BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Confirmation Bias, and In-Group Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.4% saturation with 125 hits. Analysis detected 1,226 faulty-reasoning hits from 763 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.7% and a BS Rank of 29% (20,728 of 28,846 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 71.90% of the article peer group.

Leaders in an East San Jose school district have delayed approving a contract with a controversial healthcare provider to teach students relationship skills. 
At a special meeting Tuesday, the Alum Rock Union School District board of trustees voted 3-2 to postpone approving a two-year contract with RealOptions Obria to help give sixth grade students the skills to build healthy relationships and strengthen character. 
RealOptions runs a chain of crisis pregnancy centers in Northern California that oppose abortions  and is included in a lawsuit from the state for providing false information. 
Board President Linda Chavez, Vice President Andres Quintero and Trustee Minh Pham voted in favor of the delay to allow the board time to review information about RealOptions following public outcry. 
Trustees Corina Herrera-Loera and Minh Nguygen voted against it because they had wanted to discuss the contract at the meeting and allow for input from community members. 
“I’d like to learn a little bit more about RealOptions before making the decision at this time,” Pham said at the meeting. 
“In the interest of this community I think that it is appropriate to hold the item.” 
Herrera-Loera wanted to pull the contract from the consent calendar  where multiple items are approved without discussion in a single vote  for the board to discuss. 
East San Jose school district hires new superintendent 
East San Jose school district hires superintendent for one month 
Santa Clara County DA looks into alleged misuse of school funds 
“As an elected trustee, I believe our district has a responsibility to partner with organizations that provide evidence-based, medically accurate and inclusive services that meet the needs of all students and families,” she told San José Spotlight. 
“This proposal deserves a transparent public discussion.” 
Several people from the American Association of University Women San Jose came to the meeting because they were concerned about RealOptions. 
“We’re concerned about their credibility. 
We’re concerned about their ultra-conservative religious affiliation, the fact that they support abstinence education, which has been proven ineffective in study after study,” Susan Karlins, the group’s co-chair for public policy, told San José Spotlight. 
“We’re disappointed that we weren’t able to provide input, although we did send the letter along with many other community organizations.” 
In September 2023, the California Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Heartbeat International, a national anti-abortion group, and RealOptions Obria. 
The ongoing lawsuit alleges they used fraudulent and misleading claims to advertise abortion pill reversal. 
“While those allegations have not been adjudicated, I do not believe it is appropriate for our district to enter into a partnership with an organization facing such serious claims,” Herrera-Loera told San José Spotlight. 
“Our students and families deserve trusted community partners whose mission and practices reflect our district’s commitment to student well-being, equity and access to accurate health information.” 
Representatives for RealOptions did not respond to a request for comment. 
Veronica Amador, a parent and community leader in the district, said it’s important that parents are involved in decisions affecting their children, especially with health related topics. 
She said she went to a RealOptions clinic as a pregnant teenager  and from its name expected to be provided with options. 
“They were like, ‘There’s no option. 
How could you not give birth to this child? 
Your option is to become a mom. 
And this is what God wants you to do,'” she told San José Spotlight. 
“As a teen looking for options  I was never given that opportunity. 
I don’t want anybody to be put in the position where they’re not given all of the information to make the best decisions for themselves and their health.” 
Some community members questioned why Alum Rock Union School District considered working with RealOptions when there are local groups that could carry out the same work for students. 
Victor Vasquez, co-executive director of SOMOS Mayfair, said organizations such as Next Door Solutions, YWCA or the Santa Clara County Public Health Department, which have done work around violence prevention and positive relationships, would be better choices to teach these topics in schools. 
“There are better organizations that are also neutral on certain issues, that can provide services,” he told San José Spotlight. 
“If we’re dealing with unhealthy relationships and those topics are coming up, they can provide wraparound services for students.” 
Contact Lorraine Gabbert at lorrainegabbertsjspotlight@gmail.com. 
Story updated Aug. 4 at 7:43 p.m. 
Original story published Aug. 4 at 12 p.m. 
The post UPDATE: East San Jose school district delays controversial health contract appeared first on San José Spotlight . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.2%Lorraine Gabbert: 2.0%Mountain View Voice: 1.9%Confirmation Bias12.2%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Lorraine Gabbert: 2.1%Mountain View Voice: 2.1%Availability Heuristic9.4%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.5%Mountain View Voice: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias2.9%This article: 12.6%Lorraine Gabbert: 2.1%Mountain View Voice: 2.7%Framing Effect12.6%This article: 3.4%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.6%Mountain View Voice: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.4%This article: 3.5%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.6%Mountain View Voice: 0.5%Status Quo Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 1.8%Mountain View Voice: 2.6%Optimism Bias6.0%This article: 6.2%Lorraine Gabbert: 1.0%Mountain View Voice: 1.4%Pessimism Bias6.2%This article: 16.4%Lorraine Gabbert: 2.7%Mountain View Voice: 3.0%Negativity Bias16.4%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Lorraine Gabbert: 1.9%Mountain View Voice: 1.4%In-Group Bias11.4%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.8%Mountain View Voice: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 1.4%Mountain View Voice: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.9%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.2%Mountain View Voice: 0.6%Recency Bias0.9%This article: 5.2%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.9%Mountain View Voice: 0.1%Primacy Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.8%Mountain View Voice: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.4%Lorraine Gabbert: 1.9%Mountain View Voice: 1.4%Appeal to Authority9.4%This article: 5.6%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.9%Mountain View Voice: 0.8%False Dilemma5.6%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.3%Lorraine Gabbert: 2.2%Mountain View Voice: 2.3%Hasty Generalization3.3%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.5%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.9%Mountain View Voice: 0.6%Bandwagon5.5%This article: 6.7%Lorraine Gabbert: 2.3%Mountain View Voice: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion6.7%This article: 4.5%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.7%Mountain View Voice: 0.5%Begging the Question4.5%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.6%Lorraine Gabbert: 1.7%Mountain View Voice: 0.5%Burden of Proof5.6%This article: 2.5%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.4%Mountain View Voice: 0.1%Appeal to Nature2.5%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.4%Lorraine Gabbert: 4.0%Mountain View Voice: 1.7%Anecdotal9.4%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 4.6%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.8%Mountain View Voice: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy4.6%This article: 0.7%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.2%Mountain View Voice: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.7%This article: 0.8%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.5%Mountain View Voice: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.8%This article: 4.8%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.8%Mountain View Voice: 0.9%Biased Writer Voice4.8%This article: 7.1%Lorraine Gabbert: 1.5%Mountain View Voice: 1.0%Indoctrination7.1%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.8%Mountain View Voice: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lorraine Gabbert: 0.0%Mountain View Voice: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

763 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers49%attributed speech388writer words
Selected voice

Susan Karlins

100%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words11% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Unattributed Quote+12.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Susan Karlins: 12.5%12.5%Biased Writer Voice-9.5 ptsWriter: 9.5%Susan Karlins: 0.0%0.0%

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.