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

Paragraph 1 of 3

Sentence 5 of 5

This sentence appears to have two claims:

“So if the rights at issue in those cases are fundamentally the same as the right recognized in Roe and Casey, the implication is clear: The Constitution does not permit the States to regard the destruction of a ‘potential life’ as a matter of any significance.”

• “[I]f the rights at issue in those cases are fundamentally the same as the right recognized in Roe and Casey, the implication is clear
• “[T]he implication is” that “[t]he Constitution does not permit the States to regard the destruction of a ‘potential life’ as a matter of any significance.”

These are false, right? Both Roe and Casey acknowledged that the states have a legitimate interest in this matter, and left it to the states to determine what can be done at a certain point but not before. Maybe my reading is too simplistic, so I’ll hold off on calling these false, but these two claims both seem false at a glance.

Undetermined for now:

• “[I]f the rights at issue in those cases are fundamentally the same as the right recognized in Roe and Casey, the implication is clear
• “[T]he implication is” that “[t]he Constitution does not permit the States to regard the destruction of a ‘potential life’ as a matter of any significance.”