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

Paragraph 6 of 7

Sentence 4 of 4

The claim in the next sentence is a continuation of the last one:

“But a physician performing an abortion would, precisely because his aim was an ‘unlawful’ one.”

We’ve looked at this citation before, but here it is again:

“But if a woman be with child, and any gives her a potion to destroy the child within her, and she takes it, and it works so strongly, that it kills her, this is murder, for it was not given to cure her of a disease, but unlawfully to destroy her child within her, and therefore he that gives a potion to this end, must take the hazard, and if it kill the mother, it is murder, and so ruled before me at the assizes at Bury in the year 1670.”

The last sentence presented a claim and used Hale as reinforcement. This one also relies on Hale for backing, but not in support of an argument. Because of that, this claim is also undetermined even though Hale used these words.

• “But a physician performing an abortion would, precisely because his aim was an ‘unlawful’ one.”