certainly the case that not every woman in america has needed to exercise this right or wanted to but one in four american women have had an abortion. for thoefs women the rights secured by roe and casey are critical in insuring they can control their bodies and lives. i have think there is a second dimension to it that casey also properly recognized and that s the societal dimension. that s the understanding of our society even thoef though this has been a controversial decision. every person in america knows what this court held and know how the court defined this concept of liberty for women and what control they ll have in the situation of a unplanned pregnancy. for the court to reverse course now i think would run counter to that societal reliance and the very concept we have of what equality is guaranteed to women in this country. it is certainly true that
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