squarely addressed viability, because the government had made the argument that viability -- >> no, no, i appreciate that casey addressed it. but that's different than saying it was at issue. it said it was the central principal of roe because it was pretty much all that was left after they were done dealing with the rest of us. the regulations in casey had no applicability or not depending on where viability was. if they didn't say anything about viability, it's like what justice blackman said in -- when discussing among his colleagues, which is good reason not to have papers out that early, is that they don't have to address the line drawing at all in roe. and they didn't have to address the line drawing at all in casey. >> i disagree. the undo burden test incorporates the viability line. that was what the court was