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

Paragraph 6 of 11

Sentence 3 of 4

This sentence contains two claims that are closely related but different in an important way:

“When legislatures began to exercise that authority as the century wore on, no one, as far as we are aware, argued that the laws they enacted violated a fundamental right.”

The claims:

• “When legislatures began to exercise that authority as the century wore on, no one, as far as we are aware, argued that the laws they enacted violated a fundamental right.”
• “When legislatures began to exercise that authority as the century wore on, no one [. . .] argued that the laws they enacted violated a fundamental right.”

The first claim is the full sentence, and it’s not subject to validation or dispute. The phrase “as far as we are aware,” renders the claim subjective and removes it from objective consideration. The second claim, though, is what is implied by the overall claim, and with the propositional attitude removed it is fair game for objective assessment.

The problem here is that the claim asserts the absence of a thing, and poses the usual challenges of demonstrating the truth of a negative. The Dobbs Court’s acknowledgment of the limitations of their awareness is appropriate, and I share that limitation.

Because of that, both of these claims are undetermined:

• “When legislatures began to exercise that authority as the century wore on, no one, as far as we are aware, argued that the laws they enacted violated a fundamental right.”
• “When legislatures began to exercise that authority as the century wore on, no one [. . .] argued that the laws they enacted violated a fundamental right.”