As always, you can find the Dobbs v. Jackson decision here.
Paragraph 11 of 11
Sentence 2 of 2
The final sentence in Part II B 3 has just one claim:
“And we see no reason to discount the significance of the state laws in question based on these amici’s suggestions about legislative motive.41”
This claim is subjective, and not really eligible for verification or falsification:
- “And we see no reason to discount the significance of the state laws in question based on these amici’s suggestions about legislative motive.”
This claim is about what reasons the Dobbs Court sees or doesn’t see, and there’s no sense in arguing about what they see. The idea within the claim, though—whether the “amici’s suggestions about legislative motive” should lead anyone “to discount the significance of the state laws in question” is worth exploring, and in more depth than the Dobbs Court has engaged in here. Maybe we’ll get back to it.
In the meantime, here’s the text of end note 41:
“Other amicus briefs present arguments about the motives of proponents of liberal access to abortion. They note that some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African-American population. See Brief for African-American Organization et al. as Amici Curiae 14–21; see also Box v. Planned Parenthood of Ind. and Ky., Inc., 587 U.S. ___, ___–___ (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring) (slip op., at 1–4). And it is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are Black. See, e.g., Dept. of Health and Human Servs., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), K. Kortsmit et al., Abortion Surveillance—United States, 2019, 70 Morbidity and Mortality Report, Surveillance Summaries, p. 20 (Nov. 26, 2021) (Table 6). For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported or those who have opposed laws restricting abortions.”
That’s a lot to unravel. The claim in this sentence is undetermined:
Cynical Jason 