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

Paragraph 3 of 6

Sentence 2 of 4

Just one claim in the next sentence, but the citations attached to this sentence are an explosion of avenues for investigation:

“During that period, treatise writers and commentators criticized the quickening distinction as ‘neither in accordance with the result of medical experience, nor with the principles of the common law.’ F. Wharton, Criminal Law §1220, p. 606 (rev. 4th ed. 1857) (footnotes omitted); see also J. Beck, Researches in Medicine and Medical Jurisprudence 26–28 (2d ed. 1835) (describing the quickening distinction as “absurd” and “injurious”).32”

Just the one claim here:

• “During that period, treatise writers and commentators criticized the quickening distinction as ‘neither in accordance with the result of medical experience, nor with the principles of the common law.’”

But checking on it will take some labor. Here are the citations in the text:

• F. Wharton, Criminal Law §1220, p. 606 (rev. 4th ed. 1857) (footnotes omitted); see also
• J. Beck, Researches in Medicine and Medical Jurisprudence 26–28 (2d ed. 1835) (describing the quickening distinction as “absurd” and “injurious”).

And here are the citations in end note 32:

• Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 78 Ky. 204, 209–210 (1879) (acknowledging the common-law rule but arguing that “the law should punish abortions and miscarriages, willfully produced, at any time during the period of gestation”);
• Mills v. Commonwealth, 13 Pa., 631, 633 (1850) (the quickening rule “never ought to have been the law anywhere”);
• J. Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes §744, p. 471 (1873) (“If we look at the reason of the law, we shall prefer” a rule that “discard[s] this doctrine of the necessity of a quickening”); Dana, Report of the Committee on the Production of Abortion, in 5 Transactions of the Maine Medical Association 37–39 (1866);
• Report on Criminal Abortion, in 12 Transactions of the American Medical Association 75–77 (1859);
• W. Guy, Principles of Medical Forensics 133–134 (1845);
• J. Chitty, Practical Treatise on Medical Jurisprudence 438 (2d Am. ed. 1836);
• 1 T. Beck & J. Beck, Elements of Medical Jurisprudence 293 (5th ed. 1823);
• 2 T. Percival, The Works, Literary, Moral and Medical 430 (1807);
• Keown 38–39 (collecting English authorities).

So we’ll save that. One undetermined claim:

• “During that period, treatise writers and commentators criticized the quickening distinction as ‘neither in accordance with the result of medical experience, nor with the principles of the common law.’”