So you know, I think you mentioned how folks have been pushing very, very hard for many years, at all sorts of liberation efforts, anything. You know, there are a lot of folks who are on the ground who have been doing this work for a long time, who made very clear years ago, decades ago that this would be the situation if we didn't actually have the right to abortion in practice. And we and we haven't in Texas, you know, not only have scores of clinics closed because of unlawful abortion restrictions, but the folks that I mentioned earlier, who are sort of trapped now have always enjoyed either unequal or no access to abortion care. And so, you know, in some ways, this should come to- come as no surprise what's happening, because these folks have been sounding the alarm for a long time. And so, you know, when this restriction was enacted, it was challenged. And in the case that you mentioned, and eventually the case ended up at the Supreme Court, and the first time it was at the Supreme Court was before the restriction was about to take effect. And the Court declined to issue an injunction, meaning it declined to put it on hold, even though there's no question that it's a six week ban, and for that reason, unconstitutional. And what happened was that the Court cited what I mentioned earlier, which is the fact that this ban is different, because state officials don't directly enforce it. And so it's unclear who the plaintiffs, which are not only abortion providers but abortion funds and practical support groups and other people who support abortion conditions, it wasn't clear that they had sued the right defendants. And so the court really relied on procedural reasons as a pretense not to grant relief in this case. You know, the case came back to the Supreme Court, you know, more recently, and at that point, again, the providers and the funds and the practical support groups and other supporters asked the court to put the law on hold. And they also just asked for the case to continue on. Because what had happened is that the defendants in the case were able to stall proceedings at the Fifth Circuit, which is a court that sits below the Supreme Court. And so the Supreme Court and the decision that we got last week did two things. One, it declined to put the law on hold and to grant an injunction. So the the law remains in effect. And you know, what I mentioned earlier in terms of people having to leave the state to get basic health care or being trapped in the state and being forced to continue a pregnancy against their will, those consequences continue because the ban is still in effect. The other thing that the Supreme Court did was that it said that the case could move forward, but only against one set of defendants, that the case couldn't move forward against the other set of defendants. And this is important for a couple of reasons. One, the Supreme Court misapplied its own law in reaching that conclusion and so the actual legal reasoning and the analysis and the conclusion is incorrect. And, and you know, why does that matter? What how does that actually affect folks on the ground? The problem is not only does that prevent the band from being put on hold or invalidated but with the case only proceeding against one set of defendants, the part of the law that I mentioned earlier, which is that pretty much anyone can enforce SB-8, including someone who has no connection to an abortion, no connection to a patient, that part kind of continues. So that even if the plaintiffs can get relief against the set of defendants that remain, that part of SB-8 that made it so exceptional and made it difficult to challenge in court remains, and providers can still face lawsuits, and abortion funds can still face lawsuits from really anyone in the country, again, without any connection to the abortion or to the patient. And so this requires an immense courage to be able to operate in a field like that, because obviously, you're always at risk of being sued. And I think that the third problem with what the Supreme Court did, or the third consequence, is just that what Texas did, the way that it structured this ban so that it wouldn't be enforced by the state and could be enforced by anyone in the general public, that structure can be repeated to block other fundamental rights. It's not specific to abortion. So that same, you can see copycat laws in other states around abortion care, but you could see that structure with any of the other fundamental rights we cherish and obviously, you know, nobody operates in a silo, abortion care is important, but so is all forms of health care. So is family safety, right? Like there are, there are so many other things that we cherish, and this structure can really be replicated to block other things that that are really important to us and important to our families. And so there's, there's, you know, that added danger to that decision from last week.