Commentary roundup: What newspapers around the state are saying

Houston Chronicle

Sept. 14 editorial, "Abbott says Biden’s student loan forgiveness ‘rewards the rich.’ How do you figure?"

There’s been disagreement among economists about the inflation impacts of the plan but it looks likely that any inflation bump from forgiveness would be offset by the restart of payments creating what Moody’s Analytics’ chief economist Mark Zandi told CNN was “largely a wash.”

Meanwhile, we share the concerns about rising tuition costs. Debt relief is a retroactive measure and does not address the situation that pushed so many into debt. We want to see real steps in this direction.

Which leaves concerns about who is benefiting. “Simply put, your plan rewards the rich and punishes the poor,” the governors wrote in their letter.

Is this a reverse Robin Hood?

No, say most estimates and experts.

The plan is a “big positive deal for probably close to 40 million, mostly lower and middle income, Americans, but [a] small negative deal for all American taxpayers,” Zandi told CNN.

The Biden initiative is multi-pronged but the actual loan forgiveness, which would erase either up to $10,000 or $20,000 for Pell grant recipients, is structured in a way that will mostly benefit lower- and middle-class households.

— Houston Chronicle Editorial Board

San Antonio Express-News

Sept. 13 editorial, "Abbott all talk, no action on gun violence."

“There have been three court rulings since May that have made it clear that it is unconstitutional to ban someone between the ages of 18 and 21 from being able to buy an AR,” Abbott said on the campaign trail Aug. 31. “It is clear that the gun control law that they are seeking in Uvalde, as much as they want it, it has already been ruled to be unconstitutional.”

But, as we’ve seen before, the governor’s comments are bereft of context.

While some lower courts grapple with the issue, the Supreme Court hasn’t taken a stand on age restrictions for any type of weapon.

“I think the governor is wrong,” Al Kauffman, a constitutional law expert and professor at St. Mary’s University, told us. “I think the states could increase the age for access to unusual weapons like an AR 15, and that would be upheld.”

Kauffman said there’s no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court has supported gun rights—in 2008 for self-defense in the home and this year for self-defense outside the home—but these rulings have been about handguns.

— San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board

Dallas Morning News

Sept. 14 editorial, "Court was wrong to oppose HIV drug mandate because of employer’s religion."

Religious liberty and pluralism are democratic principles that sometimes clash and that our nation must balance. We think that a federal district court in Fort Worth got that balance wrong and imperiled health care access with its recent ruling in Braidwood Management vs. Becerra. In that case, the court found that a federal mandate to cover preventive HIV medication violates employers’ religious freedoms.

The decision follows a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, in which the high court sided with employers who objected to offering contraceptives through their health plans because of religious beliefs. At the time, we expressed concerns that the Supreme Court was extending religious exemptions to nonreligious, for-profit companies that could then impose their leaders’ religious views on employees.

We warned then that the Hobby Lobby case set a dangerous precedent with consequences for both secular and religious freedoms, and we see that playing out before us now.

The HIV epidemic has killed more than 700,000 Americans since it started in the 1980s. Preexposure prophylaxis, known as PrEP, are medications that reduce sex-related HIV transmission by about 99% and are credited with helping lower HIV infection rates in recent years.

But the price tag of the drugs can be exorbitant, costing as much as $20,000, according to court documents. The Affordable Care Act requires most private health plans to cover the drug for free.

— Dallas Morning News Editorial Board

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Sept. 16 editorial, "Texas child-abuse investigators’ jobs are hard enough. Don’t drag them into trans kids debate."

In any abuse investigation, it makes sense to interview children in school and away from abusers, who are often parents or other family members who live with them.

But it’s the inclusion of transgender medical care in the abuse framework that is a problem. There are an array of opinions, even among medical professionals, about the appropriateness of cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers. But “abuse” is a serious charge that should be limited to parental neglect, causing physical or emotional harm to children, or dangerous or squalid living conditions.

Some unnecessary or harmful medical care certainly could qualify as abusive (see Factitious disorder imposed on another, previously called Munchausen syndrome by proxy). But this issue is too complex and in too much flux to ask state agents to sort it out — especially when they’re overwhelmed with standard abuse cases and a foster system that’s in dire need of repair.

Inevitably, transgender medical care for children will be addressed in the policy arena. Abbott has said to expect so in next year’s legislative session, and he’s signaled his support for a ban on surgical procedures (which are exceedingly rare for children) and perhaps other treatments.

Like all policy on controversial issues, there will be some gray areas, some nuance. But if lawmakers are truly concerned about children receiving hormones and drugs in advance of possible surgical procedures, they can debate restrictions through legislation.

— Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board

This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Commentary roundup: What newspapers around the state are saying