You jumped to insulting people's reading skills when they questioned something that was unclear in the article ("Oh you don’t understand paragraphs, I see.")

I responded because my numbers autism said "ah, I see. Velma doesn't get how the math doesn't math, let's make that clear so the world is less confusing."

If you'd just said "huh, yeah, the reporter could have worded that better" then this thread would have ended. Instead I think that you don't care that the math doesn't math and you're viewing attempts to figure out what the reporter meant the convey as attempts to call the interviewee a liar. I hadn't even considered that the interviewee might have been wrong about her life experience until you suggested it--it seems more likely that the reporter's article was unclear, especially since the "15 years" bit wasn't a direct quote.

I didn't comment on anything else in the article because I didn't think I had much to contribute on anything else. My stance is so obvious that what would I say on that that hasn't already been said? Here: "yeah, that's fucked up. I'm glad she's no longer incarcerated. The USAian system has problems. This happened before the overturn of Roe v Wade‽ I can imagine how much worse a similar situation would be handled now".

Sure, you believe whatever you need to reinforce your preexisting beliefs.

That detail adds nothing to the story but doubt, why include it?

As I said, that line stuck out to me as bad reporting because all it does is cast doubt and doesn't help the story. You seem to have convinced yourself that I am the enemy and that I am calling her a liar, but that is not the case.