Decades later, many of the most sophisticated players in the anti-abortion movement have not let go of this idea. Their efforts have created a dramatic disconnect between the arguments that will be made in the Supreme Court this week and those made for the abortion bans that dominated state legislative sessions. (Louisiana itself was among the states to pass a heartbeat bill.) Those who back the bans articulate what virtually all abortion opponents want — the criminalization of abortion and recognition of a right to life from the moment of fertilization. But the advocates behind the June Medical case believe that neither the Supreme Court nor the American public would back an absolute ban, at least not any time soon. Nor do they think that the court will take up a case involving these heartbeat bills, which have been repeatedly struck down by lower courts.

What does this disconnect tell us? First, abortion bans may have distracted us from the real threat to Roe v. Wade. After all, the Casey case identified an important government interest in protecting fetal life throughout pregnancy but still saved abortion rights in the name of equality for women. Savvy abortion foes believe the fastest way to undercut that ruling is to show that abortion makes women anything but equal. In the face of failure in the Supreme Court, skepticism from the medical establishment and resistance from grass-roots activists, leading anti-abortion groups have stuck to their guns. In June Medical Services v. Russo, we may start to see whether they made a smart bet.

But the disconnect between state bans and Supreme Court strategy also tells us that a reckoning may be coming.

To be sure, in states with large anti-abortion majorities (and gerrymandered legislatures), heartbeat bans seem smart — a way to rally voters and take a shot at Roe v. Wade. But nationally (and in more divided states), the bans do not land the same way. President Trump pleaded with state lawmakers to include exceptions for rape and incest. Abortion opponents at the national level have focused on later abortions — or on killings they claim take place after failed abortion attempts. These politicians recognize what polls suggest: While public opinion on the subject is extremely messy, most Americans hardly seem ready for the criminalization of all or most abortions, much less the punishment of doctors or even pregnant people.

If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, there would be no guarantee that support for abortion bans would grow. Decades ago, reproductive rights activists found out that a sweeping judicial decision doesn’t always translate into success in national politics — or even to lasting success in the court. Abortion opponents should be the last to ignore that history. But after Roe v. Wade is gone, the anti-abortion movement may learn their lesson the hard way.