Jackson Women's Health Organization, represented by Julie Rikelman, argued that the Court should not overrule the two decisions because the viability standard was correct.[55] According to Rikelman, Mississippi's arguments against Roe were not new, but instead similar to the ones Pennsylvania made during Casey.[56] Since Roe's essential holding was upheld for Casey, she said that the Court should do the same here, since there had been no new changes in the laws and facts since then that could justify changing the Court's position.[57] Rikelman argued that Mississippi's argument against using the undue burden standard was wrong because the standard actually specifically applies to post-viability abortion regulations rather than to the prohibition of abortions before viability.[58] She told the Court that the undue burden standard was workable,[59] and the viability line incorporated into the standard was likewise workable.[60] She noted that for 50 years, the viability line had been clearly and consistently applied in the courts.[61]