No doubt about it, there were some interesting political angles linked to the latest U.S. Supreme Court setback for Americans who want to see more safety regulations applied to the abortion facilities.
Much of the news coverage of this 5-4 decision focused — with good reason — on Chief Justice John Roberts voting with the court’s liberal wing. Once again, press reports stressed that Roberts showed maturity, independence and nuance as he voted against his own alleged convictions, as stated in a dissent in an earlier case on a similar bill.
The coverage also stressed — with good cause — the potential impact of this decision on the Election Day enthusiasm of (wait for it) evangelicals who back the Donald Trump machine.
But there was another crucial element of this story that I expected to receive some coverage. I am talking about the origins of the actual Louisiana legislation that was struck down by the court.
Who created this bill and why did they create it? Was this some kind of Trump-country project backed by the usual suspects? Actually — no. The key person behind this bill was State Sen. Katrina Jackson, an African-American lawyer from Monroe, La. The bill was then signed by Governor John Bel Edwards, also a Democrat.
But wait, you say: Democrats in Louisiana are different. The Catholic church and the black church are major players, when it comes to the state’s mix of populist economics and a more conservative approach to culture.
In other words, there is a religion angle to this story, as well as the obvious political hooks that dominated the coverage. Hold that thought, because we will come back to it. First, here is the top of the Associated Press story that ran across the nation:
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law regulating abortion clinics, reasserting a commitment to abortion rights over fierce opposition from dissenting conservative justices in the first big abortion case of the Trump era.
Chief Justice John Roberts and his four more liberal colleagues ruled that a law that requires doctors who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals violates abortion rights the court first announced in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
The outcome is far from the last word on the decades-long fight over abortion with dozens of state-imposed restrictions winding their way through the courts. But the decision was a surprising defeat for abortion opponents, who thought that a new conservative majority with two of President Donald Trump’s appointees on board would start chipping away at abortion access.
In case you missed the Trump theme, here is the thesis statement:
The Trump administration had sided with Louisiana in urging the court to uphold the law. White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany criticized the decision. “In an unfortunate ruling today, the Supreme Court devalued both the health of mothers and the lives of unborn children by gutting Louisiana’s policy that required all abortion procedures be performed by individuals with admitting privileges at a nearby hospital,” McEnany said.
At least that final statement points back to the contents of the Louisiana bill.
What happened in other coverage? Here is another summary of the major players in this case, care of USA Today.
Louisiana, which leads the nation with 89 abortion restrictions passed since 1973, has three clinics left – one each in New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Shreveport. The judge who struck down the 2014 law found that it probably would force two out of business. …
The state, backed by the Trump administration and scores of anti-abortion groups, contended the law is aimed at improving health and safety measures at abortion clinics.
News consumers seeking information about the origins of the legislation can also skip the reports offered by The New York Times and Religion News Service, even though the purpose of that second report was to survey the views of disappointed supporters of Louisiana law.
The main Washington Post story, however, did include the following bite of relevant information near the very end:
Louisiana has adopted more abortion restrictions than any other state, and Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) said he was disappointed with the case’s outcome.
“Throughout my career and life as a pro-life Catholic, I have advocated for the protection, dignity and sanctity of life and will continue to do so,” Edwards said in a statement. “While I voted for the law in question and am disappointed, I respect the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and trust that Louisiana and our nation will continue to move forward.”
Once again, where is Jackson? She did speak out about the SCOTUS ruling (see the second video embedded in this post) and she has been a high-profile speaker on this topic — including at the national March For Life (see the first video). Jackson isn’t hiding.
So what is going on here?
Clearly, the leadership of a black, female, African-American Democrat in the creation of the bill that is at the heart of this story makes it “conservative news” or, at the very least, “religious news.” One of the only references to Jackson that I could find in news coverage of the SCOTUS decision was at (wait for it) Baptist Press.
Before the opinion, 11 states had some form of admitting privileges laws in effect, according to the Guttmacher Institute, formerly an affiliate of Planned Parenthood. Those states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas.
The Louisiana measure — introduced by Democrat Rep. Katrina Jackson — gained passage with overwhelming, bipartisan majorities in both houses and was signed into law by Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards.
I tried to find a news report that included material in which Jackson — who is a Baptist — describes her convictions on this issue and I ended up, naturally, on the website of The Clarion Herald. That’s (wait for it) the newspaper published by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans.
“These issues just don’t fall into my lap,” Jackson said …. “I believe they are led by God, and you do what God calls you to do. I will always be pro-life. It’s not a question of opportunity or being Democrat or Republican. It not a question of an agenda. It’s about always standing for the things of good. That’s what I told my district when I ran.”
Dorinda Bordlee, a local pro-life attorney who represents the Bioethics Defense Fund, worked hard to craft a bill that would meet constitutional muster. Then, before the legislative session opened, Bordlee met with Jackson, who also serves as head of the Louisiana Black Legislative Caucus, to see if she would be the lead sponsor. Jackson did not blink. …
Jackson said the bill made sense to her because it was “pro-woman,” advocating a standard of care for women who “make the unfortunate decision” to have an abortion.
“Those things are constitutional, but I don’t agree with them,” Jackson said. “I pray for the day that abortion is no longer constitutional, but until such a day, God loves all of us. So, the women who make that unfortunate decision, their health should be protected.”
There’s more to her argument, of course. For Jackson, all of this is linked to other political stands that she believes makes her a Democrat.
Here is my question: Did anyone read or hear a story in the past 24 hours that mentioned Jackson? That even mentioned Gov. Edwards?
Just asking. You see, these two Democrats — one Baptist, one Catholic — did play crucial roles in this case. Why not mention them?
ybvdadminuser
