 million to the cause and eventually creating the Office of Adolescent Health and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, or OAH. 
At the time, teen birth rates were already in decline, yet the program’s influence still caused rates to fall faster than ever . 
The government-funded programs advanced the waning trend by investing in proper sex education and increasing access to reproductive health care in communities suffering from disproportionately high rates of teen pregnancy. 
But Donald Trump and his allies have nonetheless abhorred the effort. 
Last month, a spokesperson for Health and Human Services revealed that the agency had canceled 53 out of 67 grants—totaling $68 million—alloted to the pregnancy prevention program. 
The impact was broad, affecting more than two dozen states across the country. 
It’s unclear if the effort will hold up in court. 
Trump took similar actions during his first term, suddenly canceling dozens of grants issued under the Obama-era program in 2017, though his efforts did not succeed. 
In April 2018, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—then a U.S. district judge—ruled that HHS had violated its own regulations by prematurely ending the grants without an adequate explanation, ordering the agency to restore the terminated funds. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.3%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 4.2%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias17.3%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.8%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic3.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 11.3%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 9.5%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect10.4%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.3%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 17.5%newrepublic.com: 13.0%Negativity Bias15.7%This article: 7.6%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.2%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.6%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias12.2%This article: 8.1%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect8.1%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.6%newrepublic.com: 3.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 4.1%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority24.0%This article: 6.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma6.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.9%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 5.2%newrepublic.com: 7.9%Hasty Generalization6.9%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.5%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 8.0%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion2.5%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 20.1%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 3.9%newrepublic.com: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)20.1%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.6%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal10.6%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.6%newrepublic.com: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 10.6%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection10.6%This article: 5.1%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 17.4%newrepublic.com: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice5.1%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 8.8%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

433 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.6%attributed speech400writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageRena Dixon • 15 words • 0.0% coverageRena Dixon • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rena Dixon

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Quote-first Misdirection-11.5 ptsWriter: 11.5%Rena Dixon: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Rena Dixon: 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.