there can be some planning by some people about pregnancy. people who are raped don t have a choice whether it s by an outsider or their own husband and not everybody can afford contraceptives. many women in mississippi don t have money to pay for contraceptives. but their point in their brief was contraceptives, if you use them, the failure rate is very small, etc., etc. how can there be real reliance? can you address that issue? first, this is not a new
0 decisis analysis and i want to give you an opportunity to respond. the undue burden test is not at issue. that applies to regulations, not prohibitions. the state has conceded this is a prohibition. thats the title of this law is an act to prohibit abortion after 15 weeks and the only thing that is at issue in this case is the viability line. the viability line has been workable. the lower federal courts have applied it uniformly for 50 years, the fifth circuit had no difficulty striking down this law unanimously 3-0. it has been an exceedingly workable standard. if i may return to your question, a reasonable possibility standard would not be workable. it would boil down to an argument that states can prohibit a category of women from exercising their constitutional right merely because of the number of people in the category and that is not how constitutional rights work. a state would never say it could ban religious services on a wednesday evening for example because most people