Nearly a month after making a significant error in a story on late-term abortion, the New York Times has finally issued a correction.
In a May 13 New York Times story on a House-passed bill that protects the lives of unborn children during the final four months of pregnancy, the Times reported: “Prohibiting most abortions 20 weeks after fertilization would run counter to the Supreme Court’s standard of fetal viability, which is generally put at 22 to 24 weeks after fertilization.” THE WEEKLY STANDARD noted on May 13 that this statement was false–the legislation bans abortion starting the same week when some infants survive long-term if born prematurely.
But it took the Times until Friday, June 5, to delete that erroneous sentence and publish this correction:
“Because of an editing error, an article on May 14 about the House’s recent approval of a ban on most abortions 20 weeks after fertilization misstated the Supreme Court’s position on a general standard of fetal viability. Although the court has said that women have a right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, it has not said that viability occurs “22 to 24 weeks after fertilization.”
The Times correction is significant because opponents
Doesn’t go so far:
Curious that the Times reported on 22 weeks:
error was the result of confusing two different dating systems.
“I am aware of nothing whatever to suggest that the Supreme Court has ever had anything in mind other than weeks of pregnancy (LMP). That is the language of the litigants in abortion cases — ob-gyns, abortion providers, abortion advocacy groups. What they’ve had to say about viability makes a sloppy kind of sense in LMP terms but would make no sense in terms of fetal age. And so forth. Really, I am not aware of anybody who disputes this.
“potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid”
Common error:
What the Supreme Court held:
Saletan: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/fetal_pain_at_20_weeks_the_pain_capable_unborn_child_protection_act_will.html
Roe:
Casey: “The soundness or unsoundness of that constitutional judgment in no sense turns on whether viability occurs at approximately 28 weeks, as was usual at the time of Roe, at 23 to 24 weeks, as it sometimes does today, or at some moment even slightly earlier in pregnancy, as it may if fetal respiratory capacity can somehow be enhanced in the future.” “The viability line also has, as a practical matter, an element of fairness. In some broad sense it might be said that a woman who fails to act before viability has consented to the State’s intervention on behalf of the developing child.”
“I am aware of nothing whatever to suggest that the Supreme Court has ever had anything in mind other than weeks of pregnancy (LMP). That is the language of the litigants in abortion cases — ob-gyns, abortion providers, abortion advocacy groups. What they’ve had to say about viability makes a sloppy kind of sense in LMP terms but would make no sense in terms of fetal age. And so forth. Really, I am not aware of anybody who disputes this. Moreover, most abortion-related laws, if they speak in terms of the weeks, explicitly or implicitly utilize that system as well.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/house-democrat-falsely-claims-babies-born-20-weeks-arent-viable_733894.html
You’re no longer asserting a “mere” right to “end a pregnancy”–which necessarily results in the death of the child. After viability it is possible to terminate a pregnancy without killing the child. When you are defending the right to post-viability abortions you are not defending the mere right to “end a pregnancy”–you are asserting a right to a dead baby. defending the right to a dead baby.
Significant that they acknowledge: “we are always eager to set the record straight”
On May 15, Brock wrote in an email that it didn’t need a correction:
We didn’t say anything about viability. We gave a Supreme Court definition in order to add context. Here is what Emmarie wrote:
Prohibiting most abortions 20 weeks after fertilization would run counter to the Supreme Court’s standard of fetal viability, which is generally put at 22 to 24 weeks after fertilization. We don’t claim anything about viability. I see nothing to correct on this.
I replied to Brock:
Brock replied:
I replied to Brock:
Brock did not reply, so I’m not entirely sure why the Times corrected its error three weeks after it was first notified of the fact. TBrock didn’t respond to an email Monday asking what convinced the Times to issue a correction, but
It’s kind of pathetic that the Times needs to wait for the Washington Post to explain
In this space, I noted on May 13 that the New York Times had made an error in asserting that the federal late-term abortion ban would take effect two weeks prior
The Times problem is that it had confused two different, valid ways to measure the age of an unborn child.
Washington Post and New York Times
Significant: One of their primary objections. … The Times wasn’t the first to do make this common mistake:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-york-times-falsely-reports-babies-born-20-weeks-after-conception-arent-viable_945648.html
–NYT corrected
–Why it’s important
–Belated spurred by Washington Post and NYT?
–Relate the
–end with Kennedy quote?
