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

Paragraph 6 of 11

Sentence 4 of 4

This sentence has two claims that need some discussion:

“That is not surprising since common-law authorities had repeatedly condemned abortion and described it as an ‘unlawful’ act without regard to whether it occurred before or after quickening. See supra, at 16–21.”

The claims:

• “That is not surprising since common-law authorities had repeatedly condemned abortion and described it as an ‘unlawful’ act without regard to whether it occurred before or after quickening.”
• “[C]ommon-law authorities had repeatedly condemned abortion and described it as an ‘unlawful’ act without regard to whether it occurred before or after quickening.”

The phrase that separates these two claims causes a problem. It’s one thing to claim that some authorities make claims, and the second of the claims is probably true. But is it “not surprising” that the previous claim might be true in the possible truth of this claim?

Let’s see. (I haven’t done much to connect sentences to this point, but I feel like it’s warranted here.)

What about “common-law authorities [. . .] repeatedly condemn[ing] abortion and describ[ing] it as an ‘unlawful’ act without regard to whether it occurred before or after quickening” would prevent or discourage others from “argu[ing] that the laws they enacted violated a fundamental right.” Nothing, as far as I can tell. Both could easily occur in the same context without seeming odd. Those two perspectives have always existed and coexisted. This sentence is weird.

We have seen in the material we’ve already covered that the second of these claims is true. I’ll take “repeatedly” to mean “more than once” and call it so.

We have one undetermined claim (because it’s weird):

• “That is not surprising since common-law authorities had repeatedly condemned abortion and described it as an ‘unlawful’ act without regard to whether it occurred before or after quickening.”

And one true claim:

• “[C]ommon-law authorities had repeatedly condemned abortion and described it as an ‘unlawful’ act without regard to whether it occurred before or after quickening.”