As David French writes today, the Supreme Court has just given itself the chance to revisit a mistaken 2016 decision on the permissible scope of abortion regulations. But that’s not all it has agreed to take up. Professor O. Carter Snead of Notre Dame Law School says, “Even more important, the Court will review the jurisprudence of third-party standing in abortion cases. Up to now, unlike in other legal contexts, abortion clinics have been permitted to raise challenges to laws restricting abortion by asserting that they speak for the women whose rights are at issue. If the Court acts to bring the law of abortion litigation standing into alignment with the usual legal framework, it would radically reorient the focus of these cases towards the women actually affected by such laws rather than the abortion clinics and advocacy organizations who have historically led the fight in the courts. This is an appropriate shift of focus. And it would be a significant setback for the abortion rights advocacy movement.”

Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review , a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. @rameshponnuru