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

Paragraph 1 of 3

Sentence 5 of 5

To finish the first paragraph of Part II B1, we get a sentence with three claims. Kinda.

“And although law review articles are not reticent about advocating new rights, the earliest article proposing a constitutional right to abortion that has come to our attention was published only a few years before Roe.” 23

Here the claims are separated:

• law review articles are not reticent about advocating new rights
• the earliest article proposing a constitutional right to abortion that has come to our attention was published only a few years before Roe.
• the earliest article proposing a constitutional right to abortion [. . .] was published only a few years before Roe.

And here they are one at a time:

“[L]aw review articles are not reticent about advocating new rights”

I’m not even sure how one might go about verifying or falsifying this. Undetermined. Maybe permanently.

“[T]he earliest article proposing a constitutional right to abortion that has come to our attention was published only a few years before Roe.”

Another claim immunized against analysis with the phrase “that has come to our attention.” Also undetermined, and also probably undeterminable.

“[T]he earliest article proposing a constitutional right to abortion [. . .] was published only a few years before Roe.”

Once the admission of subjectivity is removed, this claim is at least open to investigation, and the Court has provided us with the first data point in end note 23, which reads:

“See R. Lucas, Federal Constitutional Limitations on the Enforcement and Administration of State Abortion Statutes, 46 N. C. L. Rev. 730 (1968) (Lucas); see also D. Garrow, Liberty and Sexuality 334–335 (1994) (Garrow) (stating that Lucas was “undeniably the first person to fully articulate on paper” the argument that “a woman’s right to choose abortion was a fundamental individual freedom protected by the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of personal liberty”).

The Lucas article appeared five years before the Roe decision, so if this is the first, then the claim above is true. I’m not sure why the Court included the Garrow assertion that “Lucas was ‘undeniably the first person to fully articulate on paper’ the argument that ‘a woman’s right to choose abortion was a fundamental individual freedom protected by the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of personal liberty’.” I don’t think I’ll be taking Garrow’s word, so this will have to remain undetermined until I’ve looked into it.

Three claims, all undetermined.

• “[L]aw review articles are not reticent about advocating new rights.”
• “[T]he earliest article proposing a constitutional right to abortion that has come to our attention was published only a few years before Roe.”
• “[T]he earliest article proposing a constitutional right to abortion [. . .] was published only a few years before Roe.”