Well, that took a lot longer than we expected. We knew The New York Times would have some sort of hot take eventually on 44 Democratic senators voting to deny medical care to a newborn who survived a botched abortion, so they went with the old standby and pounced on President Trump’s “misleading” tweet about the vote.

Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth…. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 26, 2019

….This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 26, 2019

Yes, but here we are, disagreeing on protecting the lives of innocent babies. You can call them “babies” once they’re outside the womb, right?

OK, New York Times, do your thing:

Babies are rarely born alive after abortion procedures, and if they are, doctors do not kill them. These are the facts behind President Trump’s misleading tweet in the latest abortion battle. https://t.co/Jb4RVaj8fi — NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) February 28, 2019

Yes actually they do. — Facts Matter (@convoice) February 28, 2019

First off, what does it matter if babies are “rarely” born alive after abortion procedures? Mass shootings “rarely” occur and yet we have an entire party trying to ban semi-automatic weapons. Transgender students “rarely” are conflicted about which restroom to use. And for what it’s worth, Sen. Sasse’s bill was about those rare occurrences.

“Rarely born alive” Wow NYT is literally full of demons — John Papa (@papajohnilduce) February 28, 2019

And yet this tweet provides no evidence as to why the bill should have failed. Saying something rarely happens isn’t a reason that this legislation shouldn’t become law — JJ Mitch (@JJMitch234) February 28, 2019

If this is true what's the worry of just signing the damn bill anyway — PappaTiger72 (@PappaTiger722) February 28, 2019

If thats true then why vote against forcing the doctors to protect them? — Reigning Ruffa (@rufFAGgucherez) February 28, 2019

So why did the Democrats vote against a bill protecting these babies? — Annais Bond (@AnnaisBond) February 28, 2019

So why vote against a bill protecting them? — Banners (@bannersquest) February 28, 2019

Because it chips away at women’s reproductive rights, silly.

Rare, in this case, still means hundreds of times a year. It’s FAR more likely that a baby will survive an abortion than a child will die in a school shooting. — Tyler (@Tyler_The_Wise) February 28, 2019

Only the NYT would try to portray refusing standard medical care to living infants as an acceptable and mainstream position. https://t.co/1oFwVWBb0J — (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) February 28, 2019

How can you work for the NYTimes and not know what Northam said, which kicked all this off? He specifically talked about newborns being born and then a discussion on what to do with them. This is why youre fake news. — Noah (@reeb1011) February 28, 2019

So why exactly did we just have morons vote on a bill about this? I really want to know what kind of an animal is OK with killing babies, and why? — Cyrus Paice (@cyru5paice) February 28, 2019

Don't you mean 'clump of cells' or are you admitting that many abortions are done at a late stage? Or that fetus actually means *having recognizable features of a human and all organs formed* — WhigsnTwigs (@WhigsnTwigs) February 28, 2019

"rarely born alive" I guess that's okay then! As long as they're just rarely murdered after they're already born and alive! Hopefully they're kept comfortable! — Kevin ?? (@krobinson_3232) February 28, 2019

Letting them suffocate to death is killing them. — Easton Croy (@CroyEaston) February 28, 2019

Withholding care is killing

It’s not an abortion issued – they are born

The number is irrelevant

You folks will do anything to launder for the death cult — Progressive GOP (@NixonandIke) February 28, 2019

Do doctors actively kill a baby that survives an abortion? Do they slice a spinal cord? But the question is, would denying a baby that survives an abortion necessary medical care be the same as killing them? Yes, it would be — Chris McAllister ❌ (@themanfronUNCLE) February 28, 2019

Doctors let the children die, they don't strangle them to death. This is not equal to providing life saving care after a child is born alive. Which is what the Bill would have mandated. A living child gasping for breath would be required to have medical care given. — AshSolesFromTheFire (@ashsoles) February 28, 2019

Failure to act where you have an affirmative and legal duty to act… That is the same as if they literally killed them themselves. — Michael F. Wunderli (@ReasonWrite) February 28, 2019

So "NYT Politics" is OK with refusing medical care for a living infants . — max townsend (@MaxCajun) February 28, 2019

Perhaps the NYT could explain how an extremely similar bill was UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED back in 2002? What changed? The answer is this, Democrats moved the goalposts on what is a life. Now being completely separate from the mother is not sacred, and that life is “debatable “ — Mailman ? (@_Mailman_) February 28, 2019

And breaking spin… an illegal immigrant confined by ICE gave birth to a "stillborn premature baby"…. not a fetus? Alas, if it was an American Woman choosing to abort a 40 week old LIVE creature, it becomes a "fetus"… #AllLivesMatter — Patty Meisenholder (@PMeisenholder) February 28, 2019

Interesting terminology…rarely born “alive” after abortion…so they are alive before then? Either way lives are being taken but yes, let’s try and find fault with a Trump tweet — Jtwon (@Jtwon_logic) February 28, 2019

Nope. Not buying this “safe and rare” line of incrementalism again. Been there, done that. — ?? (@RelevantMom) February 28, 2019

Wrong. Babies do survive abortions. Ask this woman. She survived. And she’s not alone. https://t.co/5txQtAoHf0 — ????America First ???? (@my2pitbullz) February 28, 2019

And thank goodness someone gave her medical care after she survived!! Oftentimes they do not!! — ????America First ???? (@my2pitbullz) February 28, 2019

We’re certain The New York Times is sending a reporter and photographer to her home right now to get the story.

Related: