 to say, well, we're not contradicting a prior decision. We're not overturning any sort of precedent. We got rid of that case on standing, and that's what they're continuing to do. But should the court not have expected these kind of challenges to ultimately reach them after they ruled in Dobbs to essentially overturn the constitutional right to an abortion? It was only inevitable that certain state laws or access to certain procedures or medications were going to have to be called into question