The internet has allowed an untold amount of freedom in the sharing of information – good and bad. A positive note is that it has broken the stranglehold traditional media (and even academia) has had on populations worldwide. Recognizing this, many liberal groups began to play the information game, attempting to discredit certain articles and ideas. While fact-checking is a noble goal, when one is biased by a worldview and does not recognize this, trouble is present and reliability is gone.  Consider Snopes. Snopes is alleged to be one of the premier fact-checking sites, having connections to Google, Facebook, and a host of other online platforms. But Snopes regularly takes a hatchet to the truth, as shown in their coverage of the NY’s 2019 Reproductive Health Act. There, the fact-checkers stated:

The enactment of the RHA was characterized by some outlets, such as the pro-life website LifeNews as “a radical pro-abortion bill that would allow unborn babies to be aborted for basically any reason up to birth.”
In fact, the new law primarily allows for abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy without restriction, and after the 24th week under certain conditions.

But as LifeNews shows (and any person reasonably in-touch with actual law on the matter knows), restrictions on abortion post 24 weeks are non-existent. LifeNews explains:

“Health” exceptions for abortion, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton, cover basically any situation. In Doe, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, the court ruled that “all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the wellbeing of the patient” may be considered as “health” exceptions for late-term abortions.
Snopes did not provide any evidence to contest this. It did not even mention the court definition to its readers. Nor did it link to LifeNews.com reports or include us in its list of references so people could determine the truth for themselves.

Snopes continues the run-around on their own site. The facts are easy when you make them up.

This is not the only time Snopes has been wrong. Just prior to this article, Snopes issued a defense of now-disgraced provocateur Nathan Phillips, who not only seemingly assaulted a 16-year old boy at the recent March for Life, but attempted to interrupt Mass at the nearby Cathedral-Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, prompting guards to lock the doors.

Snopes has botched (or lied) concerning the hilariously inaccurate Times Magazine cover with the crying illegal immigrant girl and Trump towering over her. It’s staffed by hacks like Kim Lacapria who have a proven track-record driving left. Snopes can’t even fact-check photos right.

Just because someone self-assigns themselves the label of fact-checker doesn’t mean they know fact from falsehood. In this age of information, one needs to have that ever in mind.