Tag Archives: Dobbs v Jackson
Dobbs Sentences #87: Part II B 2 c
Paragraph 3 of 6 Sentence 3 of 4 Just one claim in this sentence, and it’s a strange one: “In 1803, the British Parliament made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy and authorized the imposition of severe punishment. See Lord Ellenborough’s Act, 43 Geo. 3, c. 58 (1803).” I found the cited passage […]
Dobbs Sentences #86: Part II B 2 c
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 […]
Dobbs Sentences #85: Part II B 2 c
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 […]
Dobbs Sentences #84: Part II B 2 c
Paragraph 2 of 6 Sentence 2 of 2 The second sentence in this paragraph has two claims: “But the case on which the Solicitor General relies for this proposition also suggested that the criminal law’s quickening rule was out of step with the treatment of prenatal life in other areas of law, noting that ‘to […]
Dobbs Sentences #82: Part II B 2 c
Paragraph 1 of 6 Sentence 2 of 2 This sentence is a history lesson in two claims: “At that time, there were no scientific methods for detecting pregnancy in its early stages,31 and thus, as one court put it in 1872: ‘[U]ntil the period of quickening there is no evidence of life; and whatever may […]
Dobbs Sentences #81: Part II B 2 c
Paragraph 1 of 6 Sentence 1 of 2 Starting the new section: “The original ground for drawing a distinction between pre- and post-quickening abortions is not entirely clear, but some have attributed the rule to the difficulty of proving that a pre-quickening fetus was alive.” Two claims: Excellent. Let’s see where this goes. Undetermined:
Dobbs Sentences #80: Part II B 2 b
Paragraph 2 of 2 Sentence 3 of 3 The final sentence for this section is a single claim: “And by the 19th century, courts frequently explained that the common law made abortion of a quick child a crime. See, e.g., Smith v. Gaffard, 31 Ala. 45, 51 (1857); Smith v. State, 33 Me. 48, 55 […]
Dobbs Sentences #79: Part II B 2 b
Paragraph 2 of 2 Sentence 2 of 3 Finally. The next sentence is a single claim, and one that’s easily tracked down and confirmed: “In Maryland in 1652, for example, an indictment charged that a man ‘Murtherously endeavoured to destroy or Murther the Child by him begotten in the Womb.’ Proprietary v. Mitchell, 10 Md. […]
Dobbs Sentences #78: Part II B 2 b
Paragraph 2 of 2 Sentence 1 of 3 The opening sentence of the next paragraph has a single claim: “The few cases available from the early colonial period corroborate that abortion was a crime. See generally Dellapenna 215–228 (collecting cases).” But I don’t have easy access to the Dellapenna book, so this will have to […]
Dobbs Sentences #77: Part II B 2 b
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 […]
Cynical Jason 