Townhall⁠84%

Democrats Launch Renewed Attack on School Choice ⁠90%

By Amy Curtis⁠89%

7/20/2026, 8:30:12 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Right Leaning Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 50.2% saturation with 127 hits. Analysis detected 1,008 faulty-reasoning hits from 253 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 83.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠90% (2,283 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 89.60% of the article peer group.

The other day, teacher union head Randi Weingarten held a conference for the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). 
Weingarten concluded her speech yelling about the 'trajectory of this nation,' which was just code-speak for more leftist indoctrination in our government-run schools. 
But there were more interesting things from the AFT conference, including renewed attacks on school choice. 
And, as always, those attacks come from people who either attended private school themselves, sent their kids to private school, or both. 
First we'll start with Maryland Governor Wes Moore, who attacked President Trump's nationwide school choice program. 
"Buried inside that bill is a tax scheme that makes public funding ... that takes public funding and steers it toward private schools," Moore said. 
Both he and his children attended private schools. 
Moore even filmed an ad touting Maryland government-run schools from his kids' elite private school. 
If mothers choose, the CTU can't indoctrinate them to hate Jews, capitalism, and America. 
Private schools can educate students more effectively and at lower cost than public schools. 
Democrats don't want students, especially minority students, to have opportunities to get a better education because that leads to better economic success down the road, removing a major voting bloc for Democrats. 
Editor's Note: President Trump is fighting to ensure America's kids get the education they deserve. 
Help us fight back against Big Government waste and restore power to the states. 
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.6%Amy Curtis: 8.6%Townhall: 5.3%Confirmation Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.9%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Amy Curtis: 3.8%Townhall: 2.8%Availability Heuristic8.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.5%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Amy Curtis: 2.1%Townhall: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias5.5%This article: 20.9%Amy Curtis: 10.8%Townhall: 11.2%Framing Effect20.9%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.4%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Amy Curtis: 1.0%Townhall: 1.4%Optimism Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.8%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 50.2%Amy Curtis: 15.5%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias50.2%This article: 3.2%Amy Curtis: 0.6%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias3.2%This article: 24.9%Amy Curtis: 3.8%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error24.9%This article: 5.9%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias5.9%This article: 8.7%Amy Curtis: 4.7%Townhall: 4.6%In-Group Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 6.0%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.2%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect12.6%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 21.7%Amy Curtis: 8.3%Townhall: 5.0%Ad Hominem21.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 4.3%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.9%Amy Curtis: 4.2%Townhall: 4.4%Appeal to Authority5.9%This article: 12.6%Amy Curtis: 2.6%Townhall: 1.9%False Dilemma12.6%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.2%Amy Curtis: 16.6%Townhall: 9.1%Hasty Generalization14.2%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.9%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.5%Amy Curtis: 1.6%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon5.5%This article: 11.1%Amy Curtis: 9.9%Townhall: 11.1%Appeal to Emotion11.1%This article: 5.5%Amy Curtis: 2.9%Townhall: 2.2%Begging the Question5.5%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.9%Townhall: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.5%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.7%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 24.5%Amy Curtis: 2.3%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)24.5%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.4%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.6%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 4.4%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.3%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection6.3%This article: 47.4%Amy Curtis: 24.5%Townhall: 16.1%Biased Writer Voice47.4%This article: 14.6%Amy Curtis: 8.1%Townhall: 5.6%Indoctrination14.6%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 47.8%Amy Curtis: 22.0%Townhall: 13.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias47.8%This article: 19.8%Amy Curtis: 6.1%Townhall: 5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…19.8%

253 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.9%attributed speech228writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWes Moore • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Wes Moore

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words100% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Politically Right Leaning -53.1 ptsWriter: 53.1%Wes Moore: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-52.6 ptsWriter: 52.6%Wes Moore: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -21.9 ptsWriter: 21.9%Wes Moore: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-16.2 ptsWriter: 16.2%Wes Moore: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Wes Moore: 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.