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

Paragraph 6 of 7

Sentence 3 of 4

Simple claim in the next sentence:

“These other physicians—even if ‘unlicensed’—would not be ‘guilty of murder or manslaughter.’ Hale 429.”

Those words do indeed appear in the passage indicated. Here it is transcribed from Hale:

“If a physician gives a person a potion without any intent of doing him any bodily hurt, but with an intent to cure or prevent a disease, and contrary to the expectation of the physician it kills him, this is no homicide, and the like of a chirurgeon, 3 E. E. Coron. 163. And I hold their opinion to be erroneous, that think, if he be no licensed chirurgeon or physician, that occasioneth this mischance, that then it is felony, for physic and salves were before licensed physicians and chirurgeons; and therefore if they be not licensed according to the statute of 3 H.8.cap.11. or 14 H.8.cap.5. they are subject to the penalties in the statutes, but God forbid that any mischance of this kind should make any person not licensed guilty of murder or manslaughter.

That Hale wrote these words I have no doubt, but Hale is only in the citation at the end of the sentence. This is a claim made by Dobbs and Hale is cited in support of the claim in Dobbs. In that sense, then, even though the words appear as advertised, the claim itself is undetermined. There’s no argument to establish the truth of the statement—just that the statement was made.

This is undetermined:

• “These other physicians—even if ‘unlicensed’—would not be ‘guilty of murder or manslaughter.’”