Editorial: Louisiana played copycat with Texas' unconstitutional abortion law. But for one justice, they'd have gotten away with it.

Source: Houston Chronicle - View Original Article
Published: Jun 29, 2020
Category:
Bias Rating:

75% Liberal


Bias Score Calculation:

82% Positive Sentiment + Policies: Anti-Discrimination Laws = 82% Liberal
18% Negative Sentiment + Policies: Anti-Discrimination Laws = 18% Conservative
66% Positive Sentiment + Policies: Abortion = 66% Liberal
34% Negative Sentiment + Policies: Abortion = 34% Conservative
46% Positive Sentiment + Policies: Abortion = 46% Liberal

Policies:

Anti-Discrimination Laws
Abortion

Sentiments

  •   Liberal
  •   Conservative
89% "Abortion rights supporters should take a deep breath."
88% "But for the remarkable willingness of the chief justice to hold true to the court's ruling from four years ago -- a ruling he did not agree with -- the legal landscape for women's reproductive rights would have changed significantly today."
83% "Therefore Louisiana's law cannot stand under our precedents."
73% "For different reasons, the Court and Roberts got it right on Monday."
71% "Only three justices joined Breyer's opinion: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan."
68% "As a result, many Republican-led states wishfully continued to pass laws following in Texas' footsteps, hoping this time the high court would allow the laws to stand."
64% "In Louisiana, in fact, lawmakers passed and the governor signed a law almost identical to Texas' law, which required any abortion provider to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital."
57% "That should be the end of the story."
56% "In 2016, the court relied on that same reasoning to find Texas' laws, which were found to have no health benefit and to have triggered the closure of half the state's abortion clinics, unconstitutional as well."
-51% "The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike, he wrote."
-56% "The only reason their decision became the binding majority opinion is because Chief Justice John Roberts, who dissented in 2016 and would have permitted Texas' laws to stand, concurred in Monday's result - that is, he agreed Louisiana's statute must be struck down."
-57% "On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down the Louisiana statute, siding with the the U.S. district court in Louisiana that had determined there was no measurable health benefit and it would impose an undue burden on women seeking an abortion."
-60% "We consequently hold that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional."
-63% "He did so even as he wrote separately to say he still believes the court was wrong four years ago."
-90% "It found that the Texas restrictions did nothing to advance women's health and had led to the prompt closure of half of the state's abortion providers."

We have listed the top 15 sentiments. More sentiments do exist. Please review the full article for more information.



*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization

Extremely
Liberal

Very
Liberal

Moderate-left

Neutral

Moderate-right

Very
Conservative

Extremely
Conservative

100%

100%

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

89% : Abortion rights supporters should take a deep breath.
88% : But for the remarkable willingness of the chief justice to hold true to the court's ruling from four years ago -- a ruling he did not agree with -- the legal landscape for women's reproductive rights would have changed significantly today.
83% : Therefore Louisiana's law cannot stand under our precedents.
82% : And we can only hope that state legislators will end their futile efforts to restrict rights that have been upheld time and again in the nearly 50 years since Roe v. Wade.
73% : For different reasons, the Court and Roberts got it right on Monday.
71% : Only three justices joined Breyer's opinion: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
68% : As a result, many Republican-led states wishfully continued to pass laws following in Texas' footsteps, hoping this time the high court would allow the laws to stand.
66% : The ruling relied on a decision in the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v Casey, which held that a woman's right to abortion is a liberty that cannot be taken away lightly.
64% : The court, seeing through the subterfuge, declared the Legislature's work in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
64% : In Louisiana, in fact, lawmakers passed and the governor signed a law almost identical to Texas' law, which required any abortion provider to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
62% : "We have examined the extensive record carefully and conclude that it supports the District Court's findings of fact.
62% : Those findings mirror those made in Whole Woman's Health in every relevant respect and require the same result," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court, referencing the Texas plaintiff.
57% : That should be the end of the story.
56% : In 2016, the court relied on that same reasoning to find Texas' laws, which were found to have no health benefit and to have triggered the closure of half the state's abortion clinics, unconstitutional as well.
49% : "The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike," he wrote.
46% : Laws restricting abortion must be evaluated by weighing their benefits against how much they restricted abortion access.
45% : "The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons.
44% : The only reason their decision became the binding majority opinion is because Chief Justice John Roberts, who dissented in 2016 and would have permitted Texas' laws to stand, concurred in Monday's result - that is, he agreed Louisiana's statute must be struck down.
43% : On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down the Louisiana statute, siding with the the U.S. district court in Louisiana that had determined there was no measurable health benefit and it would impose an undue burden on women seeking an abortion.
42% : This one was close.
41% : This change, unneeded since abortion is a safe procedure rarely requiring hospitalization, had the effect of cutting off access in rural areas.
40% : "We consequently hold that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional."
39% : Four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court took up challenges to two Texas laws that had been written, under the guise of protecting women's health, to greatly narrow women's access to abortion.
39% : But when it comes to abortion, the story seems never-ending.
38% : But something else happened in 2016: President Donald Trump was elected amid promises to appoint justices who oppose abortion.
37% : He did so even as he wrote separately to say he still believes the court was wrong four years ago.
12% : That should have sent a message to all state legislators: Abortion is legal and efforts to impose barriers on women to access these services are illegal.
10% : It found that the Texas restrictions did nothing to advance women's health and had led to the prompt closure of half of the state's abortion providers.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization

Share via
Copy link