Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2022-05-10 11:21:30 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: A30E23B01F927C4387616E33DE422C96B4F9A9B45B8ACA619267391F3D77B5A8
Participant Details

Original Note:

This is a previous debunked story. The Supreme Court did not consider the circumstances of the plaintiff’s pregnancy when ruling on the case. Jane Roe's lawyers never mentioned an alleged rape in court, and it formed no part of their legal argument. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/06/facebook-posts/contrary-claim-rape-never-mentioned-roe-v-wade-pro/ https://apnews.com/article/archive-fact-checking-5473330059 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/politics/2013/02/norma-mccorvey-roe-v-wade-abortion

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1523803109977321477
  • participantId - A30E23B01F927C4387616E33DE422C96B4F9A9B45B8ACA619267391F3D77B5A8
  • raterParticipantId -
  • createdAtMillis - 1652181690103
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1523803109977321477A30E23B01F927C4387616E33DE422C96B4F9A9B45B8ACA619267391F3D77B5A8