Classed by law as a 'less-than,' and treated for some purposes as property rather than a person, Petitioner Baby Jane seeks constitutional equality under the law, as provided for in the three-prong equal protection test of Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968). While the Tenth Circuit agreed she has a right to equal protection, it declined to hold the government responsible for its discriminatory law, holding that this Court's precedents of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. U. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) absolve the government of traceability for an equal protection violation, thus setting up a circuit clash between the Tenth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit.

1. Whether, when a provision in state statute or the United States Code is based on judicial precedent, the government that adopted the law is absolved of traceability for standing purposes or whether traceability should be measured by the Block v. Meese, 793 F.2d 1303 (D.C. Cir. 1986) standard, affirmed by this Court in Dep't of Commerce v. N.Y., 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019).

2. Whether this Court should apply the Levy equal protection test to equal protection challenges involving unborn children instead of Roe and Casey and whether Roe and Casey ought to be reassessed, overruled, and replaced with an explicit recognition of the inclusion of unborn children in Fourteenth Amendment protection for purposes of equal protection and substantive due process rights.

Whether the government that adopted a discriminatory law is absolved of traceability for standing purposes when the law is based on judicial precedent