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

Paragraph 4 of 8

Sentence 3 of 3

The sentence that ends this paragraph has two simple claims:

“Similarly, an indictment from 1602, which did not distinguish between a pre-quickening and post-quickening abortion, described abortion as ‘pernicious’ and ‘against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity’.” Keown 7 (discussing R. v. Webb, Calendar of Assize Records, Surrey Indictments 512 (1980)).”

Here’s the sentence without citations:

“Similarly, an indictment from 1602, which did not distinguish between a pre-quickening and post-quickening abortion, described abortion as ‘pernicious’ and ‘against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity’.”

And here are the claims:

• “[A]n indictment from 1602 [. . .] did not distinguish between a pre-quickening and post-quickening abortion.”
• “[A]n indictment from 1602 [. . .] described abortion as ‘pernicious’ and ‘against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity’.”

Simple claims, and easily checked—when I can get my hands on a copy of John Keown’s book. To be honest, though, these claims aren’t a high priority. It’s a reiteration of a point made in the previous example, and its purpose is to establish that in the past someone in the legal profession in England described abortion as bad.

Cool.

If and when I can consult Keown, I’ll check this out, but until then these claims are undetermined:

• “[A]n indictment from 1602 [. . .] did not distinguish between a pre-quickening and post-quickening abortion.”
• “[A]n indictment from 1602 [. . .] described abortion as ‘pernicious’ and ‘against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity’.”