Showing posts with label Sean Hannity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sean Hannity. Show all posts

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Is Sean Hannity coordinating with the White House?

Every episode of Fox News’ Hannity follows a fairly basic formula these days: pugnacious cube-headed goon Sean Hannity serves up a monologue devoted almost entirely to the vituperative (and frequently incoherent) slander of President Donald Trump’s political adversaries, and then he lards out the hour with panel discussions featuring a small, rotating cast of like-minded Trump sycophants and the odd sacrificial liberal.
As Donald Trump’s many scandals have mushroomed, Hannity has been forced to get louder and crazier. Last night’s episode was an especially psychotic exercise in Hannity-brand demonization as he attempted to counterpunch former FBI Director James Comey, who is ramping up a book tour for his forthcoming memoir. You can watch Hannity’s monologue below, in which the host places Comey, the Clintons, and special counsel Robert Mueller as the heads of their respective “crime families.”
It’s insane. But being a crazy asshole is what Sean Hannity does. What was interesting about last night’s show, however, was the tweet that President Trump posted at 8:48 p.m. EST, 12 minutes before Hannitystarted:
Big show! How would Trump know that last night’s Hannity would be a big show? Why would he want everyone to watch this specific episode of Hannity, which featured some of his favorite pundits calling for the heads of top Justice Department officials alongside an elaborate, acid-burned harangue against James Comey and Robert Mueller? What possible explanation could there be?
Well, the obvious and extremely satisfying one is that Trump knew it was coming and this was all one big coordinated attack on the credibility of the Russia investigation. That, at least, was the explanation put forth by well-sourced Trumpworld reporters. We know that Trump is in regular contact with his favorite Fox News hosts/propagandists (some of whom are old friends) and even solicits their input on policy matters. And given that Fox News is absolutely critical to the White House’s PR war against the Russia investigation, it’s not crazy to assume some level of coordination.
Hannity, however, is aghast and insulted that anyone would ever accuse him of such corruption.
“No collusion,” as it were. One should take a moment to note the specificity of Hannity’s denial -- Trump had no advance knowledge of the monologue. What about the rest of the show? If Trump had no idea what was coming, then why was he boosting the program before it aired?
Also, Hannity’s angry denials are not worth the flung spittle that accompanies them. He is so thoroughly compromised by his feral Trump advocacy that nothing he says can be taken at face value. Hannity has admitted to giving Trump advice on strategy and messaging in 2016 and described himself as “a little bit of a liaison” between the Trump campaign and Fox News. He has dinner with Trump frequently. Hannity has no core, no animating philosophy, and nothing of substance to say -- he’s a Rottweiler whose job is to bark louder than his master’s critics.
But Hannity would have us believe that he comes by his maniacal Trump boosterism honestly, that he is beyond official influence in his straight-shooting mission to cover the president as an infallible sun god molested by foul heretics and despicable blasphemers. So, I guess denying or admitting coordination doesn’t really matter because his end product is already functionally indistinct from official propaganda. Hannity’s either giving us the official White House line or the line the White House just happens to agree with entirely.

Thursday, June 01, 2017

NY Times' Farhad Manjoo shows how disinformation moves from message boards through Twitter and ends up on Hannity

BRENNAN SUEN/Media Matters
The New York Times’ Farhad Manjoo reported on the ecosystem that allows disinformation to spread through Twitter and to mainstream and right-wing media, including a conspiracy theory surrounding the murder of a Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer that was cooked up in message boards and eventually promoted by Fox News host Sean Hannity.
Though Facebook has enabled a fake news ecosystem that empowers total lies, anonymous Twitter bots have also played a part in undermining discourse and truth. Former FBI agent Clint Watts testified in front of the Senate intelligence committee in March about “how Russians used armies of Twitter bots to spread fake news using accounts that seem to be Midwestern swing-voter Republicans,” as NPR described it. And according to a McClatchy report, the FBI is investigating Russian operatives and far-right news websites for their use of bots to spread misinformation.
In a May 31 report, the Times’ Manjoo detailed the role of Twitter in spreading disinformation, fake news, and conspiracy theories, using the story of murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as one example. The report noted that though “Hannity pushed the theory the loudest, … it was groups on Twitter -- or more specifically, bots on Twitter -- that were first to the story and helped make it huge”:
[T]he biggest problem with Twitter’s place in the news is its role in the production and dissemination of propaganda and misinformation. It keeps pushing conspiracy theories — and because lots of people in the media, not to mention many news consumers, don’t quite understand how it works, the precise mechanism is worth digging into.
We recently saw the mechanism in action when another baseless conspiracy theory rose to the top of the news: The idea that the murder last year of Seth Rich, a staff member at the Democratic National Committee, was linked, somehow, to the leaking of Clinton campaign emails. The Fox News host Sean Hannity pushed the theory the loudest, but it was groups on Twitter — or, more specifically, bots on Twitter — that were first to the story and helped make it huge.
Hannity’s obsession with Rich’s murder is a strong example of how this ecosystem shapes media narratives. Hannity has come under fire and lost a number of his advertisers for his relentless promotion of a conspiracy theory alleging that Rich’s 2016 murder was a result of his leaking DNC emails to WikiLeaks. Hannity’s promotion of the theory continued after Fox News retracted an online story making similar claims and after Rich’s family requested that Hannity stop pushing the story. Hannity has a long history of pushing conspiracy theories.
Manjoo quotes an expert on internet propaganda who said Twitter bots amplify groups’ messages and allow them to “use Twitter as a megaphone” and eventually “manufactur[e] consensus” for ideas. Manjoo contextualized how that works for conspiracy theories. First, groups take to message boards like Reddit or 4chan or Facebook groups to “decide on a particular message to push.” Then bots “flood the network, tweeting and retweeting thousands or hundreds of thousands of messages in support of the story.” These tweets often include a “branding hashtag” such as #sethrich. The report noted that “the initial aim isn’t to convince or persuade, but simply to overwhelm,” and that as stories become Trending Topics, reporters are forced to respond, thereby aiding the propagandists’ spread of the story even as media outlets debunk it. Others, like Hannity, pick up the weaponized disinformation, attempt to legitimize it, and put it on a larger platform like his prime-time Fox News show or radio program:
“Bots allow groups to speak much more loudly than they would be able to on any other social media platforms — it lets them use Twitter as a megaphone,” said Samuel Woolley, the director for research at Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Project. “It’s doing something that I call ‘manufacturing consensus,’ or building the illusion of popularity for a candidate or a particular idea.”
How this works for conspiracy theories is relatively straightforward. Outside of Twitter — in message boards or Facebook groups — a group will decide on a particular message to push. Then the deluge begins. Bots flood the network, tweeting and retweeting thousands or hundreds of thousands of messages in support of the story, often accompanied by a branding hashtag — #pizzagate, or, a few weeks ago, #sethrich.
The initial aim isn’t to convince or persuade, but simply to overwhelm — to so completely saturate the network that it seems as if people are talking about a particular story. The biggest prize is to get on Twitter’s Trending Topics list, which is often used as an assignment sheet for the rest of the internet.
I witnessed this in mid-May, just after the Fox affiliate in Washington reported that a private investigator for Mr. Rich’s family had bombshell evidence in the case. The story later fell apart, but that night, Twitter bots went with it.
Hundreds of accounts with few or no followers began tweeting links to the story. By the next morning, #SethRich was trending nationally on Twitter — and the conspiracy theory was getting wide coverage across the right, including, in time, Mr. Hannity.
[...]
Because they operate unseen, bots catalyze the news: They speed up the process of discovery and dissemination of particular stories, turning an unknown hashtag into the next big thing. A trending hashtag creates a trap for journalists who cover the internet: Even if they cover a conspiracy theory only to debunk it, they’re most likely playing into what the propagandists’ want.

Friday, August 01, 2014

Russell Brand rips Fox blowhard Sean Hannity over inflammatory Israel-Gaza coverage

By Scott Kaufman/Raw Story
In Russell Brand’s latest episode of The Trews, the British comedian attacks Sean Hannity for his hypocrisy when it comes to the subject of Israel.
Brand begins, however, on a lighter note, playing a clip from Hannity’s show and saying that the Fox News and syndicated radio host “looks like the Ken Doll from the Toy Story 3 film.” Moreover, “he has his name on a police badge in the corner of the screen, screaming ‘HANNITY!’”
He then continued his running commentary on the clip, in which Hannity asks why “is America’s largest Muslim so-called civil rights group [the Council on American–Islamic Relations or CAIR] showing sympathy to terrorists? Let’s have a debate.”
Brand then noted that Hannity was “already being unreasonable” in how he framed the debate. While most people “want peace,” Hannity “wants conflict — wants to know what things I should say to exacerbate the conflict.”
One of Hannity’s guests, Yousef Munayyer of the Jerusalem Fund & Palestine Center, then suggested to Hannity that peace might be achieved if Israel addressed the occupation of Palestinian territory, at which point the Fox News host insisted the debate be brought back to the 1948 petition plan and the 1973 war.
“Yes, let’s do that Sean,” Brand responded. “Because that’s the broader context. But he’s not going to actually talk about any of those things, because Sean’s not interested in truth — Hannity is only interested pushing a particular perspective.”
He then cuts back to the Hannity clip, in which Hannity does not, in fact, address the broader context, but repeatedly asks what Munayyer would do if people were firing missiles into his neighborhood. Munayyer responds that he’s going to try to answer Hannity’s question if Hannity would stop “asking it at him,” to which Hannity replies, “Good luck.”
Brand laughs at Hannity’s answer, then repeats it, “‘Good luck’! That’s right, good luck, mate answering Sean’s question, because Sean doesn’t want an answer. Sean wants to say more stuff while jabbing his finger aggressively!”
After playing another clip of Hannity shouting his guest down, Brand notes that “another thing Sean does is just use incendiary words. ‘Rockets!’ ‘Kidnapper!’ ‘Murder!’ ‘A little baby ducklingkicked in the face!’ These are just things that are bad.”
As the conversation on Hannity’s program continues to deteriorate, Brand remarks that Hannity’s not interested in learning about what would constitute progress in the Middle East, because he took a job at Fox News. Imitating Hannity, Brand yells, “I’m interested in shouting, and pointing, and simplifying things!”
When Hannity tires of yelling the same question his guest has already answered, he switches to his other guest, who like himself is pro-Israel. The guest immediately begins discussing the Palestinians using children as human shields, a fact whose veracity Brand disputes.
“Reports from Gaza say that they’re not using children as human shields,” he say, “those children are dying because there are missiles going off all over the place and Gaza’s only a little tiny area.”
“But even if they were,” Brand continued, “even if everyone was carrying around children literally strapped to wooden boards, using them as shields — they still wouldn’t die if it weren’t for the missiles. The key ingredient in the death of those children is the missile.”
He then returns to the clip at a point in which Munayyer attempts to get a word in. Hannity summarily dismisses him with an angry “Goodbye!” to which Brand responds, “one definition of terrorism is using intimidation to achieve your goals. Who in that situation was behaving like a terrorist?” he asks.
“Sean Hannity — that’s where the terrorism’s coming from.”
Watch the entire episode of Russell Brand’s The Trews below.

Friday, February 21, 2014

Hannity's Financial Ties To Tea Party Worse Than You Think

 ERIC HANANOKI/Media Matters For America:

Fox News is allowing Sean Hannity to promote the Tea Party Patriots on its airwaves even though the group is financially connected to the conservative host.
Huffington Post's Michael Calderone reported today that Hannity, who also hosts a Premiere Radio Networks program, has been fundraising for Tea Party Patriots (TPP) in emails, and "has also promoted the group's efforts on his Fox News program."  
TVNewser reported that in response to Calderone's report, "Fox News tells us Hannity's involvement with the Tea Party group is for his radio show, and has nothing to do with his FNC show or role with the network."
But Fox's response that TPP has "nothing to do" with Fox is disingenuous and a dodge of ethical standards. A Media Matters review found that Hannity has repeatedly done promotional tie-ins for TPP on radio and then promoted or hosted the group on his Fox News program.
For instance, Hannity did radio promos for TPP on July 31 and August 12. He then hosted TPP president Jenny Beth Martin on his Fox program Hannity on August 20, and September 9. Martin was also part of a "special audience edition" of Hannity on August 16. Fox even allowed Hannity to promote TPP's website HannityForSanity.com on August 1.  
Calderone reported that "Hannity made a passing reference to the Tea Party Patriots on his Fox News show" on February 19 in which Hannity said "The Tea Party Patriots are partners on my radio show." Calderone added that "was the only time on Fox News that Hannity has described Tea Party Patriots as a 'partner' of his radio program," according to Nexis.
In addition to his TPP email this week, Hannity sent an email on behalf of TPP on September 6 urging readers to "sign the National Petition to Exempt America from Obamacare right now. It's the very best way to help get rid of this horrible law before it goes into effect on October 1st." Hannity sent a TPP fundraising email in mid-December, writing that "If you've heard my radio show at all in the past few months, then you've probably heard me talk about the great Americans at Tea Party Patriots ... So please, make your monthly commitment right away." 
Though it's not clear how much Hannity is receiving for his Tea Party Patriots promotions -- representatives for Martin, TPP, and Hannity didn't respond to comment requests from Calderone --  Hannity received big money for prior promotions for another conservative group.
Politico reported in 2011 that the Heritage Foundation paid $1.3 million to Hannity's program for "promotional tie-ins, as well as regular on-air plugs - praising or sometimes defending the groups, while urging listeners to donate - often woven seamlessly into programming in ways that do not seem like paid advertising."
Fox News previously forced Hannity to cancel a taping of a 2010 Fox News show at a Cincinnati Tea Party event because it charged admission and had "all proceeds" benefiting the organization. At the time Fox portrayed themselves to media as "furious" with Hannity.
Here are four recent examples of Hannity's radio promotional tie-ins:
Hannity Tea Party Patriots Promotion, 2/17/14. Hannity told his listeners to "take action" against the IRS and its alleged targeting of conservative groups by going to TPP's website PatriotsAnniversary.com.

Hannity Tea Party Patriots Promotion, 1/20/14. Hannity told listeners to show "leftists" that conservatives won't be intimidated by visiting TeaPartyPatriots.org and joining the group because "we need you."

Hannity Tea Party Patriots Promotion, 8/12/13. Hannity integrated a promotion for The Tea Party Patriots into his program while criticizing former IRS official Lois Lerner and the Obama administration. Hannity said he's supporting the Tea Party Patriots and urged listeners to go to HannityForSanity.com.
Hannity Tea Party Patriots Promotion, 7/31/13. Hannity claimed that the IRS is intimidating tea partiers and his "friends" at the Tea Party Patriots are creating TV ads but they need help to get them aired. Hannity then directed listeners to HannityForSanity.com to donate "whatever you can afford" so "we" can get those ads up.

Thursday, August 08, 2013

Sean Hannity Conned Into Thinking "Scam Artist" Is A Scientist

SHAUNA THEEL/Media Matters For America:

Sean Hannity promoted a claim that dangerous "global cooling" is coming, adding sarcastically on his radio show, "I thought all scientists agreed on this -- apparently not." Sadly for Hannity, the claim did not come from a scientist -- in fact, it came from John Casey, a man that even climate "skeptics" labeled a "scam artist."
Here's a helpful list for Hannity to refer to next time he is looking for support:

6 Signs Your "Scientist" Might Not Be A Scientist

  1. They didn't earn an advanced degree in science.
  2. They have never published a single peer-reviewed paper in the area that they claim to be an "exper[t]" in.
  3. They self-published their book with the help of an astrologer who claims that her mother told her on her death bed that that she was the illegitimate daughter of Ernest Hemingway.
  4. They brag that their organization predicting "decades of record cold weather" has a "dedicated list of 'Supporting Researchers'" ... then list seven  researchers, four of whom are also experts on the same "expert's" "Earth and Volcano Prediction" site and make no claim of climate expertise.
  5. They  claim that a news conference they held in 2008 that no one has ever heard of was "historic."
  6. They "Formally declar[e]" the end of sea level rise and set a "specific timetable for sea level decline" despite all the evidence to the contrary.
When 97 percent of climate scientists accept manmade global warming, it's no wonder that those in denial are getting desperate for an "expert."

Monday, August 05, 2013

Sean Hannity's Hour-Long Obamacare Special Ignores The Benefits Already Seen By Millions Of Americans

OLIVIA MARSHALL/Media Matters For America:
Sean Hannity hosted an hour-long special on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) titled "Universal Nightmare" that ignored the major benefits already in place thanks to the ACA.

Affordable Care Act Reduces The Federal Deficit

Congressional Budget Office: "The ACA Includes Many Other Provisions That, On Net, Will Reduce Federal Budget Deficits." The ACA includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce federal budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next decade." [Congressional Budget Office, 7/30/13]
CBO: Repealing Health Care Law "Would Increase Federal Budget Deficits By $109 Billion Over The 2013-2022 Period." In July 2012, the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation released a report finding that repealing the ACA would increase the deficit by $109 billion from 2013 to 2022:
On net, CBO and JCT estimate, repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $109 billion over the 2013-2022 period. Repealing the coverage provisions discussed in this report would save $1,171 billion over that period, but repealing the rest of the act would increase direct spending and reduce revenues by a total of $1,280 billion. [Congressional Budget Office, 7/24/12]

Affordable Care Act Saves Americans Money

Affordable Care Act Has Saved 6.1 Million Americans On Medicare Part D Over $5.7 Billion.  Since the ACA's enactment, 6.1 million Americans with Medicare who reached the Part D coverage gap ("donut hole") have saved over $5.7 billion on prescription drugs, according to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  The coverage gap will eventually close as coverage for brand name and generic drugs continues to increase:
·         Medicare beneficiaries are expected to save an average of $5,000 through 2022, with those with high prescription drug spending expected to save over $18,000.
·         In 2012, Medicare beneficiaries received more than $2.5 billion in discounts on prescription drugs, or an average of $706 per beneficiary.  Savings for covered generic drugs while in the "donut hole" in 2012 totaled $105 million for 2.8 million beneficiaries. [Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, February 2013]
HHS: 71 Million Americans Received Free Preventive Care In 2011 And 2012 Because Of ACA.  The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 71 million additional Americans received coverage for preventive care in 2011 and 2012 because of the ACA.  [Health and Human Services, March 2013]
Because Of The ACA, 105 Million Americans No Longer Have Lifetime Limits On Health Insurance Coverage.  HHS estimates that 105 million Americans who previously had lifetime limits on their health benefits prior to the passage of the ACA now enjoy coverage without lifetime limits. [Health and Human Services, March 2012]
Consumers Saved $1.5 Billion On Health Insurance Premium Costs in 2011.  According to a study by The Commonwealth Fund, the Affordable Care Act saved consumers $1.5 billion on out-of-pocket costs for health insurance premiums in 2011.  Most of the savings came from the ACA's requirement that 80 percent of all premium payments must be spent on actual health care.  [The Commonwealth Fund, December 2012]
ABC News: "An Estimated 8.5 Million Americans Will Receive Rebates From Their Health Insurers." ABC News reported that "[a]n estimated 8.5 million Americans will receive rebates from their health insurers this summer thanks to the Affordable Care Act, which says companies that fail to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on health care must refund the difference to consumers." [ABC News, 7/18/13]
In 2012, The ACA Saved Nearly 78 Million Americans $3.4 Billion On Health Insurance Premiums. In June 2013, McClatchy DC reported:
Nearly 78 million Americans saved $3.4 billion on their collective health insurance premiums in 2012, thanks to an Affordable Care Act provision that penalizes insurers for wasteful spending, the Obama administration announced Thursday.
The ACA's '80/20 rule,' which took effect in 2011, requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premium payments on medical care or quality improvements and no more than 20 percent on administrative costs and overhead. Companies that violate the rule must pay rebates to their customers. [McClatchy DC, 6/20/13] 
Law Is Driving Down Premiums In New York And Other States. The New York Times reported that the ACA is driving down the cost of some individual market premiums in multiple states, including New York, where they are expected to fall about 50 percent:
Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes under the federal health care law take effect, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced on Wednesday.
State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York. Beginning in October, individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly. With federal subsidies, the cost will be even lower.
[...]
Administration officials, long confronted by Republicans and other critics of President Obama's signature law, were quick to add New York to the list of states that appear to be successfully carrying out the law and setting up exchanges.
We're seeing in New York what we've seen in other states like California and Oregon -- that competition and transparency in the marketplaces are leading to affordable and new choices for families," said Joanne Peters, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services. [The New York Times, 7/16/13] 

Affordable Care Act Means More Americans Will Have Health Insurance

Since The ACA's Passage, 3.1 Million More Young Adults Have Insurance As A Result. In June 2012, Talking Points Memo reported:
Some 3.1 million young adults have health insurance as a result of the health care reform law, according to new figures released Tuesday by the Obama administration.
That's up from 2.5 million in December 2011, a similar report found then.
'Today, because of the health care law, more than 3 million more young adults have health insurance,' Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. 'This policy doesn't just give young adults and their families peace of mind, it also gives them freedom. It means that as they begin their careers, they will be free to make choices based on what they want to do, not on where they can get health insurance.' [Talking Points Memo, 6/19/12]
Medicaid Expansion Will Save Money For Participating States.  According to a study by the Rand Corporation published in Health Affairs, the 14 states opting out of the ACA's Medicaid expansion can expect 3.6 million fewer people insured, and "state spending on uncompensated care could increase by $1 billion in 2016, compared to what would be expected if all states participated in the expansion." [Health Affairs, June 2013]
CBO: Health Care Law "Reduces The Number Of People Without Health Insurance By 25 Million." In a May 2013 report, the CBO estimated that "for 2023, the ACA reduces the number of people without health insurance by 25 million." [Congressional Budget Office, 5/14/13]
New York Times: Law "Provides Generous Tax Credits To Small Businesses Struggling To Maintain Health Coverage." According to The New York Times, the ACA offers tax credits to small businesses to make employee coverage more affordable:
Beginning this year, the law provides generous tax credits to small businesses struggling to maintain health coverage.
[...]
To help close that gap, the government this year is offering a tax credit to companies with fewer than 25 full-time workers and average wages of less than $50,000 a year. To qualify, employers must pay at least 50 percent of their employees' health care premiums.
Small businesses with 10 full-time employees or fewer earning an average of $25,000 or less are eligible for the largest credit, 35 percent of their health insurance premium costs. Companies with larger numbers of employees earning more receive smaller credits on a sliding scale. [The New York Times, 9/17/10]

Affordable Care Act Ends Pre-Existing Conditions

Health Care Law Prohibits Insurers From Denying Coverage To Those With Pre-Existing Conditions.  Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers will be prohibited from charging higher premiums, limiting benefits, or denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions, starting in 2014.  The ACA also created the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) to provide immediate coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. As of January 2013, 107,000 Americans had enrolled in the plan. [Center for American Progress, 3/25/2013]
As Many As 122 Million Adults - 66% Of The Population - Reported Conditions That Could Be Classified As A Pre-Existing Condition. In March 2012, the Government Accountability Office reported:
Depending on the list of conditions used to define pre-existing conditions in each of the five estimates, GAO found that between 36 million and 122 million adults reported medical conditions that could result in a health insurer restricting coverage. This represents between 20 and 66 percent of the adult population, with a midpoint estimate of about 32 percent. The differences among the estimates can be attributed to the number and type of conditions included in the different lists of pre-existing conditions. For example, estimate 1, which is the lowest estimate, includes adults reporting that they had ever been told they had 1 or more of 8 conditions. Estimate 3, the midpoint estimate, includes any individual reporting they had one of over 60 conditions. Estimate 5, the highest estimate, includes any individual reporting a chronic condition in 2009." [Government Accountability Office,3/27/12]

Affordable Care Act Ends Discrimination Against Women In The Insurance Market

Prior To The ACA, Being The Victim Of Domestic Violence Or Sexual Assault Was Sometimes Considered A 'Preexisting Condition." In June 2012, The Daily Beast reported:
It's also common in today's market for insurers to refuse to cover women because of gender-based 'preexisting conditions.' These conditions can include issues such as having had breast cancer or a Caesarean section or having been a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault. This practice, too, will be outlawed under Obamacare in 2014." [The Daily Beast, 6/28/12] 
Prior To The ACA, Some Insurers Classified A C-Section As A "Preexisting Condition." In March 2012, the National Women's Law Center reported:
Insurers in the individual market have routinely denied coverage for 'preexisting conditions' that exclusively or primarily affect women. For example, insurers have deemed women to have a preexisting condition if they previously gave birth by Caesarean section; are pregnant at the time they seek coverage; survived domestic violence and received treatment related to abuse; or received medical treatment after sexual assault. The ACA prohibits this practice and requires insurers to sell insurance to anyone who wants to buy coverage (known as 'guaranteed issue')." [National Women's Law Center, 3/26/12]
Prior To The ACA, Some Women Were Charged More Than Men For The Same Health Coverage. The Affordable Care Act prohibits "gender rating," or charging women more than men for the same health coverage. According to the Center for American Progress, women pay $1 billion more than men every year for the same health plans in the individual market. [Center for American Progress, May 2012]