Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-01-03 17:15:53 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 85B42672B68786E95BA2816F3723DD9AA743DA0E6C1F603CDE1155A1EC564F69
Participant Details

Original Note:

The Court only affirmed there was no abuse of discretion in granting an injunction, and that the injunction was tailored only to the underlying case. It did not rule on the obligation of hospitals in the state to perform certain abortions under the EMTLA generally. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-10246-CV0.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1742573346548527396
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 85B42672B68786E95BA2816F3723DD9AA743DA0E6C1F603CDE1155A1EC564F69
  • createdAtMillis - 1704302153807
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - NOT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 174257334654852739685B42672B68786E95BA2816F3723DD9AA743DA0E6C1F603CDE1155A1EC564F69