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

Paragraph 3 of 3

Sentence 2 of 4

This sentence contains two claims:

“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, those precedents are entitled to careful and respectful consideration, and we engage in that analysis below.”

The claims:

• “Under the doctrine of stare decisis, those precedents are entitled to careful and respectful consideration.”
• “[W]e engage in that analysis below.”

The first claim is just a description of stare decisis as this Court understands it (and what is probably an unquestioned understanding of what it is). Here’s page 9 of the Dobbs decision:

“[I]n Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Court revisited Roe, but the Members of the Court split three ways. Two Justices expressed no desire to change Roe in any way. Four others wanted to overrule the decision in its entirety. And the three remaining Justices, who jointly signed the controlling opinion, took a third position. Their opinion did not endorse Roe’s reasoning, and it even hinted that one or more of its authors might have ‘reservations’ about whether the Constitution protects a right to abortion. But the opinion concluded that stare decisis, which calls for prior decisions to be followed in most instances, required adherence to what it called Roe’s ‘central holding’—that a State may not constitutionally protect fetal life before ‘viability’—even if that holding was wrong.

I’ll call this true based on that, but I’m open to challenges. The second claim is a preview:

• “[W]e engage in that analysis below.”

Cool. Then we’ll save our determination of this for after reading what’s below.

This sentence has one true claim:

• “Under the doctrine of stare decisis, those precedents are entitled to careful and respectful consideration.”

And one undetermined claim:

• “[W]e engage in that analysis below.”