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

Paragraph 3 of 5

Sentence 2 of 2

There are two claims in this sentence, and a lot going on in how those claims are being expressed:

“For reasons already explained, Roe’s constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed.”

The claims:

• The case has been made in this decision that “Roe’s constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed.”
• “Roe’s constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed.”

I know that the Court has attempted to make the case for claim #1, but I’ll need to work on that more before I accept that it’s established. As for the second claim . . . that’s a lot of qualification packed into one phrase.

Here’s a stripped-down version of the claim:

“Roe’s constitutional analysis was [. . .] outside the bounds of [an] interpretation of the [. . .] constitutional provisions to which it [. . .] pointed.”

This would be fairly simple to establish, and maybe the Court has accomplished it. I’ll keep working to determine if they have. The other bits, what I would call “loaded language,” are more subjective. “Far outside?” “Reasonable interpretation?” “Vaguely?” These seem more antagonistic than analytic. Even “various” reads as an attempt to minimize the argument to which the Court responds.

There’s too much going on here to determine truth value in a quick pass. They’re both undetermined:

• The case has been made in this decision that “Roe’s constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed.”
• “Roe’s constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed.”