Is abortion ever medically necessary?
Reuters Fact Check addressed that question back in late 2021 but committed a fallacy of equivocation in its fact check (documented here in detail). On July 30, 2022, Zebra Fact Check asked Reuters Fact Check for a correction of its fallacious reasoning. After over a week of apparent inaction from Reuters Fact Check, Zebra Fact Check sent a complaint to the International Fact-Checking Network alleging Reuters failed to follow an open and honest corrections policy in this case.
Dear International Fact-Checking Network,
Reuters Fact Check made an error in a fact check on the subject of abortion. I sent a correction request to Reuters Fact Check, following its instructions for a correction request.
After over a week’s time, Reuters Fact Check made no apparent effort to fix its error and provided no explanation for its failure to act.
Details:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in oral arguments before the Supreme Court, asked where “the life of the woman and putting her at risk, enter the calculus?” in regulating abortion.
So-called “anti-abortion” activist Alexandra DeSanctis Marr answered Sotomayor with the traditional understanding of “abortion” that “anti-abortionists” oppose: elective abortion. “Anti-abortionists” do not consider a procedure done to save the life of the mother a procedure used to deliberately kill the embryo or fetus.
Reuters Fact Check ignored the operative definition DeSanctis Marr used in her tweet and contradicted it for purposes of the “False” ruling using a different definition of “abortion.” That’s a fallacy of equivocation. Fallacious reasoning has no rightful place in fact-checking.
Instead of equivocating, the fact checkers should have explained to readers the multiple ways “abortion” may be understood, placed the original claim in its proper context, and explained how DeSanctis Marr’s claim might mislead people if taken out of context.
I emailed that information to Reuters Fact Check on July 30, 2022. As of Aug. 11, 2022, Reuters Fact Check made no apparent effort to correct or justify its error. That inaction, by any reasonable measure, counts as a failure to adhere scrupulously to an open and honest corrections policy.
If anyone at the IFCN reads this, I request an acknowledgment via email at zebrafactcheck@gmail.com, with the title of this document in the subject header. Thanks.