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

Paragraph 3 of 6

Sentence 1 of 4

There are three claims in the next sentence:

“At any rate, the original ground for the quickening rule is of little importance for present purposes because the rule was abandoned in the 19th century.”

Just when I was feeling like a slacker for not pursuing the citations in the previous sentences, here comes Dobbs to tell me in plain language that I was right to move quickly. Here are this sentence’s claims:

• “At any rate, the original ground for the quickening rule is of little importance for present purposes because the rule was abandoned in the 19th century.”
• “[T]he original ground for the quickening rule is of little importance for present purposes.”
• “[T]he rule was abandoned in the 19th century.”

There are some interesting implications in these claims, but I’ll mark these undetermined for now. Maybe the next few sentences will justify the time spent on isolating the claims.

Undetermined:

• “At any rate, the original ground for the quickening rule is of little importance for present purposes because the rule was abandoned in the 19th century.”
• “[T]he original ground for the quickening rule is of little importance for present purposes.”
• “[T]he rule was abandoned in the 19th century.”