Tag Archives: Undetermined
Dobbs Sentences #72: Part II B 2 a
Paragraph 6 of 7 Sentence 4 of 4 The claim in the next sentence is a continuation of the last one: “But a physician performing an abortion would, precisely because his aim was an ‘unlawful’ one.” We’ve looked at this citation before, but here it is again: “But if a woman be with child, and […]
Dobbs Sentences #71: Part II B 2 a
Paragraph 6 of 7 Sentence 3 of 4 Simple claim in the next sentence: “These other physicians—even if ‘unlicensed’—would not be ‘guilty of murder or manslaughter.’ Hale 429.” Those words do indeed appear in the passage indicated. Here it is transcribed from Hale: “If a physician gives a person a potion without any intent of […]
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 #66: Part II B 2 a
Paragraph 5 of 8 Sentence 3 of 5 The next sentence provides some support for the current train of thought: “Hale wrote that if a physician gave a woman ‘with child’ a ‘potion’ to cause an abortion, and the woman died, it was ‘murder’ because the potion was given ‘unlawfully to destroy her child within […]
Dobbs Sentences #65: Part II B 2 a
Paragraph 5 of 8 Sentence 2 of 5 The next sentence is a quick stop, since it’s a single claim that will need support that it doesn’t provide itself: “Hale and Blackstone explained a way in which a pre-quickening abortion could rise to the level of a homicide.” I’m excited to see that explanation. For […]
Dobbs Sentences #64: Part II B 2 a
Paragraph 5 of 8 Sentence 1 of 5 The next paragraph opens with a sentence with two claims, one of which is the whole sentence “That the common law did not condone even pre-quickening abortions is confirmed by what one might call a proto-felony-murder rule.” The claims: This obviously introduces the next subject, and whatever […]
Dobbs Sentences #63: Part II B 2 a
Paragraph 4 of 8 Sentence 3 of 3 The sentence that ends this paragraph has two simple claims: “Similarly, an indictment from 1602, which did not distinguish between a pre-quickening and post-quickening abortion, described abortion as ‘pernicious’ and ‘against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity’.” Keown 7 (discussing R. v. […]
Dobbs Sentences #58: Part II B 2 a
Paragraph 3 of 8 Sentence 1 of 3 The next sentence indicates another pair of books that don’t lend themselves to easy access: “English cases dating all the way back to the 13th century corroborate the treatises’ statements that abortion was a crime. See generally J. Dellapenna, Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History 126, and […]
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, […]
Dobbs Sentences #56: Part II B 2 a
Paragraph 2 of 8 Sentence 1 of 2 The next paragraph starts out with a simple claim, but the citation goes in an odd direction: “The ’eminent common-law authorities (Blackstone, Coke, Hale, and the like),’ Kahler v. Kansas, 589 U.S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 7), all describe abortion after quickening as criminal.” The […]
Cynical Jason 