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

Paragraph 2 of 3

Sentence 5 of 8

Just one claim in this sentence, but five references to check:

“The dissent repeatedly praises the ‘balance,’ post, at 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, that the viability line strikes between a woman’s liberty interest and the State’s interest in prenatal life.”

The claim without citations:

• “The dissent repeatedly praises the ‘balance’ [. . .] that the viability line strikes between a woman’s liberty interest and the State’s interest in prenatal life.”

And the passages cited. Here’s the dissent on page 2 (actually starting on page 1):

“[T]he Court recognized that ‘the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting’ the ‘life of the fetus that may become a child.’ Id., at 846. So the Court struck a balance, as it often does when values and goals compete. It held that the State could prohibit abortions after fetal viability, so long as the ban contained exceptions to safeguard a woman’s life or health. It held that even before viability, the State could regulate the abortion procedure in multiple and meaningful ways.

Page 6:

“The legal framework Roe and Casey developed to balance the competing interests in this sphere has proved workable in courts across the country.”

Page 8:

“The Court therefore struck a balance, turning on the stage of the pregnancy at which the abortion would occur. The Court explained that early on, a woman’s choice must prevail, but that ‘at some point the state interests’ become ‘dominant.’ Id., at 155.”

Page 10:

“So Casey again struck a balance, differing from Roe’s in only incremental ways. It retained Roe’s ‘central holding’ that the State could bar abortion only after viability. 505 U.S., at 860 (majority opinion). The viability line, Casey thought, was ‘more workable’ than any other in marking the place where the woman’s liberty interest gave way to a State’s efforts to preserve potential life. Id., at 870 (plurality opinion).”

And page 12:

“The majority scoffs at that idea, castigating us for ‘repeatedly prais[ing] the “balance”’ the two cases arrived at (with the word “balance” in scare quotes). Ante, at 38. To the majority ‘balance’ is a dirty word, as moderation is a foreign concept. The majority would allow States to ban abortion from conception onward because it does not think forced childbirth at all implicates a woman’s rights to equality and freedom. Today’s Court, that is, does not think there is anything of constitutional significance attached to a woman’s control of her body and the path of her life.”

The claim is true, and this starts to feel pretty meta. The quote from page 12 of the dissent cites this sentence, which cites this quote, which . . .

My head hurts. This is true:

• “The dissent repeatedly praises the ‘balance’ [. . .] that the viability line strikes between a woman’s liberty interest and the State’s interest in prenatal life.”