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

Paragraph 3 of 6

Sentence 2 of 3

This seems like a less significant sentence, but it contains two consequential claims:

“While individuals are certainly free to think and to say what they wish about ‘existence,’ ‘meaning,’ the ‘universe,’ and ‘the mystery of human life,’ they are not always free to act in accordance with those thoughts.”

The claims:

• “[I]ndividuals are certainly free to think and to say what they wish about ‘existence,’ ‘meaning,’ the ‘universe,’ and ‘the mystery of human life’.”
• “[People] are not always free to act in accordance with those thoughts.

The first claim is true to the extent that the United States government can’t interfere with thoughts and beliefs, or even with most kinds of speech, as determined by the First Amendment. These rights are important enough that the federal government can prohibit state governments from restricting them. This gives me hope that the discussion ahead will be more substantial than the long recitation of “history and tradition” that we’ve already endured.

The second claim is even more important, and has implications for the decision beyond this claim. I know the Dobbs Court has thought this through, but I think they need to employ a number of epicycles to make this cosmology work. But here’s the important point that Dobbs makes here and which I think the Dobbs Court doesn’t apply consistently: Belief is subjective, and while the implications of that belief remain subjective, there’s no reason to argue about it. But when people use their subjective belief to dictate the actions and rights of other people, we need to question how much of that subjective belief can be objectively established, and how much that belief should be relevant to anyone but the believer.

The first claim is definitely true:

• “[I]ndividuals are certainly free to think and to say what they wish about ‘existence,’ ‘meaning,’ the ‘universe,’ and ‘the mystery of human life’.”

And even though I believe the second claim to be true, I’m going to need some objective support for the idea before I declare it so. For now, this claim is undetermined:

• “[People] are not always free to act in accordance with those thoughts.