As always, you can find the Dobbs v. Jackson decision here.

Paragraph 2 of 5

Sentence 2 of 3

Now we start actually engaging with Roe (read and download here). The point being made isn’t controversial, but it’s necessary to lay out the basics. The sentence reads:

“It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned.” See 410 U. S., at 152–153.

This sentence actually contains three claims, and none of those claims will likely generate objections.

1. “[Roe] held that the abortion right . . . is part of a right to privacy.”
2. “[T]he abortion right . . . is not mentioned in the Constitution.”
3. “[A] right to privacy . . . is . . . not mentioned [in the Constitution].”

The first claim is a statement on what is generally understood to be a central idea in the Roe v. Wade opinion.

“[Roe] held that the abortion right . . . is part of a right to privacy.”

It would be easy enough to just let this pass as true—I don’t think anybody would argue this point—but for the sake of being thorough, here is how the relevant passage of Roe begins:

“The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.”

It goes on to explain further:

“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

So, yes. Roe makes that claim and this claim in Dobbs is true.

The second claim is one we’ve already addressed:

“[T]he abortion right . . . is not mentioned in the Constitution.”

Still open to the possibility that someone might find something, but this is true until that happens. And the third claim in this sentence is the same kind of thing:

“[A] right to privacy . . . is . . . not mentioned [in the Constitution].”

Nobody has seen any reference to privacy in the Constitution, but check for yourself here.

Also, the Court concedes this point in the beginning of the first passage I posted above:

“The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.”

This is a solid sentence. It makes three claims and they are all easily established as true.

“[Roe] held that the abortion right . . . is part of a right to privacy.”

“[T]he abortion right . . . is not mentioned in the Constitution.” (aka “The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion”)

“[A] right to privacy . . . is . . . not mentioned [in the Constitution].”

And just for fun and in the interest of easier reference later, here are all of the cases Roe cited in its claims about a right to privacy implied by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

• Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891)
• Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 564 (1969)
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 8-9 (1968)
• Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 350 (1967)
• Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 (1886)
• Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
• Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. At 484-485
  • id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring)
• Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923)
• Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325 (1937)
• Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967)
• Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 541-542 (1942)
• Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. At 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465
• Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166 (1944)
• Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.