Source: http://www.dennyburk.com/the-new-york-times-falsely-claims-the-president-misled-the-country-about-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:59:22+00:00

Document:
President Trump just finished his state of the union address moments ago. The speech was wide-ranging, but I have to say that his remarks about abortion were the most hard-hitting that I have ever heard in a state of the union address. He exposed the Democrats’ extremism on the issue by referencing their support for late-term abortion and (as in the case of the Governor of Virginia) their support for allowing some babies to die after birth.
Mr. Trump said that lawmakers in New York cheered the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth.
On Jan. 22, the 46th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat of New York, signed the Reproductive Health Act, which ensures a woman’s right to an abortion in New York if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned. It does not broadly allow abortions until shortly before birth, as Mr. Trump suggested. Instead, it will allow for an abortion after 24 weeks to protect the mother’s health or if the fetus is not viable. Under the prior law, abortions were allowed after 24 weeks only if the woman’s life was in jeopardy.
This is a prime example of why fact-checkers have to be fact-checked. The Times claims that the Reproductive Health Act “does not broadly allow abortions until shortly before birth.” Wrong! The new law actually does broadly allow abortions until shortly before birth. The President is not being misleading at all on this point, but the Times is being misleading to say that he is.
The “health” exception in New York’s law means that a woman can seek an abortion for virtually any reason through all nine months of pregnancy. The “health” exception as defined by Doe v. Bolton is why abortion-on-demand is the law of the land today. In fact, the law was designed to guarantee the same right to late-term abortion that Roe and Doe uphold in the event that they are overturned. The New York law accomplishes the same thing as Roe and Doe, and it does so by design. Everyone acknowledges this. Why can’t The New York Times?
The mainstream media needs to come to grips with the fact that their reporting on abortion is often so biased that they cannot even get their own “fact-checks” right. Until they do, they shouldn’t be surprised that about half the country is going to view them with justified incredulity.
The astonishing thing about this so-called “fact-check” is that it is self-contradictory. The Post claims that the law does not allow a baby to be “ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth.” But then in the same paragraph admits that the law does in fact allow late term abortions when they are necessary to protect a mother’s “health.” Again, the “health” exception has a broad definition because of the Supreme Court decision Doe v. Bolton. It is why the current law of the land allows for abortion through all nine months of pregnancy up to the point of birth.
Either the “fact-checkers” at the Post don’t know this, or they are deliberately concealing this fact. In either case, they have no business “fact-checking” the President’s correct statements if they don’t even understand the basic tenets of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
Indeed, democracy dies in darkness. Even worse, human beings die in the darkness fostered by “fact-checkers” who conceal the brutality of late-term abortion from their readers.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.