It took the New York Times 22 days to issue a correction after it incorrectly reported in May that the Supreme Court ruled that viability for an unborn child occurs “22 to 24 weeks after fertilization.”
The original Times article, titled “House Approves Revised Measure Banning Most Abortions After 20 Weeks,” appeared in print on May 14, 2015.
The correction was not issued until June 5, 2015.
In the original version of the story, the Times reported that, “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.”
This is not quite accurate.
The Supreme Court affirmed in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that a woman has a right to an abortion until an unborn child is viable outside of the womb, and said “viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.” The court never stated that viability occurs “22 to 24 weeks after fertilization.”
If the Times was trying to make the case that the House bill was trying to re-write Supreme Court precedent, they actually hurt their case, since the initial Times report put viability a few weeks closer to the 20 weeks in the House bill.
When the Times was notified of its inaccurate statement regarding the Supreme Court and viability, the newspaper initially stood by its reporting. “I see no need for a correction,” said Times Senior Editor Greg Brock.
The Times then had a change of heart and issued the correction. In a note on its website, the Times’ explained that its misreporting on the Supreme Court was due to an “editing error.”
Aside from that error, the paper also ignored evidence that at 20 weeks, “it’s possible for infants to survive long-term if they’re born prematurely,” the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack reported at the time.
A spokeswoman for the Times did not respond the Washington Examiner‘s request for comment.
