It occurs to me that I understated my point. It would have been very odd for the Bush I administration’s brief not to mention Roe. The brief could have confined itself to arguing that Roe did not compel the invalidation of the clinic-funding regulations–could, that is, merely have said that the regulations were compatible with Roe (I take that legal position to be entirely sound). But it would have had to mention Roe, given its role in the argument for striking down the regulations. And if Roe were being mentioned, it made sense to reiterate the administration’s position.