 And I want to ask you about the DOB's decision and I remember when it came down I listened to Betsy Stevenson and a professor from the medical school and they were talking about professor Stevenson was talking about the implications of the job of the DOB's decision from an economic perspective in terms of women's economic mobility prospects and what this might mean for that and then the the professor from the medical school was talking about some of the unintended consequences as it relates to providing healthcare services for women, how doctors are trained, can we train doctors around abortion access at the medical school and all of the things that the institution now had to think about in the DOB's decision. This was before the midterms when Michigan was trying to figure out if where our state would go and you were just talking about the kind of unintended consequences or perhaps intended consequences on the criminal justice system and you were saying that the courts are not necessarily set up to implement a law like Texas's law for example where someone can be prosecuted for for seeking an abortion people can turn other people in etc and it just raises such an interesting question for me in terms of in these hotbed policy issues where the issue itself is a really important policy conversation but then there are these ripple effects that also need to be talked about in terms of its impact potentially on institutions like the criminal justice system the legal system I mean the education system the healthcare system etc labor markets and I wonder if you can just talk about how a debate on say abortion access intersects with criminal justice in a way that people might be surprised to think about. Well I hear I think the most surprising thing stems from you know when you're a policy maker not only do you have to think about the policy you also have to think of the abuse of that policy and so say for example um you know is it is it going to be okay if one day someone walks out of the house and they're pregnant and their neighbor sees them and then a week later they walk out of their house and they're not pregnant you know can that neighbor call that neighbor then calls and some very personal circumstances are delved into because okay maybe that woman did have an abortion and maybe that is illegal where she was or maybe she had a miscarriage and now you are adding insult to injury um you know is it going to be you know what we call discovery the exchange of evidence is it going to be discoverable like how a lot of women now use apps to keep track of their menstruation cycles you know menstrual cycles rather you know is that fair game in discovery you know and then when you think about doctors typically especially in a hospital setting they're being advised by lawyers whose job is a lot of risk management right and so and then you also have the conflict between legal terminology and medical terminology so you know in the case of you know statutes that prosecute doctors you know what is that doctor going you know and we're also thinking about things that happen very quickly so you know what is that doctor going to do and how is that doctor going to be advised if say for example the standard is um abortion is illegal except to say the life of the mother you know so as policymakers and legislators you know that line has to be drawn but until then you know the hospital lawyers have a kind of a risk management view and so they're going to say you do nothing until it is very clear unequivocally that the mother's life is at risk or you know if there is no exceptions if the law is that there are no exceptions for rape or incest or life of the mother whatever you know how is that conflicting with what doctors all promise to do which is do no harm and does that lead to lawsuits against like even civil lawsuits against doctors you know I mean because my class was so awesomely set up you know what we did with Dobbs was you know of course we talked about the opinion we talked about the fact that it was sent to the states we even talked about when that happened you know you have two states Michigan and Ohio you know that went two very different ways on the issue and so then what we did when we were talking about policy implications we got policy implications from the point of view of Planned Parenthood and we got policy implications from the point of view of Ohio right to life and you brought both conversations into the classroom in the same week in the same week and then guest speakers right guest speakers yeah from from from Planned Parenthood and Ohio right to life and so I think it was very interesting and it was very intentional for my students to say to see this one case and like just how wide that ripple went and then depending on what side you're on what you think the policy implications are because when we talk to the person from Planned Parenthood the policy implications were more of how do we get a referendum on the ballot how do we help employers who want to help their employees get to Michigan or wherever else versus when we talk to Ohio right to life those policy implications were more of how do we improve the foster care system and it was they went two totally different routes I would also note though and I think the people in my class would agree it was very obvious that those policy makers were very rarely in the same room together they I don't I don't know if that ever really happened interesting interesting