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

Paragraph 5 of 8

Sentence 1 of 5

The next paragraph opens with a sentence with two claims, one of which is the whole sentence

“That the common law did not condone even pre-quickening abortions is confirmed by what one might call a proto-felony-murder rule.”

The claims:

• “[T]he common law did not condone even pre-quickening abortions.”
• “That the common law did not condone even pre-quickening abortions is confirmed by what one might call a proto-felony-murder rule.”

This obviously introduces the next subject, and whatever support there is for these claims will be in the sentences ahead or in citations attached to those sentences. For now, these claims are undetermined:

• “[T]he common law did not condone even pre-quickening abortions.”
• “That the common law did not condone even pre-quickening abortions is confirmed by what one might call a proto-felony-murder rule.”

My only other thought here at this point is that “what one might call a proto-felony-murder rule” is some seriously squishy language. I hope there’s something to firm that up in the near future.