Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2022-05-10 00:06:38 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: B7E4290D734D3C74794D32534047AC8A8923FCD40B96214F87D9259EFF30DF31
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 - B7E4290D734D3C74794D32534047AC8A8923FCD40B96214F87D9259EFF30DF31
  • raterParticipantId -
  • createdAtMillis - 1652141198485
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • 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 - 1523803109977321477B7E4290D734D3C74794D32534047AC8A8923FCD40B96214F87D9259EFF30DF31