NYT Tries To Fact Check Trump’s Tweet on Abortion, Immediately Ends Up Backfiring on Twitter
In light of the recent fierce discussion over late-term and even post-birth abortions, Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse introduced a bill called the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would require doctors and medical personnel to make all efforts to save the life of a baby that survived an attempted abortion, rather than kill it or stand idly by while it died naturally.
Incredibly, that bill failed to achieve the necessary votes for passage on Monday, according to The Daily Wire, after only three Democrats joined with Republicans to vote in favor of saving an abortion survivor’s life, while 44 other Senate Democrats heartlessly voted against the measure.
In response to that grotesque and disheartening outcome, President Donald Trump excoriated Democrats in a pair of fiery tweets Monday evening, calling the left “extreme” for being in favor of “executing babies” after they had been born.
Trump tweeted, “Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth.”
He added, “This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”
As if on cue, The New York Times set about the next day with an attempt to “fact check” the president’s outraged tweets, but that effort failed in rather stunning fashion — at least on social media.
Just scroll down through the overwhelmingly negative comments on the tweet from The Times.
Babies are rarely born alive after abortion procedures, and if they are, doctors do not kill them. These are the facts behind President Trump’s misleading tweet in the latest abortion battle. nyti.ms/2TjTlV0
511 people are talking about this
The article from The Times glossed over what the bill would actually do — “require doctors to use all means available to save the life of a child born alive after an attempted abortion” — while highlighting criticism from opponents who falsely claimed the measure was “aimed at discouraging doctors from performing legal abortions.”
The article also argued that the bill was redundant due to a 2002 law known as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, though they failed to mention that prior law had no teeth for enforcement.
The Times article then quoted a couple doctors who insisted that babies surviving attempted abortions “hardly ever happens,” and provided various facts and figures about the age of infant viability to support the notion that late-term abortions are exceedingly rare — around 1 percent of all abortions — without mentioning that the 1 percent is still in the ballpark of around 10,000 such deadly procedures per year.
Yet, the Times admitted near the end of the article that aborted babies sometimes are born alive, and that doctors and patients will allow the baby to die naturally, all while being kept “comfortable” — echoing what Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said in early February.
The article also admitted in the eighth paragraph, “The bill would force doctors to resuscitate such an infant, even if the parents did not want those measures.”
Countless users wondered why Democrats would vote against the bill if the issue the bill addressed was truly so “rare” and uncommon, as if that were indeed the case, a vote in favor of it really wouldn’t matter.
One user referenced Gov. Northam’s despicable commentary, and tweeted, “How can you work for the NYTimes and not know what Northam said, which kicked all this off? He specifically talked about newborns being born and then a discussion on what to do with them. This is why you’re fake news.”
Still another user hinted at Northam’s remarks and noted, “‘rarely born alive’ I guess that’s okay then! As long as they’re just rarely murdered after they’re already born and alive! Hopefully they’re kept comfortable!”
There isn’t near enough room here to include all of the saddened or snarky replies to The Times, but suffice it to say, the effort to “fact check” the president’s righteous and justified anger while defending Democrats voting against saving the life of newborn infants did not go over well, at all.
Well, that took a lot longer than we expected. We knew The New York Times would have some sort of hot take eventually on 44 Democratic senators voting to deny medical care to a newborn who survived a botched abortion, so they went with the old standby and pounced on President Trump’s “misleading” tweet about the vote.
Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth....
113K people are talking about this
....This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.
78.9K people are talking about this
Yes, but here we are, disagreeing on protecting the lives of innocent babies. You can call them “babies” once they’re outside the womb, right?
OK, New York Times, do your thing:
Babies are rarely born alive after abortion procedures, and if they are, doctors do not kill them. These are the facts behind President Trump’s misleading tweet in the latest abortion battle. nyti.ms/2TjTlV0
511 people are talking about this
First off, what does it matter if babies are “rarely” born alive after abortion procedures? Mass shootings “rarely” occur and yet we have an entire party trying to ban semi-automatic weapons. Transgender students “rarely” are conflicted about which restroom to use. And for what it’s worth, Sen. Sasse’s bill was about those rare occurrences.
And yet this tweet provides no evidence as to why the bill should have failed. Saying something rarely happens isn’t a reason that this legislation shouldn’t become law
See JJ Mitch's other Tweets
If this is true what's the worry of just signing the damn bill anyway
See PappaTiger72's other Tweets
If thats true then why vote against forcing the doctors to protect them?
See Reigning Ruffa's other Tweets
So why did the Democrats vote against a bill protecting these babies?
See Annais Bond's other Tweets
Because it chips away at women’s reproductive rights, silly.
Rare, in this case, still means hundreds of times a year. It’s FAR more likely that a baby will survive an abortion than a child will die in a school shooting.
See Tyler's other Tweets
Only the NYT would try to portray refusing standard medical care to living infants as an acceptable and mainstream position.
311 people are talking about this
How can you work for the NYTimes and not know what Northam said, which kicked all this off?
He specifically talked about newborns being born and then a discussion on what to do with them.
This is why youre fake news.
See Noah's other Tweets
So why exactly did we just have morons vote on a bill about this? I really want to know what kind of an animal is OK with killing babies, and why?
See Cyrus Paice's other Tweets
Don't you mean 'clump of cells' or are you admitting that many abortions are done at a late stage? Or that fetus actually means *having recognizable features of a human and all organs formed*
See WhigsnTwigs's other Tweets
"rarely born alive"
I guess that's okay then! As long as they're just rarely murdered after they're already born and alive! Hopefully they're kept comfortable!
See Kevin 
's other Tweets
's other Tweets
Withholding care is killing
It’s not an abortion issued - they are born
The number is irrelevant
You folks will do anything to launder for the death cult
See Progressive GOP's other Tweets
Do doctors actively kill a baby that survives an abortion? Do they slice a spinal cord?
But the question is, would denying a baby that survives an abortion necessary medical care be the same as killing them?
Yes, it would be
See Chris McAllister 
's other Tweets
's other TweetsDoctors let the children die, they don't strangle them to death. This is not equal to providing life saving care after a child is born alive. Which is what the Bill would have mandated. A living child gasping for breath would be required to have medical care given.
See AshSolesFromTheFire's other Tweets
Failure to act where you have an affirmative and legal duty to act... That is the same as if they literally killed them themselves.
See Michael F. Wunderli's other Tweets
So "NYT Politics" is OK with refusing medical care for a living infants .
See max townsend's other Tweets
Perhaps the NYT could explain how an extremely similar bill was UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED back in 2002? What changed? The answer is this, Democrats moved the goalposts on what is a life. Now being completely separate from the mother is not sacred, and that life is “debatable “
See Mailman 
's other Tweets
's other TweetsAnd breaking spin... an illegal immigrant confined by ICE gave birth to a "stillborn premature baby".... not a fetus? Alas, if it was an American Woman choosing to abort a 40 week old LIVE creature, it becomes a "fetus"... #AllLivesMatter
See Patty Meisenholder's other Tweets
Interesting terminology...rarely born “alive” after abortion...so they are alive before then? Either way lives are being taken but yes, let’s try and find fault with a Trump tweet
See Jtwon's other Tweets
Nope. Not buying this “safe and rare” line of incrementalism again. Been there, done that.
See 𝓜𝓮's other Tweets
Wrong. Babies do survive abortions. Ask this woman. She survived. And she’s not alone. giannajessen.com
See America First 's other Tweets
America First 's other TweetsAnd thank goodness someone gave her medical care after she survived!! Oftentimes they do not!!
See America First 's other Tweets
America First 's other Tweets
We’re certain The New York Times is sending a reporter and photographer to her home right now to get the story.
