FuzzyBee: the purpose of fact-checking is to assess not merely the literal veracity of factual statements, but whether those factual statements are being presented fairly and in appropriate context. The issue isn't whether or not the number of unemployed women was higher, but rather Romney's portrayal of this as being a result of Obama's policies.
That is why it is a half-truth -- because Romney is not measuring the increase or decrease of employment in a time frame that accurately reflects Obama's policies.
Perhaps they should change their name to "PolitiContext," then, and remove the "True"/"False" misnomers, then. Or maybe they could be "PolitiFair".
I'd have to think an unbiased Politifactician (do those exist?) would have to give their own name a "Pants on Fire".
How do they judge "fair" in an unbiased way? Well, obviously they don't.
Compare the Romney statement summary to this one:
Obama said, "Taxes are lower on families than they've been probably in the last 50 years."
On the numbers, his statistic isn't exact, but it's pretty close -- average tax rates are in fact lower than most years in the past five decades, at least for the three income groups we looked at.
However, the decline in average tax rates was already under way under Bush and the recession helped keep them low. We rate the claim Mostly True.
Using your logic you applied to their assessment of Romney's statement, how in the world could this one get a different rating? Isn't context a big participant in their evaluation?