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

Paragraph 8 of 8

Sentence 1 of 1

I count six claims in this sentence:

“In this case, five factors weigh strongly in favor of overruling Roe and Casey: the nature of their error, the quality of their reasoning, the “workability” of the rules they imposed on the country, their disruptive effect on other areas of the law, and the absence of concrete reliance.”

The claims:

• “[F]ive factors weigh strongly in favor of overruling Roe and Casey.”
• “[T]he nature of their error” is one reason “in favor of overruling Roe and Casey.”
• “[T]he quality of their reasoning” is one reason “in favor of overruling Roe and Casey.”
• “[T]he “workability” of the rules they imposed on the country” is one reason “in favor of overruling Roe and Casey.”
• “[T]heir disruptive effect on other areas of the law” is one reason “in favor of overruling Roe and Casey.”
• “[T]he absence of concrete reliance” is one reason “in favor of overruling Roe and Casey.”

If we take Part III as an essay, we can see the pattern emerging. This sentence is the whole eighth paragraph in this section, which is essentially an introduction. This sentence in particular serves as an explicit plan of development—and I’m pretty sure the next five sections will line up with claims two through six here.

They need support—all six do—so they’re undetermined until they get it.

• “[F]ive factors weigh strongly in favor of overruling Roe and Casey.”
• “[T]he nature of their error” is one reason “in favor of overruling Roe and Casey.”
• “[T]he quality of their reasoning” is one reason “in favor of overruling Roe and Casey.”
• “[T]he “workability” of the rules they imposed on the country” is one reason “in favor of overruling Roe and Casey.”
• “[T]heir disruptive effect on other areas of the law” is one reason “in favor of overruling Roe and Casey.”
• “[T]he absence of concrete reliance” is one reason “in favor of overruling Roe and Casey.”