Hard to know how to read this, but I assume there must be serious interest in taking this case. So let's break down why this case might intrigue the Court's conservative majority. /1 https://twitter.com/byKateSmith/status/1326537129317429249

For a long time, groups like @nrlc focused on fetal pain as part of their reversal strategy. In 2007, in Gonzales v. Carhart, SCOTUS suggested that lawmakers had more room to regulate when there was scientific uncertainty. /2

Leveraging that, pro-lifers argued that fetal pain was possible at 20 weeks--and that fetal pain should mark the point at which abortion bans were okay. General consensus is that fetal pain doesn't begin until later, but there is disagreement. /3

MS is arguing that fetal pain is possible at 15 weeks, a full five weeks earlier. This will test how far SCOTUS will take the idea of sci uncertainty. And it will test whether different state interests (supported by v contested evidence) will take the place of viability. /4

So this case gives them the option to reverse Roe or could set the stage for something later. Groups like @aul argue that all SCOTUS's tinkering with Roe shows it's unworkable. So getting rid of viability would lay the groundwork for arguing Roe is unworkable/not worth saving.