Come on. If a politician argues in favor of universal health care, would it be reasonable for a headline to say "John Doe supports taxpayer-funded medical treatments for child abusers"?
Taking a strong subset of the truth may be factually correct but doesn't stand up to the standard of "the truth".
Likely because the headline implies intent (or expects its audience to assume intent), where it doesn't appear any intent exists.
If healthcare included the guaranteed right to a treatment where of adults spend therapeutic time at preschools, then a headline about providing healthcare to sex offenders would absolutely be relevant (as well as obviously truthful).
I disagree. Here's a simple modification I propose that's more accurate: “Sacramento Sheriff is sharing license plate reader data with states, including anti-abortion ones, records show”