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

Paragraph 2 of 4

Sentence 1 of 2

This sentence contains two claims:

“Defenders of Roe and Casey do not claim that any new scientific learning calls for a different answer to the underlying moral question, but they do contend that changes in society require the recognition of a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.”

The claims:

• “Defenders of Roe and Casey do not claim that any new scientific learning calls for a different answer to the underlying moral question.”
• “[Defenders of Roe and Casey] contend that changes in society require the recognition of a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.”

The first claim seems too ambitious:

• “Defenders of Roe and Casey do not claim that any new scientific learning calls for a different answer to the underlying moral question.”

Really? Nobody does? That deserves a closer look. This is undetermined.

The second claim is at least about something that is, rather than something that isn’t:

• “[Defenders of Roe and Casey] contend that changes in society require the recognition of a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.”

This is probably true, but there’s no citation here, so I’ll wait for some direction if they want to provide it before I go off on a snipe hunt for support. This is also just one of many claims about changes in the situation and about our understanding of it that defenders of Roe and Casey have made, so it’s weird that this is presented as a dichotomy.

These claims are both undetermined:

• “Defenders of Roe and Casey do not claim that any new scientific learning calls for a different answer to the underlying moral question.”
• “[Defenders of Roe and Casey] contend that changes in society require the recognition of a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.”