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

Paragraph 4 of 6

Sentence 1 of 6

The next paragraph starts with a definition:

“Ordered liberty sets limits and defines the boundary between competing interests.”

This is the Dobbs Court’s definition of “ordered liberty,” and they don’t cite support, so either it’s the (a?) generally accepted definition or it’s a controversial description that will generate some resistance. I suppose we’ll see, if that’s the case.

Since it’s unsupported, I’ll keep it undetermined for now. If it goes unchallenged through the rest of my reading I’ll mark it true. Call it “erring on the side of caution.” That’s the name of the game here.

This is undetermined:

• “Ordered liberty sets limits and defines the boundary between competing interests.”