The fact checkers are losing it. They are losing any shred of integrity and even trying to appear as if there actually fact checking anything and trying to represent what is true. It's such a laughable joke that anyone takes these fact checkers seriously. I guess that's because some people just look at the headlines and say "oh well if it was fact checked then that they must be a fact check on things that are false". So the claim is automatically false whenever it is a fact checker involved.
You may have heard of the Washington DC Council passing a law to circumvent the informed consent and authority of parents to decide whether or not their children will be vaccinated. The so-called law allows minors over the age of 11 to consent to receiving vaccines.
So this fact checker starts off the article with stating the claim they are allegedly looking at to determine whether it's true or not:
The claim: Democrats passed legislation to vaccinate children without parental knowledge or consent
Then they go on to mention how this law was approved in parental legislation and enacted. Then they mention how others publication by a conservative site which said:
On Dec. 29, Conservative Brief published a story about the measure, "D.C. Passes Bill to Immunize Children Without Parental Knowledge, Consent." Conservative Brief is a news and opinion site.
Then later that day that article was shared by a talkshow host on Twitter:
Later that day, talk show host Chuck Woolery shared the story from Conservative Brief on Twitter with the caption, "Dems Pass Bill to Vaccinate Children Without Parental Knowledge, Consent." His tweet was later shared on Facebook by accounts like La Flama Blanca.
So what's false about this information?
The fact checker even state:
Most of the factual components of the story from Conservative Brief are accurate and consistent with information from the D.C. Council.
And then the fact checker goes on to continue stating things without saying what was false about what happened. They still don't say anything about what was false, but decide to mention how the article quoted from an anti-vaccine website, merely to say that whatever was said was opinion and not fact. But they won't tell us what was false. They just want to associate things with anti-vaccine in order for people to dismiss it:
It's worth noting that the story from Conservative Brief includes quotes from The Vaccine Reaction, an anti-vaccine website published by The National Vaccine Information Center. Those quotes are opinion, not fact.
It appears the issue they have was that Fauci's image was used in the article. And this gave the impression that this was a national law, which makes it a misleading article, not that it was false in any way.
There is also no reason for Fauci to be pictured — a choice that has led some readers to falsely believe the law was a national measure or related to COVID-19, per Snopes.
Then they take issue with the tweet that specified Democrats rather than simply saying the DC Council itself is the article. But the Council is mostly Democrats so it was a Democrat measure at a local level, although not national:
Posts on Twitter and Facebook about the legislation also could be misleading, because they attribute the measure to "Dems" rather than the D.C. Council. Although it's true that the D.C. Council is comprised only of Democrats, the measure was local, not national, and is not necessarily representative of the Democratic Party.
So they object to a Twitter post that Sharon article, and going to do a fact check about a picture and the word Democrat, as if that is a nail in the coffin.
So what was their conclusion?
Our ruling: Missing context
In the final paragraph the fact checker only mentions the claim of using the word Democrats to pass legislation, nothing about the Fauci picture. So this was all a word game. In the title of the use the terms DC Council which is what the article said, but then in the fact checking article they switch to focusing on one person's Twitter post tried to twist their way into claiming that something isn't true.