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

Paragraph 5 of 5

Sentence 1 of 3

This sentence contains at least four claims:

“As the Court’s landmark decision in West Coast Hotel illustrates, the Court has previously overruled decisions that wrongly removed an issue from the people and the democratic process.”

The claims:

• “[T]he Court’s landmark decision in West Coast Hotel illustrates [that] the Court has previously overruled decisions that wrongly removed an issue from the people and the democratic process.”
• “[T]he Court has previously overruled decisions that wrongly removed an issue from the people and the democratic process.”
• Some “decisions [have] wrongly removed an issue from the people and the democratic process.”
• Some “decisions [have] removed an issue from the people and the democratic process.”

I’ve broken this down in a way that reminds me that I’m not always this particular when I’m breaking down sentences. I might (probably will) have to work harder on my next pass through these sentences, because I’ve likely missed a bunch of nuanced parts of sentences and claims to this point. That’s fine.

Before these can be examined properly I need to look at the evidence Dobbs supplies, and that comes in the next sentences. So for now, these claims are all undetermined:

• “[T]he Court’s landmark decision in West Coast Hotel illustrates [that] the Court has previously overruled decisions that wrongly removed an issue from the people and the democratic process.”
• “[T]he Court has previously overruled decisions that wrongly removed an issue from the people and the democratic process.”
• Some “decisions [have] wrongly removed an issue from the people and the democratic process.”
• Some “decisions [have] removed an issue from the people and the democratic process.”