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

Paragraph 3 of 3

Sentence 2 of 5

This sentence has two claims:

“The dissent suggests that we have focused only on ‘the legal status of abortion in the 19th century,’ post, at 26, but our review of this Nation’s tradition extends well past that period.”

The claims:

• “The dissent suggests that we have focused only on ‘the legal status of abortion in the 19th century,’”
• “[O]ur review of this Nation’s tradition extends well past that period.”

As for the first claim, here is the passage in the dissent:

“Even placing the concurrence to the side, the assurance in today’s opinion still does not work. Or at least that is so if the majority is serious about its sole reason for overturning Roe and Casey: the legal status of abortion in the 19th century.”

The Dobbs claim is questionable. Does the phrase “sole reason for overturning Roe and Casey” match up with “we have focused only on”? The dissent’s statement seems to place “the legal status of abortion in the 19th century” at a critical point within the argument of the majority. The majority’s statement seems to accuse the dissent of not noticing all of the other material the majority discusses along the way. I think the phrases indicate different things, but I’ll spend some time considering this. Not right now, though.

The second claim is true for reasons that the majority raises in the next sentence. Since the first claim is probably incorrect, this one is probably irrelevant, but it is true.

So we have one undetermined claim:

• “The dissent suggests that we have focused only on ‘the legal status of abortion in the 19th century,’”

And one true claim:

• “[O]ur review of this Nation’s tradition extends well past that period.”