The New York Times has demonstrated on numerous occasions a willingness to bend or abandon the truth, especially when doing so might further leftists' political agendas.

The paper rushed, for instance, to print Hamas propaganda in October 2023, falsely suggesting that the Islamic Jihad rocket misfire that blew up a hospital in Gaza, killing hundreds, was actually an Israeli airstrike. The paper also did its apparent best last year to furnish Democrats with the misleading narrative they needed to launch attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices — reliant upon claims that even the Washington Post knew weren't worth a jot of ink. When President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20, setting the stage for mass-murdering Mexican cartels to be designated foreign terrorist organizations, the Times undermined its credibility again, suggesting that identifying and holding terrorists responsible for their actions might hurt the economy.

This is far from an exhaustive list. In fact, the Times — a paper compromised by the CIA during the Cold War — recently misled readers on another issue, claiming that President Donald Trump had misrepresented Democrats' aims regarding abortion.

Pro-life groups were quick to hammer the Times over its latest publication of fake news and its corresponding attempt to obfuscate a damning truth.

'The Times has an obligation to report this evidence.'

In a letter shared with Blaze News, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser told the executive and political editors of the New York Times that "while abortion remains an issue that evokes strong opinions, feelings, and reactions, such personal perceptions cannot overtake journalists' obligation to report fairly, accurately, and impartially."

Highlighting information the Times apparently decided to gloss over, Dannenfelser noted that "the Times has an obligation to report this evidence, cite the facts, and allow readers to come to their own conclusion without the interference of bias, omission, or misinformation that has often characterized your coverage of the issue."

'Debating any limitations around a federal right to abortion does not sit well with some key members of the Democratic Party.'

Among the articles Dannenfelser raised concern about was Times health policy writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg's Jan. 24 article, in which Stolberg stated that Trump "repeated false claims about abortion rights" in his video address to pro-life advocates at the 52nd March for Life, singling out his suggestion that Democrats are pushing "for a federal right to unlimited abortion on demand up to the moment of birth and even after birth."

Of course, to accept that Trump's assertion is false would mean discounting what Democrats have said and how they have voted in recent days and years.

NBC News, which Stolberg would apparently have readers believe was dealing in Trumpian falsehoods, noted in 2023 that some Democrats "insist on a sweeping national standard that goes beyond the one set by Roe v. Wade, which gave women the right to have an abortion before a fetus is considered viable and allowed states to set limitations for abortions after that time frame."

The same report noted that the "notion of debating any limitations around a federal right to abortion does not sit well with some key members of the Democratic Party, particularly reproductive rights advocates."

Multiple Democratic lawmakers have voted repeatedly to advance the so-called Women's Health Protection Act, which would codify a federal right to abortion with virtually no limitations or requirements, enabling health care providers, including incentivized abortionists, to end a child's life after fetal viability on the basis of a "good-faith medical judgment" that the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the mother's health.

National Review previously noted that the WHPA's chief sponsor in the Senate admitted that the bill "doesn't distinguish" between physical and mental health and that the legislation advises courts to "liberally construe" the provisions of the act. A risk to a mother's emotional state of mind could, therefore, potentially qualify as a risk to the mother's "health."

When asked whether he supports any limits on abortion, Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, one of the many Democratic lawmakers who championed the WHPA, responded, "I don't believe so, no."

Such legislation would put the nation on a path to emulating at least eight Democratic states plus Washington, D.C., where there are no restrictions on third-trimester abortions.

Per Trump's suggestion, Democrats similarly want to minimize protections for babies who initially survive abortionists' attempted executions.

'Double standards and a slant that consistently favors one political party erode whatever remains of the public's confidence.'

When the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act went to a vote on Jan. 23, a total of 210 House Democrats voted against requiring health care practitioners to save babies who survive attempted abortions. Senate Democrats kept the sister bill from advancing a day earlier.

This is how the New York Times characterized the Democrat lawmakers' efforts to deprive abortion survivors of protection: "Senate Democrats blocked a Republican-written bill on Wednesday that could subject some doctors who perform abortions to criminal penalties, thwarting the G.O.P.'s first attempt to restrict reproductive rights since the party has secured its governing trifecta."

"The facts are in President Trump's favor," Dannenfelser said in her letter. "Democrats have not been shy about also publicly stating their support for abortion at any stage and without limits. A long list of Democrats, ranging from Senators John Fetterman, Mark Kelly, and Patty Murray, to Governor Katie Hobbs and former Governor Ralph Northam have refused to name a point before birth at which they think abortion should be limited."

"It's clear to us and to many other readers that the Times isn't just reporting on a debate but taking a side, placing its thumb on the scale in favor of the pro-abortion argument," continued the pro-life advocate. "As editors, you know well that these intentional word choices matter. The facts matter. Truth matters. Double standards and a slant that consistently favors one political party erode whatever remains of the public's confidence in legacy news publications."

Blaze News reached out to Stolberg, asking her to clarify what precisely Trump had said in the above quote that was false. The Times reporter did not respond by deadline.

The conservative nonprofit CatholicVote was among the other groups and pro-life advocates that blasted the Times for its "false reporting," stating, "Uh, @nytimes, Democrats literally just voted against giving medical care to babies who survive botched abortions and can't name a single abortion limit they support."

Tim Graham, executive editor of MRC's NewsBusters, stated, "America's most prestigious newspapers routinely paint pro-lifers as extreme. They can't seem to locate themselves on the opposite extreme. Is it because they consider themselves the moral center? Extending the 'right to choose' to terminate babies ... born alive may seem logical to them. But it defines a radical fringe."

The apparent eagerness on the part of fellow travelers to mislead on Democrats' real objectives regarding abortion might be informed by polling showing that only a minority of Americans think abortion should be legal in all cases.

A 2024 Pew Research poll found that only 25% of Americans support the legality of abortion in all cases. A May 2024 Gallup poll found that 50% of respondents supported legal abortion, but only under certain circumstances. A previous Gallup poll found that only 22% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in the third trimester.

A Knights of Columbus-Marist poll revealed on Jan. 23 that 67% of Americans — including 55% of respondents who identified as "pro-choice" — said that limits should be placed on when abortion is allowed.

Emma Camp, an assistant editor at Reason, recently noted in the Atlantic, "The grim reality of later abortion is simply too much for most Americans to countenance — and reasonable policymakers should listen to them."

"Most Americans believe that third-trimester abortions should be restricted. If Democrats want a platform that truly reflects majority opinion, they should address the question of what to do about later abortions and adopt a position that protects abortions in the first trimester while limiting second- and third-trimester abortions to pregnancies with fetal abnormalities or maternal health crises," added Camp.

Democrats don't, however, appear keen to heed the concerns of Americans. Unwilling to abandon the promise of limitless abortion, they must rely on the media to gaslight the public about what they are really up to. Stolberg appeared more than willing to do her part.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!