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

Paragraph 1 of 2

Sentence 3 of 3

There’s a lot going on in the next sentence:

Manuals for justices of the peace printed in the Colonies in the 18th century typically restated the common-law rule on abortion, and some manuals repeated Hale’s and Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication “unlawfully to destroy the child” would be guilty of murder if the woman died. See, e.g., J. Parker, Conductor Generalis 220 (1788); 2 R. Burn, Justice of the Peace, and Parish Officer 221–222 (7th ed. 1762) (English manual stating the same).30

And without the citations:

“Manuals for justices of the peace printed in the Colonies in the 18th century typically restated the common-law rule on abortion, and some manuals repeated Hale’s and Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication ‘unlawfully to destroy the child’ would be guilty of murder if the woman died.”

Here are the two claims:

• “Manuals for justices of the peace printed in the Colonies in the 18th century typically restated the common-law rule on abortion.”
• “[S]ome manuals repeated Hale’s and Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication ‘unlawfully to destroy the child’ would be guilty of murder if the woman died.”

Sources cited in the text:

• J. Parker, Conductor Generalis 220 (1788);
• 2 R. Burn, Justice of the Peace, and Parish Officer 221–222 (7th ed. 1762)

This is end note 30:

For manuals restating one or both rules, see J. Davis, Criminal Law 96, 102–103, 339 (1838); Conductor Generalis 194–195 (1801) (printed in Philadelphia); Conductor Generalis 194–195 (1794) (printed in Albany); Conductor Generalis 220 (1788) (printed in New York); Conductor Generalis 198 (1749) (printed in New York); G. Webb, Office and Authority of a Justice of Peace 232 (1736) (printed in Williamsburg); Conductor Generalis 161 (1722) (printed in Philadelphia); see also J. Conley, Doing It by the Book: Justice of the Peace Manuals and English Law in Eighteenth Century America, 6 J. Legal Hist. 257, 265, 267 (1985) (noting that these manuals were the justices’ “primary source of legal reference” and of “practical value for a wider audience than the justices”).For cases stating the proto-felony-murder rule, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Parker, 50 Mass. 263, 265 (1845); People v. Sessions, 58 Mich. 594, 595–596, 26 N. W. 291, 292–293 (1886); State v. Moore, 25 Iowa 128, 131–132 (1868); Smith v. State, 33 Me. 48, 54–55 (1851).

For the record, here are all of the sources cited in this note:

• J. Davis, Criminal Law 96, 102–103, 339 (1838);
• Conductor Generalis 194–195 (1801) (printed in Philadelphia);
• Conductor Generalis 194–195 (1794) (printed in Albany);
• Conductor Generalis 220 (1788) (printed in New York);
• Conductor Generalis 198 (1749) (printed in New York);
• G. Webb, Office and Authority of a Justice of Peace 232 (1736) (printed in Williamsburg);
• Conductor Generalis 161 (1722) (printed in Philadelphia);
• J. Conley, Doing It by the Book: Justice of the Peace Manuals and English Law in Eighteenth Century America, 6 J. Legal Hist. 257, 265, 267 (1985) (noting that these manuals were the justices’ “primary source of legal reference” and of “practical value for a wider audience than the justices”).
• For cases stating the proto-felony-murder rule, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Parker, 50 Mass. 263, 265 (1845);
• People v. Sessions, 58 Mich. 594, 595–596, 26 N. W. 291, 292–293 (1886);
• State v. Moore, 25 Iowa 128, 131–132 (1868);
• Smith v. State, 33 Me. 48, 54–55 (1851)

On one hand, that’s a lot of support—or at least it looks like it. It supports the idea that the Hale/Blackstone understanding of abortion was still being circulated. If it’s just a reiteration of the same ideas, though, it isn’t further support for the ideas or the arguments for them, so in that respect it could be a little misleading.

If this were a weightier point, I’d stick with it a bit and try to confirm something about it, but that’s a lot of material for the repetition of an idea. I’m calling these undetermined for now:

• “Manuals for justices of the peace printed in the Colonies in the 18th century typically restated the common-law rule on abortion.”
• “[S]ome manuals repeated Hale’s and Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication ‘unlawfully to destroy the child’ would be guilty of murder if the woman died.”