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

Paragraph 4 of 4

Sentence 1 of 2

This sentence contains two claims:

“Both sides make important policy arguments, but supporters of Roe and Casey must show that this Court has the authority to weigh those arguments and decide how abortion may be regulated in the States.”

The claims:

• “Both sides make important policy arguments.”
• “[S]upporters of Roe and Casey must show that this Court has the authority to weigh those arguments and decide how abortion may be regulated in the States.”

One at a time:

• “Both sides make important policy arguments.”

Did they, though? On the pro-life side it seemed like a real estate agent saying, “Sure you have asbestos falling out of the ceiling and exposed electrical wires in the toilet, but the walk-in closet in the master bedroom has just been painted.” I’ll have to reassess to make sense of this claim.

The second claim:

• “[S]upporters of Roe and Casey must show that this Court has the authority to weigh those arguments and decide how abortion may be regulated in the States.”

Let me try to parse this out with my little brain. It is incumbent on the pro-choice side to demonstrate that the Court can dictate whether the State can impose restrictions on abortion.

This seems to be a restatement of the entire point of the decision. It places the burden of evidence entirely on supporters of Roe and Casey, and there’s another side to the case (obviously), but this is true as far as it goes.

One claim is undetermined:

• “Both sides make important policy arguments.”

And one claim is true:

• “[S]upporters of Roe and Casey must show that this Court has the authority to weigh those arguments and decide how abortion may be regulated in the States.”