Justice Brian Hagedorn:
We all know what happened. It's not like we need to put blinders on and pretend that we got these things in a vacuum. So, the question for us is simply like, does a law that was unconstitutional at one point after 100-plus years of enforcement somehow get written off the books because the Legislature tried to do whatever the courts would let it do during the period of the time that the law was deemed unenforceable? So, it strikes me that some of this formalist, 'Oh, we've got these things that conflict' — again, we all know what happened. So unless there's some conflict — the laws were not reversed off the books — I don't know why it's a matter of straight, just reasonable statutory interpretation. The law's still there. It's still there. The judiciary doesn't get to edit laws. The judiciary doesn't get to rewrite them. We didn't delete it. We prevented its enforcement. Now, it's still there. How can we just say, 'Oh, we can't enforce it anymore,' simply because the Legislature was doing other things when it was unenforceable?

Justice Rebecca Dallet:
You're still asking us to ignore an entire body of law that has been passed. That doesn't say we're only passing this because of Roe. I mean, Roe did not require 20 weeks. I have a hard time with your argument, specifically with respect to 253.107. Roe talks about viability — 20 weeks is pre viability and our Legislature decided, fairly recently, at least in the scheme of these regulations, that an abortion may not be performed after 20 weeks unless the mother is undergoing a medical emergency. That's not based on Roe. That is the legislative policy that was chosen by this state's Legislature.