Tag Archives: Quickening
Dobbs Sentences #118: Part II B 3
Paragraph 6 of 11 Sentence 4 of 4 This sentence has two claims that need some discussion: “That is not surprising since common-law authorities had repeatedly condemned abortion and described it as an ‘unlawful’ act without regard to whether it occurred before or after quickening. See supra, at 16–21.” The claims: The phrase that separates […]
Dobbs Sentences #110: Part II B 3
Paragraph 4 of 11 Sentence 4 of 4 The final sentence of this paragraph contains at least two claims: “Moreover, Hale and Blackstone (and many other authorities following them) asserted that even a pre-quickening abortion was ‘unlawful’ and that, as a result, an abortionist was guilty of murder if the woman died from the attempt.” […]
Dobbs Sentences #108: Part II B 3
Paragraph 4 of 11 Sentence 2 of 4 This sentence consists of one claim: “The Solicitor General repeats Roe’s claim that it is ‘“doubtful” . . . “abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus.”’ Brief for United States 26 (quoting Roe, 410 U.S., […]
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 #83: Part II B 2 c
Paragraph 2 of 6 Sentence 1 of 2 The next paragraph opens with a sentence consisting of one claim: “The Solicitor General offers a different explanation of the basis for the quickening rule, namely, that before quickening the common law did not regard a fetus ‘as having a “separate and independent existence.”’ Brief for United […]
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 #69: Part II B 2 a
Paragraph 6 of 7 Sentence 1 of 4 The next paragraph opens with a sentence that contains two closely-related claims: “Notably, Blackstone, like Hale, did not state that this proto-felony-murder rule required that the woman be ‘with quick child’—only that she be ‘with child.’ Id., at 201.” That’s simple enough. Here are the claims separated: […]
Dobbs Sentences #57: Part II B 2 a
Paragraph 2 of 8 Sentence 2 of 2 In theory, the single claim in the next sentence is easy to verify, but I’m having trouble finding a copy of the document online. Here’s the sentence: “Henry de Bracton’s 13th-century treatise explained that if a person has ‘struck a pregnant woman, or has given her poison, […]
Cynical Jason 