With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of contraceptive measures, and at that time in the future she might want an abortion that might then be illegal under the Texas statutes.” Id. The Court concluded that the Does did not have standing: Their alleged injury rests on possible future contraceptive failure, possible future pregnancy, possible future unpreparedness for parenthood, and possible future impairment of health. Any one or more of these several possibilities may not take place and all may not combine. In the Does’ estimation, these possibilities might have some real or imagined impact on their marital happiness. But we are not prepared to say that the bare allegation of so indirect an injury is sufficient to present an actual case or controversy. Id.; see also Abele v. Markle, 452 F.2d 1121, 1124-25(2d Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>). As with the Does, in McCormack’s case there

A: holding that neglect was not excusable where the defendants did not do all that they were required to do after they received the summons and complaint in that they did not contact a lawyer or make any other arrangements with respect to their defense
B: holding that it may not
C: holding that nonpregnant plaintiffs had no standing to challenge abortion statute solely on basis of childbearing age because ajlthough some of them may in the future become pregnant and may in such event desire an abortion  it is also possible that they will not become pregnant or that if they do they will upon further reflection decide for other reasons against an abortion it is clear that any threat of harm to them is remote and hypothetical
D: holding that physician abortion providers asserting their own rights and those of their patients had standing to challenge abortion regulation and should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief
C.