Michael Pauley and Chris Motz take a deeper look at the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, this time focusing on three concurring opinions written by justices who voted to uphold the pro-life law in Mississippi that was challenged. While all three justices agreed that Mississippi’s statute limiting abortions after 15 weeks gestation should be deemed constitutional, there were stark differences in the reasoning that each justice used to reach the same conclusion. First, Michael and Chris look at the intriguing concurrence penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, who offers a vigorous critique of the Supreme Court’s history of using “substantive due process” analysis to expand the court’s power. Next they examine the concurrence of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, focusing on his argument that the Constitution “does not take sides on the issue of abortion.” Finally, they consider the concurrence of Chief Justice John Roberts, who argues that the court should have upheld the constitutionality of the Mississippi law, but without overturning the prior precedents of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.