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

Paragraph 1 of 3

Sentence 4 of 5

This sentence contains two claims:

“The exercise of the rights at issue in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell does not destroy a ‘potential life,’ but an abortion has that effect.”

• “The exercise of the rights at issue in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell does not destroy a ‘potential life.’”
• “[A]n abortion has that effect [destroy[s] a ‘potential life’].”

These are true. Abortion is abortion and things that aren’t abortion aren’t abortion. The majority’s reluctance to establish why “potential life” commands such attention is the problem.

But we have two true claims:

• “The exercise of the rights at issue in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell does not destroy a ‘potential life.’”
• “[A]n abortion has that effect [destroy[s] a ‘potential life’].”