Page:Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization - Court opinion draft, February 2022.pdf/22

22 as Amicus Curiae 26 (quoting Commonwealth v. Parker, 50 Mass. 263, 266 (1848)). 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 many purposes, in reference to civil rights, an infant in ventre sa mere is regarded as a person in being.” Parker, 50 Mass., at 266 (citing 1 Blackstone 129); see also Evans v. People, 49 N. Y. 86, 89 (N. Y. 1872); Mills v. Commonwealth, 13 Pa. 631, 633 (1850); Morrow v. Scott, 7 Ga. 535, 537 (1849); Hall v. Hancock, 32 Mass. 255, 258 (1834); Thellusson v. Woodford, 31 Eng. Rep. 117, 163 (1789).

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. 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." 1 F. Wharton, The Criminal Law of the United States §1220, at 606 (4th rev. ed. 1857); see also J. B. Beck, Researches in Medicine and Medical Jurisprudence 26–28 (2d ed. 1835) (describing the quickening distinction as "absurd" and "injurious"). In 1803, the British Parliament made