Want to cot ou like, get to one thing, just back to wht you were saying about am, you know, the ways in which which black women were, were having to raise their families and all these things, and like, conditions around these things being really important. Because i think the truth is that even after ro, like, people with resources will still uild oget abortions, like te right? But that the problem with like row was in part that it was always, like, for so many people, just ke a write on paper. So, so maybe let's just talk for a couple of minutes about, um, how ro and then, you know, plan parenthood be case, which like mostly reaffirmed row, um never actually conferred an actionable right for many. And then how that sort of proliferation of state wide restrictions just kind of pushed people farther from access. And about really who this has most impacted, right? Like, you know, that's so ha, ha, ha, ha. Somexcense it

does ome the right secured in row, is quite interesting. Andye, this is also worth noting, row was not the only abortion rights case riglating on. The court was sort of taking this up in the 19 seventies, the early 19 seventyes, late 19 sixties. There were a lot of different cases, including one from new york state called lefcoits versus hall, that was brought by feminist lawyers. And they were making the argument that new york's abortion law, which made it very hard for women to get abortions in new york, not only violated the right to privacy, that was something that had happened a few years earlier in a case called griswold versus quette. It not only violated the right to privacy, it also was a question of sex equality and race equality and class equality. And they talked about how, you know, women of color bore the burden of these bands, and they were the most at risk for being a killed if they sought illegal abortions. They had the least amount of access to medical care. All of this, they also argued that it was an eighth amendment violation, like to bear a child because the state forced you to was a cruel and unusual punishment. So, i mean, they're making all kinds of arguments. A're gong to see whatever tits. Interestingly, that case, in another case, led by another set of feminist lawyers, does not make it to the court in time. The left coits case is mooted out when new york state repeals its abortion law and puts in place a more liberal law that provides greater access to portion. So that gets, you know, thrown out. It doesn't go up to the court. There's another case called struck versus secretary of defense, which was a challenge brought by a female air force captain, susan struck, who found herself pregnant out of marriage while serving in the air force in biatnam. And it was the federal government's policy at this time that if you were a female service person and you found yourself pregnant, you either had to get an abortion or you had to leave military service. And susan struck didn't want to give up her job. She also didn't want to have an abortion because she was a catholic. So ruth bater ginsburg, who litigated this case on captain struck's behalf, argued that there were religious liberty questions here, that this was pregnancy discrimination, this was an employment discrimination issue, in addition to being a privacy case, a sex quality case, all of these things. And so i just want to emphasized there were lots of different frames around which to think about reproductive rights. And ginsburg thought the struck case was the perfect vehicle to go up to the court, because it showed this wasn't just about avoiding motherhood. It was about choosing motherhood on your terms, right? And that case also gets mooted because the federal government changes its policy to allow women to remain in military ervice even when they are pregnant. So it's row that's sort of the last man standing, and gets e court. And it's actually, it's argued by two women, sarah weddington and linda coffee, who are fresh out of law school and likethey'r. They're 25 years old or thereabout. And they focus on the right to privacy, in part because it has actually been a very winning argument in the lower courts in texas. At that point there had been a challe to a texa sodomy law that had been struck down on privacy grounds. And so it makes sense for them. But they aren't making the multifarious claims that these other lawyers are making in these other litigations. And now when it gets to the court, row has already cabined to the right to privacy. The court could have expanded it, perhaps, but they focus solely on the right to privacy, and that has really been framed as a kind of negative right, the right to prevent the government from making this decision for you. But there is no ansellary or concomitant obligation of the government to furnish the conditions under which you exercise the right like a positive right. So, right, exactly. It's not just that the fifteenth amendment can provide you with the right to votek. You actually have to have elections, right? Right? Right? I that's not the case with abortion. Like, ye, you have a right to an abortion, but you know what if you can't access it? What if you don't have the money?