{"id":210435,"date":"2019-09-12T17:18:02","date_gmt":"2019-09-12T22:18:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=210435"},"modified":"2024-09-20T12:19:58","modified_gmt":"2024-09-20T17:19:58","slug":"facebook-fact-checker-more-abortion-advocates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/facebook-fact-checker-more-abortion-advocates\/","title":{"rendered":"Facebook ‘fact checker’ decides to add more abortion advocates to fact check of Live Action"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Health Feedback<\/a>, which is now being investigated<\/a> after recruiting two abortionist “fact checkers” to target the pro-life group Live Action, has added a third<\/strong> abortion advocate who has also admitted she previously committed abortions, to their list of dissenters to the claim that \u201cabortion is never medically necessary.\u201d The additional abortion “fact-checker” on the\u00a0site appeared the same day that\u00a0four\u00a0U.S. senators<\/a>\u00a0sent a\u00a0disapproval letter<\/a>\u00a0to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for allowing<\/a>\u00a0biased abortionists<\/a>\u00a0to \u201cfact check\u201d two Live Action videos.<\/p>\n

Following news about the\u00a0letter<\/a>, Facebook’s alleged third party group, the “International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN),” \u00a0— a unit of the Poynter Institute<\/a> which selected the Health Feedback site —\u00a0published<\/a> the statement below, announcing that it would be investigating Health Feedback for potentially “violating IFCN’s Code of Principles…to non-partisanship….”<\/p>\n

\"Image:

Poynter to investigate Health Feedback after abortionists targeted Live Action<\/p><\/div>\n

But Health Feedback appears to have dug in its heels, adding a statement by\u00a0Alexis Shub<\/a>, who is described as “Senior Lecturer, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne.”<\/p>\n

\"Image:

Health Feedback additional docs Sept 11<\/p><\/div>\n

Health Feedback’s editor,\u00a0Flora Teoh<\/a>, who\u00a0previously worked<\/a> with\u00a0Singapore\u00a0research company<\/a>\u00a0A*Star as a\u00a0\u201cpostdoctoral fellow in the\u00a0Humanised Mouse Unit<\/a>\u00a0at the Institute of Molecular and Cell<\/span>\u00a0Biology,\u201d even found another<\/em> abortionist to cite, writing, “Dr. Jen Gunter\u2019s\u00a0article<\/a>\u00a0explains in detail why a C-section for expedited delivery is not always safe for the mother (its safety is greatly dependent on her medical condition and the gestational age of the fetus), and why an abortion can sometimes be safer than a C-section.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Gunter, who recently tweeted<\/a> that “all abortions are needed,” stated, “I have been an OB\/GYN for 28 years and, including my residency, I provided abortion services for 16 of those years<\/strong>. I have not provided abortion services for the past 13 years.”\u00a0 \"Image:<\/p>\n

Jen Gunter all abortions are needed (Image: Twitter)<\/p>\n

Gunter added, in part:<\/p>\n

I am an OB\/GYN board certified in two countries. I did a 5 year residency in which I trained to do abortion up to about 24-25 weeks<\/strong>… For 3-4 of the 6 years that I practiced in Kansas there was no gestational age limit…. That means I could have done an abortion at any gestational age \u2014 even right up to the due date…. <\/em><\/p>\n

In general, we will offer a c-section at 24 weeks, but if it looks promising at 23 weeks and 2 days and based on the patient\u2019s wishes we may offer one that early. There are times at 25 or even 26 weeks where we recommend against a c-section and an abortion is offered….<\/em><\/p>\n