1/ Can we talk about how problematic Alito’s logic is? Alito reaches back to the 17th c. English Common law to provide a precedent for his decision, but the 17th c. judgments he cites only made abortion a crime if it happened after the child “quickens” or moves (about 20 weeks). 
2/ This 17th-18th century understanding would mean upholding Roe, and disallowing Dobbs. So Alito then says the common law somehow must have made abortion illegal before quickening — without a shred of evidence.
3/ Why was quickening so important? Many scholars & theologians then thought that quickening marked the possible point that the soul entered into the body of the fetus.
4/ @CorneliaDayton writes a bit about it in her famous article on abortion in early America, “Taking the Trade.” (Popular version here) history.uconn.edu/taking-the-tra…
5/ So by claiming that he wants to return us to our 17th c. common law roots, then actually ignoring their guidelines, Alito is imposing his own standard of what constitutes life (or perhaps a conservative Catholic standard) that is not in fact any past precedent in US history.
6/ It was not even a past precedent in the Catholic Church in the 18th c., which also held to the quickening rule. Such logic falls apart upon the barest scrutiny. It is the definition of reactionary.
7/ *technical clarification. Quickening is the point, then as now, when a mother can begin to feel a fetus move. The term is still common in medical literature & in doctor/patient conversations.
Link to full draft. Relevant cases quoted and cited esp. pp. 16-20. Alito tries valiantly, but he just can’t square the circle.
https://twitter.com/earlymodjustice/status/1521633289290895362
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
