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

Paragraph 6 of 7

Sentence 1 of 4

The next paragraph opens with a sentence that contains two closely-related claims:

“Notably, Blackstone, like Hale, did not state that this proto-felony-murder rule required that the woman be ‘with quick child’—only that she be ‘with child.’ Id., at 201.”

That’s simple enough. Here are the claims separated:

• “Blackstone [. . .] did not state that this proto-felony-murder rule required that the woman be ‘with quick child’—only that she be ‘with child.’”
• “Hale [. . .] did not state that this proto-felony-murder rule required that the woman be ‘with quick child’—only that she be ‘with child.’”

I’m going to have to leave these claims undetermined for now. For one thing, the claims regard statements that Blackstone and Hale did not make, and thoroughly confirming the claims would require completely canvassing the writings of both men. For another thing, I’m not sure I understand yet what Dobbs means by “proto-felony-murder rule.” I know what all of the components of that phrase mean, but put together they become a Voltron of ambiguity. For another other thing, I feel like this is a minor point. If this becomes a significant concern later I’ll come back and do more with this, but unless that happens it will likely be left for cleanup.

So these two claims are undetermined for now:

• “Blackstone [. . .] did not state that this proto-felony-murder rule required that the woman be ‘with quick child’—only that she be ‘with child.’”
• “Hale [. . .] did not state that this proto-felony-murder rule required that the woman be ‘with quick child’—only that she be ‘with child.’”