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

Paragraph 6 of 8

Sentence 2 of 2

The next sentence has two claims:

“Without these decisions, American constitutional law as we know it would be unrecognizable, and this would be a different country.”

The claims:

• “Without these decisions, American constitutional law as we know it would be unrecognizable.”
• “Without these decisions, [. . .] and this would be a different country.”

The first claim is actually nonsense. Literal nonsense. I think whomever wrote this sentence didn’t look to closely at it afterward. “American constitutional law” is “as we know it” because of these decisions. If not for these decisions, we would not know “American constitutional law as we know it” as we know it. It wouldn’t exist. That’s different from being unrecognizable. It’s a little like saying if Meryl Streep were Peter Dinklage she’d be unrecognizable.

The second sentence makes logical sense. We like to say we’re a nation of laws, so if our laws were interpreted differently, it seems to follow directly that the nation comprised of those laws would be different. I’ll call that true. If someone wants to challenge me on it, I’m all ears.

One undetermined claim:

• “Without these decisions, American constitutional law as we know it would be unrecognizable.”

And one true claim:

• “Without these decisions, [. . .] and this would be a different country.”