Texas Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Key Abortion Ban Case

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

46% : "Ms. Klusmann argued that the law allows physicians to use their professional judgment to decide when the law allows for an abortion.
45% : Ms. Duane argued that, even though the law technically has medical exceptions to the bans, "no one knows what it means, and the State won't tell us."Asked by a judge on the high bench why the plaintiffs weren't seeking a declaration of the abortion laws' unconstitutionality based on the "vagueness" doctrine, Ms. Duane replied that this would have meant that the entire law could be struck down, which is not the wish or intent of the plaintiffs.
45% : "As all of our patient plaintiffs have testified to, their doctors didn't know what to do, their hands were tied by the law," she said.
42% : "The state's own expert acknowledges that physicians should not be waiting until death is imminent, yet they are, in her words, 'providing substandard care' because of the lack of clarity in the law.
37% : "If, as she said, a woman is bleeding or has amniotic fluid running down her legs, the problem is not with the law, it's with the doctors," she said.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.