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

Paragraph 1 of 5

Sentence 2 of 2

This sentence has two claims:

“An erroneous interpretation of the Constitution is always important, but some are more damaging than others.”

The claims:

• “An erroneous interpretation of the Constitution is always important.”
• “[S]ome [erroneous interpretation[s] of the Constitution] are more damaging than others.”

The first claim is a subjective judgment, so that will wait. The second makes sense, but let’s see if any supporting examples are brought to bear.

These are undetermined for now:

• “An erroneous interpretation of the Constitution is always important.”
• “[S]ome [erroneous interpretation[s] of the Constitution] are more damaging than others.”